do jedi kill their prisoners

[Darth Flatus]

IF malak is conceding and honestly repenting then Kavar shouldnt kill him, the problem lies in determining malak's true intention.

[Cloris]

IF malak is conceding and honestly repenting then Kavar shouldnt kill him, the problem lies in determining malak's true intention.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I didn't mean repentance, or ideological shift: just concession.

 

I look forward to your response, this is interesting!

 

Cloris

[metadigital]

I think that in Revan's shoes, I'd have preferred death.  They wiped away the old personality and put a new one in on top of it.  To me, that's like killing someone and then creating a new person out of all the dead person's bits.  More like murder and theft, you could say.

 

If they put in a personality as close as possible to the original Revan that might not be so bad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... So if you were Denis Quaid you would have joined the oppressive Martian junta and kill your girlfriend and Kwato etc? Just curious ...

[metadigital]

IF malak is conceding and honestly repenting then Kavar shouldnt kill him, the problem lies in determining malak's true intention.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I didn't mean repentance, or ideological shift: just concession.

 

I look forward to your response, this is interesting!

 

Cloris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As a little aside (well, you knwo you want them) it was the English who commited the first wartime attrocity in the middle ages with repect to chivalry: the rules of engagement (e.g. don't kill an unarmed opponent) generally accepted in major battles (same selfish morality dilemma for small batles, though) were thrown out when the English knights saw an expedient battle tactic to wipe out an entire (teutonic) force.

 

Back on topic: Good question, what are the Jedi battle codes (ie chivalry)? Not very often do we get to spare an opponent when playing as LS ...

[Darth Flatus]

A simple concession? hmmm... debate this among the council we must!

 

Well we would have to examine malak. He is sith and this implies negative characteristics which must be taken as unshakeable fact. What would be his reason for concession? A sith does not seek peaceor give up his power and will not submit to defeat especially to a jedi. So either he is deceiving Kavar (to attack him unguarded or playing a waiting game to deliver his ultimate revenge) or something in him has actually changed which would imply some measure of redemption.

 

 

A jedi does not carry a lightsaber if he is not prepared to use it, but only as a last resort. In the games there are a few instances where if an opponent submits you are given the option to kill them anyway or show mercy on them. So there is some jedi chivalry in the game. Just rememebr that when disarming a normal baddie thats it they have no more means of offense, whereas a sith always has the force.

[metadigital]

A simple concession? hmmm... debate this among the council we must!

 

Well we would have to examine malak. He is sith and this implies negative characteristics which must be taken as unshakeable fact. What would be his reason for concession? A sith does not seek peaceor give up his power and will not submit to defeat especially to a jedi. So either he is deceiving Kavar (to attack him  unguarded or playing a waiting game to deliver his ultimate revenge) or something in him has actually changed  which would imply some measure of redemption.

 

 

A jedi does not carry a lightsaber if he is not prepared to use it, but only as a last resort. In the games there are a few instances where if an opponent submits you are given the option to kill them anyway or show mercy on them. So there is some jedi chivalry in the game. Just rememebr that when disarming a normal baddie thats it they have no more means of offense, whereas a sith always has the force.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or is Dark Side evil incarnate (as in the ancient Zoroastrian dualism, "evilness" being a separate cosmic substance to "goodness"): must be destroyed utterly lest it spread?

 

But there is always scope for redemption.

 

No, I think the question is more, if Malak dropped his lightsaber, would (LS) Revan pause to allow him to pick it up before resuming battle, or just run him through while he was defenceless?

 

In other words: Does the end justify the means?

[Darth Flatus]

DS is evil incarnate, that is my assumption. Or maybe not if you like pain and suffering and subjugation.

 

The question you ask about malak dropping his lightsaber and then revan running him through - well in a duel revan would exploit any mistakes malak makes such as weaknesses in form or whatever then i would include saber dropping as a weakness.

 

The end justifies the means but this works of the assumpiton that DS is evil, i'm not sure relativistic morlas can be applied to The Force

[Cloris]

As a little aside (well, you knwo you want them) it was the English who commited the first wartime attrocity in the middle ages with repect to chivalry: the rules of engagement (e.g. don't kill an unarmed opponent) generally accepted in major battles (same selfish morality dilemma for small batles, though) were thrown out when the English knights saw an expedient battle tactic to wipe out an entire (teutonic) force.

