| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:08 pm Post subject: Creating a System of Jedi Ethics |
 |
|
This was inspired by the latest round of DSP discussions. The idea is to try to create a system of Jedi Ethical principals that are reasonably consistent with the movies, are internally consistent, and hopefully that rationalize some of the seeming inconsistencies with what is presented.
Keep in mind that we get maybe 3 minutes of Jedi ethics and philosophy per movie. Which is less than 1% of the contact time of an Introduction to Philosophy course. So it should be no surprise that there are ... shall we say... some gaps. Also, it may help if you have a passing familiarity with logical deduction. So here goes. Here are my initial set of Jedi rules and principles. The notes in [] show which rules derive from which principles.
(1) A Jedi should act in harmony with the Force.
(2) The Force values life.
(3a) The Light Side values choice.
(3b) The Dark Side does not value choice. [Derives from (3a) or directly from the dichotomy of the Light and Dark Sides.]
(4) The Dark Side should be avoided. [May be an a priori claim or derived from (1), (3a), and (3b) or derived directly from the Dichotomy of the Light and Dark Sides.]
(5) One should seek to help all life. [Derives from (1) and (2).]
(6) One should strive to avoid harming life. [Derives from (1) and (2).]
(7) All life deserves to choose its own path and make its own life decisions. [Derives from (3a).]
(8 ) The Jedi Order serves and protects the Republic. [Although this looks like a new goal and a full justification would be quite lengthy, it is essentially a corollary of (5), (6), and (7) along with the belief that on balance, more lives are helped or protected than are harmed or risked by the existence of the Republic and that the Republic allows more choice to member citizens than many alternative governmental structures. This may also be in part a self-protective device both to make the Jedi Order more acceptable to society and to avoid the temptations of power and rule.]
(9) Anger, hate, and fear interfere with the ability to choose. [This is probably an a priori claim, but may be based on a more involved argument that these emotions limit choice or that there is a correlation between these emotions and lack of choice.]
(10) Anger, hate, and fear lead to the Dark Side. [Derives from (9) and (3b).]
(11) Anger, hate, and fear should be avoided. [Derives from (4) and (10).]
So here is a start. Thoughts? Critiques? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dadofett
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 28 Jun 2011
Posts: 74
Location: North Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LOVE what you've done here....
Can you take it further and explain how the Jedi Code and Sith Code (as codified in the EU) either result from this system and/or contribute to it?
The wookieepedia entry for Jedi code gives a good analysis of the Jedi Code as well as miscellaneous tenets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting.
Kind of like a Jedi para-legal note book.
I'm not too sure how I feel about number 11. Anger, hate and fear are natural emotions, and since they are naturally a part of a living being (who is naturally a part of the Force), the experience of such emotions is naturally a part of the Force.
I would say that taking action that is motivated by anger, hate or fear is what leads to the dark side. For example, Anakin's fear of loss did not result in him getting a dark side point. Rather, the actions he took (betraying his Master[s], aligning himself with Palpatine, slaughtering children etc) are what resulted in his fall. He succumbed to his emotions. Whereas, it is reasonable to assume that Obi-Wan was afraid of Darth Maul after watching him best Qui-Gon. It is also reasonable to assume that he was angry at his master's murder. The difference is that Anakin made these feelings a way of life, whereas Obi-Wan acted despite his feelings (without allowing them to fuel his actions), thereby successfully upholding the Jedi "code" and carrying out his duty.
Last edited by Naaman on Sat Oct 01, 2011 12:05 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16259
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like it, but it still doesn't address the issue of how far the Jedi has to go to protect life. Does he make a concerted effort and get points for trying, or does he get hammered for circumstances beyond his control?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jatrell
Ensign
Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 44
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was always under the impression that when it comes to Jedi, the ends never justify the means. Would a Jedi throw a thermal detonator at the emperor knowing he is surrounded by everyday citizens? At the same time, its hard to jst say "its just a game, let the play do what they want to do." Gotta be consequences for actions that you willingly choose to commit to.
_________________
Experience is the excuse everyone gives for their mistakes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JT Swift
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 132
Location: Austin Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
While I have yet to develop anything as detailed as this I view the foundation of Jedi ethics as being a sort of bottom up system. [As opposed to the top down view of the Sith].
