![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Jedi in the Old Republic are an active force of peacekeepers and troubleshooters. They are similar in function to the Texas Rangers of history -- they come to hot spots, help put down the riot, and move on.
It's just *how* they do that that gives me shivers.
The Jedi Mind Trick (patent pending) we first saw in the original movie, where Ben Kenobi uses it to get by an enemy checkpoint. That's a perfectly ethical use of the talent, in a situation of war and espionage. So is Luke's use of it in RotJ, when he's going into Jabba's compound. Both situations are where the Jedi are dealing with people out to hurt them -- enemies, in other words -- and need all the leverage they can get.
It's just later, in the prequels, where I begin to wonder.
In TPM, when Qui-Gon attempts to use it on Watto, he's in a pretty desperate situation -- stranded on gangster territory, with enemies tracking him and his shipmates. He *must* get the parts to repair the ship, but his Republican dactaries aren't worthwhile currency out on the Rim. However, if he'd succeed in mind-tricking Watto into accepting worthless money, how would that have differed from theft? Watto wasn't trying to hurt Qui-Gon, he just wanted to be paid in useful currency for what he was selling.
That he might have tried to trick Qui-Gon later when they were discussing the bet and freeing Anakin and Shmi doesn't really matter, as we know Watto isn't a nice being. Qui-Gon, on the other hand, is supposed to be a good person, as he's a Jedi Knight and thus a defender of order and bringer of justice. Should he really be stealing property and rigging dice games?
When Obi-Wan uses the mind trick on the man selling deathsticks in AotC, it is funny on the surface, and rather disturbing underneath. Is Obi-Wan allowed to mind-whammy anyone who he finds conducting shady business? Who decides what is unpleasant but acceptable work, and what deserves mental tampering? The man is selling dubious merchandise to say the least, but he is a Coruscant resident, and thus someone whom Obi-Wan is supposed to protect, at least in theory.
I don't know that I'd trust the judgement of the Jedi, no matter how stellar they are supposed to be.
It's just *how* they do that that gives me shivers.
The Jedi Mind Trick (patent pending) we first saw in the original movie, where Ben Kenobi uses it to get by an enemy checkpoint. That's a perfectly ethical use of the talent, in a situation of war and espionage. So is Luke's use of it in RotJ, when he's going into Jabba's compound. Both situations are where the Jedi are dealing with people out to hurt them -- enemies, in other words -- and need all the leverage they can get.
It's just later, in the prequels, where I begin to wonder.
In TPM, when Qui-Gon attempts to use it on Watto, he's in a pretty desperate situation -- stranded on gangster territory, with enemies tracking him and his shipmates. He *must* get the parts to repair the ship, but his Republican dactaries aren't worthwhile currency out on the Rim. However, if he'd succeed in mind-tricking Watto into accepting worthless money, how would that have differed from theft? Watto wasn't trying to hurt Qui-Gon, he just wanted to be paid in useful currency for what he was selling.
That he might have tried to trick Qui-Gon later when they were discussing the bet and freeing Anakin and Shmi doesn't really matter, as we know Watto isn't a nice being. Qui-Gon, on the other hand, is supposed to be a good person, as he's a Jedi Knight and thus a defender of order and bringer of justice. Should he really be stealing property and rigging dice games?
When Obi-Wan uses the mind trick on the man selling deathsticks in AotC, it is funny on the surface, and rather disturbing underneath. Is Obi-Wan allowed to mind-whammy anyone who he finds conducting shady business? Who decides what is unpleasant but acceptable work, and what deserves mental tampering? The man is selling dubious merchandise to say the least, but he is a Coruscant resident, and thus someone whom Obi-Wan is supposed to protect, at least in theory.
I don't know that I'd trust the judgement of the Jedi, no matter how stellar they are supposed to be.
Tags:
From:
no subject
As long as Albus gets killed during Order 66, write away. I just want the man DEAD.
From:
no subject
Fair is eye for an eye. Compassionate is refusing eye for an eye.
I would say that the Jedi are fair and just, not compassionate or merciful.
And Albus would so get sideswiped by Order 66; he's not as clever as he thinks he is.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
Order 66
Order 66 is the Order that Palpatine gives the Clone Trooper, who have apparently been programmed with a set of pre-existing orders.
Order 66 is "Kill All Jedi". The CloneTroopers kill every Jedi in the field, usually by shooting them from behind, except Yoda who is on Kashyyk helping the Wookies repel the Separatist forces, and Obi-Wan on Utapau who is shot at, falls into a lake, and is assumed dead by the clones.
Yoda, who has feels pain as various other Jedi are cut down, beheads the two CloneTroopers who try to come after him, and then escapes with the help of two Wookie commanders, Tarfull and Chewbacca.
As Order 66 is being carried out by the CloneTroopers offworld, Anakin -- in his first act as a Sith -- has lead a contingent of CloneTroopers into the Temple on Coruscant, and begun slaughtering Jedi.
Basically, Order 66 is the massacre of the Jedi. Only Obi-Wan and Yoda are known to have survived.
Since you can't go see the movie, you might want to read the script (http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Star-Wars-Revenge-of-the-Sith.html); there are several scenes that didn't make the theatrical release, mostly with Padme in them, but it's a pretty good overview of what happened.
From:
no subject
I really want to see this fic now with Albus being killed by clones.
From:
no subject
Not that Obi-Wan is much more compassionate then, though, but he's tempered some. Twenty years alone (except for the spirt of a dead friend) will do that to a person.