 

Back on topic: Good question, what are the Jedi battle codes (ie chivalry)? Not very often do we get to spare an opponent when playing as LS ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I really like asides: so what is the name/date of the battle you're referring to above?

 

I am having fun chewing on all of this. It wouldn't make sense to believe that the Jedi had a specific rule in place for the Revan situation: thou shall not mind-rape thy near-death arch-nemisis and turn her into thy own sleeper agent. On the other hand, it seems a rather sneaky, underhanded, and (as they say) dark-sided thing to do.

 

True, and I have noticed, though, that choosing to fight when there are peaceful ways to a solution doesn't necessarily garner DS points. I think that it should. What's your opinion?

 

Cloris

[Reveilled]

I think that in Revan's shoes, I'd have preferred death.  They wiped away the old personality and put a new one in on top of it.  To me, that's like killing someone and then creating a new person out of all the dead person's bits.  More like murder and theft, you could say.

 

If they put in a personality as close as possible to the original Revan that might not be so bad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... So if you were Denis Quaid you would have joined the oppressive Martian junta and kill your girlfriend and Kwato etc? Just curious ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The only way I could have understood that less was if it was written in Chinese. Could you maybe try an analogy with figures I've heard of?

[Darth Flatus]

You've never watched Total Recall?!?!?

[Cloris]

A simple concession? hmmm... debate this among the council we must!

 

Well we would have to examine malak. He is sith and this implies negative characteristics which must be taken as unshakeable fact. What would be his reason for concession? A sith does not seek peaceor give up his power and will not submit to defeat especially to a jedi. So either he is deceiving Kavar (to attack him  unguarded or playing a waiting game to deliver his ultimate revenge) or something in him has actually changed  which would imply some measure of redemption.

 

 

A jedi does not carry a lightsaber if he is not prepared to use it, but only as a last resort. In the games there are a few instances where if an opponent submits you are given the option to kill them anyway or show mercy on them. So there is some jedi chivalry in the game. Just rememebr that when disarming a normal baddie thats it they have no more means of offense, whereas a sith always has the force.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

If we assume that this Jedi tenant of not killing prisoners allows for exceptions in cases of absolute evil, then Malak is still a tricky case, no? The fact that his is Sith isn't enough to consider: he was also Jedi, and therefore has proven himself capable of both great good and great evil. Consider that previous Jedi-turned-Sith have been redeemed and it gets even more murky!

 

I had not considered these things when I picked Malak as an example, but now that I do, I am glad that I did (does that make sense?).

 

I believe that if one chooses to be "the good guy" or Jedi, and adopt practices such as not killing prisoners, then one cannot make conditional exceptions and still be considered "the good guy." Not that I don't dig the cool anti-hero motif, I do, but that's not what we're looking at with the whole Jedi thing.

 

Cloris

[Darth Flatus]

So now good guys arent even allowed to kill the bad guys?

 

he was also Jedi, and therefore has proven himself capable of both great good and great evil. Consider that previous Jedi-turned-Sith have been redeemed and it gets even more murky!

 

a jedi always focuses on the here and now he must take each case as it comes he knows that one thing is true, DS is dagnasty evil!

[Reveilled]

You've never watched Total Recall?!?!?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nope.

[Cloris]

So now good guys arent even allowed to kill the bad guys?  

 

*quote snip*

 

a jedi always focuses on the here and now he must take each case as it comes he knows that one thing is true, DS is dagnasty evil!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not if the bad guy surrenders and the good guys don't kill prisoners.

 

But if the Jedi only focused on the present, then they would have jumped right in the Mandalorian War, no? Here's my half-bakeed theory: the Jedi Council saw the coming of their Civil War and thought that they could prevent it by not entering the Mandalorian War. However, by not entering the war they caused the widening of the rift that culminated in the Civil War they were trying to prevent.

 

Anyway...

 

Vrook states pretty clearly that a Jedi is supposed to think about the consequences and ramifications of their actions. So does Atris, and when she does so she still considers herself to be a Jedi.