Jedi pledge themselves to the service of sapient (and even sentient) life. So whatever they can do to serve and aid life in its growth and development is good. They work to help the community, starting with the lowest street urchin but with an eye to maximize good for the maximum number of people. On a personal level the Jedi also revere consciousness and self-awareness. And they try to cultivate that in others.
The Sith on the other hand feel that powerful emotions [including attachment to others] are the easiest way to access the Force and they see it as their job to ride herd over the unenlightened masses. Those with a hotline to the power of the universe should ALWAYS rule over those that do not know the will of the universe. Simple logic. In this way all the senseless people can be organizes and put to a productive use. And its probably better if most of them didn't do very much thinking at all.
_________________
- J.T. Swift
For Everything about the TARDIS check out
http://www.whoniverse.net/tardis/
For all things Gallifreyan check out
http://meshyfish.com/~roo/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JT Swift
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 132
Location: Austin Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
As for ends justify the means....
Obi-wan lies to Luke about his Father. And Yoda likes that idea enough to go a long with it.
_________________
- J.T. Swift
For Everything about the TARDIS check out
http://www.whoniverse.net/tardis/
For all things Gallifreyan check out
http://meshyfish.com/~roo/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JT Swift wrote: |
The Sith on the other hand feel that powerful emotions [including attachment to others] are the easiest way to access the Force and they see it as their job to ride herd over the unenlightened masses. Those with a hotline to the power of the universe should ALWAYS rule over those that do not know the will of the universe. Simple logic. |
I think along similar lines, although I would describe that more as Sith philosophy or "theology". As for ethics and morals, I think the Sith have none of the former and few, if any, of the latter. At least they ignore them if they do have morals.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jatrell wrote: | | I was always under the impression that when it comes to Jedi, the ends never justify the means. Would a Jedi throw a thermal detonator at the emperor knowing he is surrounded by everyday citizens? At the same time, its hard to jst say "its just a game, let the play do what they want to do." Gotta be consequences for actions that you willingly choose to commit to. |
The 'ends justify the means' - debate in our world is, essentially, the divide between Kantian vs. Utilitarian ethics. I think it's fine to think that Jedi can come down on either side so long as their reasoning is not instrumental - coming to a decision because of reasons other than the core ethical question.
I think that the core of Jedi ethics is not so much the logic of the decisions they make but the degree to which they calmly consider the way in which they make the decision. The Dark Side is different because:
a) It doesn't calmly consider questions, it acts by impulse and personal desire, and
b) it doesn't really care about ethics in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | I'm not too sure how I feel about number 11. Anger, hate and fear are natural emotions, and since they are naturally a part of a living being (who is naturally a part of the Force), the experience of such emotions is naturally a part of the Force. |
I disagree that the Jedi would see anger, hate, and fear as a part of the Force. I believe the Jedi see a dichotomy between the Force and the Dark Side. Anger, hate, and fear are emotions of the Dark Side. I agree that acting on those emotions is the ultimate problem. But having those emotions is dangerous because it may prompt action. And dwelling on those emotions is more dangerous. Revelling in those emotions is very, very close to the Dark Side and is the sort of behavior that quickly leads to the Dark Side. Sith, revel in anger and hate.
| Quote: | | I would say that taking action that is motivated by anger, hate or fear is what leads to the dark side. |
Agreed. I believe the Jedi seek to avoid the emotions to avoid the temptation (or confusion) that leads to wrong action.
| Quote: | | He succumbed to his emotions. |
He succumbed after dwelling on his fear. He revelled in his anger/hate.
| Quote: | | Whereas, it is reasonable to assume that Obi-Wan was afraid of Darth Maul after watching him best Qui-Gon. It is also reasonable to assume that he was angry at his master's murder. |
He looks angry to me in the first part of that scene. Of course his anger ultimately ends up with him falling down the shaft. It is only when he calms down and focuses that he is able to truly defeat Darth Maul. I'm of the opinion that if he succeeded in killing Maul while angry that he might have ended with a DSP and may have remained a Padawan because he would have failed this test (confronting the Dark Side). And were I the GM, I probably would have given him a DSP. That scene is actually one of the reasons that I favor a combination of motivation and result rather than motivataion alone in determining DSP awards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | I like it, but it still doesn't address the issue of how far the Jedi has to go to protect life. |
I don't think a prescriptive list of rules can address situational ethics. If you provide a situation, I will try to use the rules to argue to an ethical conclusion. Or see my commentary on Obi-Wan vs. Darth Maul in my response to Naaman and see if that clarifies the situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | That scene is actually one of the reasons that I favor a combination of motivation and result rather than motivataion alone in determining DSP awards. |
So, that begs the question: do the ends justify the means? A choice is a choice, regardless of the outcome. If Obi-Wan would have been "guilty" of a transgression, Darth Maul's skill in defending himself is completely outside the scope of whether Obi-Wan failed to honor the code.