 

In my example, I think that Kavar would allow Malak to conceed. That would be the Jedi thing to do, although it probably wouldn't be the smart thing to do.

 

Cloris

[Yann]

i don't think you'd see a jedi or sith ever dropping his lightsaber by accident

[Darth Flatus]

One point i forgot to add, I would be in favour of kavar letting malak live so long as he cut off malak's saber hand and used a great deal of force drain on him.

[Ex Xyle]

One point i forgot to add, I would be in favour of kavar letting malak live so long as he cut off malak's saber hand and used a great deal of force drain on him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

take away his jaw too. :D

[jedipodo]

i got thinking bout what bastila said in one. that jedi do not kill their prisoners.

Tell that to Mace Windu.

 

This is a good example for this "prisoner killing" issue.

In consequence of some opinions here Anakin would have acted like an ideal Jedi and Windu is the evil Sith...

[Darth Flatus]

those who have that opinion would make crappy jedi.

[Darth Somethingorother]

i got thinking bout what bastila said in one. that jedi do not kill their prisoners.

Tell that to Mace Windu.

 

This is a good example for this "prisoner killing" issue.

In consequence of some opinions here Anakin would have acted like an ideal Jedi and Windu is the evil Sith...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Windu was using Vapaad to channel the Dark side, so it's not too great a leap to make to see that he was being effected by his darker emotions in the heat of battle. Anakin, as a good Jedi, should have made him see that he was about to kill an un-armed opponent- and realise the consequences of this action, rather than do what he did, from a Jedi pov.

[edu11]

The Jedi didn't give a damn about Revan. They kept him alive to locate the Star Forge and they wiped his personality so that they could control him. But "the will of a sith lord is not so easily manipulated"... Tough luck.

[Darth Flatus]

Windu was using Vapaad to channel the Dark side, so it's not too great a leap to make to see that he was being effected by his darker emotions in the heat of battle.  Anakin, as a good Jedi, should have made him see that he was about to kill an un-armed opponent- and realise the consequences of this action, rather than do what he did, from a Jedi pov.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

But duuude! its palps! mace would have totally done the right thing by killing him.

So did yoda go to have a chat with palps do you think?

 

the jedi expected a battle with the sith lord and expected to have to kill him.

[Darth Somethingorother]

The Jedi didn't give a damn about Revan. They kept him alive to locate the Star Forge and they wiped his personality so that they could control him. But "the will of a sith lord is not so easily manipulated"... Tough luck.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Did they wipe his/ her memory? Wasn't that done by what happened to Revan on his/ her flagship? And even so, did they manipulate him, or merely give him the chance to see the light? You seem quick to forget that Revan remembered much about his/ her past life, especially after KotOR, so how could the Council possibly have been sure he/ she wouldn't have remembered sooner... and tured back to the Dark Side? Did they even have any real choice?

 

Edit: to Darth Flatus; they only expected a duel to the death becuause they didn't expect him to be disarmed. Tell me, if you had a person's life in your hands, would you kill him, just because you could? Could you look into his eyes, then see the light taken from them by your own hand? Would it even be right to end someone's chance for redemption, just because you think them unfit to live? What would you have done to Vader? Just curious.

[jedipodo]

The Jedi didn't give a damn about Revan. They kept him alive to locate the Star Forge and they wiped his personality so that they could control him. But "the will of a sith lord is not so easily manipulated"... Tough luck.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But before Bastila managed to keep nearly braindead Revan alive. This was an act of mercy.

[jedipodo]

The Jedi didn't give a damn about Revan. They kept him alive to locate the Star Forge and they wiped his personality so that they could control him. But "the will of a sith lord is not so easily manipulated"... Tough luck.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Did they wipe his/ her memory? Wasn't that done by what happened to Revan on his/ her flagship? And even so, did they manipulate him, or merely give him the chance to see the light? You seem quick to forget that Revan remembered much about his/ her past life, especially after KotOR, so how could the Council possibly have been sure he/ she wouldn't have remembered sooner... and tured back to the Dark Side?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, if one wants Revan to remember the location of the Star Forge it wouldn't make sense to wipe his/her entire memory. Therefore it likely didn't happen.