I think Obi-Wan wound up in the pit because Darth Maul was a better fighter (Obi-Wan's mental clarity was irrelevant, in other words). I don't think Obi-Wan stood any chance of defeating Darth Maul if the situation were stripped of all variables. Darth Maul was defeated because he failed to take into account certain circumstances that Obi-Wan was able to take advantage of. The way I've interpreted it for RP sake is like this: Darth Maul and Qui-Gon used up all of their Force points and Character Points fighting each other. Still, Darth Maul was skilled enough to beat Obi-Wan without any extra "boosts." Obi-Wan, however, still had one last Force point at the time he was knocked into the pit, which he used to pull of his win.
I do, however, see your point in avoiding the emotions. To experience them is natural. To revel/wallow/sulk/brood in them is when you get a DSP (but, in RPG terms, the actions taken as a result of the reveling culminates in a DSP).
A minor semantical point, but, I don't think Anakin "reveled" in his anger/hate. He seemed pretty upset during his slaughter of the Emperor's enemies, even shedding tears, realizing that he was now a "bad guy." But it was the path he committed himself, too, for better or worse.
I think that in order to establish a system of Jedi ethics, we first have to determine whether the Jedi see things in black and white, or, how large is their gray spectrum. IF something like that can be established, then it becomes much easier to determine good/evil.
In my opinion, deeds that are performed primarily for the purpose of personal gain AND infringe upon someone else (no matter how slightly) result in a DSP. Doing the "easy wrong" instead of the "difficlut right" will earn a DSP regardless of the rationale. The question we need to answer is "what does the code consider "right." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | That scene is actually one of the reasons that I favor a combination of motivation and result rather than motivataion alone in determining DSP awards. |
So, that begs the question: do the ends justify the means? |
They don't. That's why force lightning is wrong regardless of intent or result. Intentionally, knowingly killing an innocent is wrong. Regardless of intent. (However either innocence or intent may be somewhat narrowly defined. See Death Star I and II for examples.)
| Quote: | | A choice is a choice, regardless of the outcome. |
I don't agree and I think the movies support that. We see Luke, Obi-wan, and Anakin attack with what appears on the screen to be anger. But unless they kill their foe while attacking in anger they don't appear to get a DSP. Both the intent and the action seems to matter. Until they actually kill their opponent, their is still a chance to change their mind, to regain control, to reject the Dark Side. Once the opponent is dead. It is too late to change their action. At best they have regret and attonement along the path back to the light.
| Quote: | | If Obi-Wan would have been "guilty" of a transgression, Darth Maul's skill in defending himself is completely outside the scope of whether Obi-Wan failed to honor the code. |
I don't see the films that way. Nor is it clear that Obi-wan failed only because Maul was more skilled, it may have been also because he wasn't fully acting in anger and fully committed to killing Maul. If he had been, to use your analogy, he would have spent his last FP killing Maul before he went over the side. Or he would have called on the Dark Side to get an extra point.
| Quote: | | I do, however, see your point in avoiding the emotions. To experience them is natural. To revel/wallow/sulk/brood in them is when you get a DSP (but, in RPG terms, the actions taken as a result of the reveling culminates in a DSP). |
Agreed.
| Quote: | | A minor semantical point, but, I don't think Anakin "reveled" in his anger/hate. He seemed pretty upset during his slaughter of the Emperor's enemies, even shedding tears, realizing that he was now a "bad guy." But it was the path he committed himself, too, for better or worse. |
Anakin's adolscent whining not withstanding, I don't think you can kill a whole village of Tusken males, females, and children in hand-to-hand combat without revelling in your hate or anger. It takes too long and it's just too personal and too bloody. Ditto on the murder of the Jedi "younglings" in the Temple.
Tangential point: is it just me or is the acting and dialog of Anakin in the TV show way better and more sympathetic than in the movies?
| Quote: | | I think that in order to establish a system of Jedi ethics, we first have to determine whether the Jedi see things in black and white, or, how large is their gray spectrum. IF something like that can be established, then it becomes much easier to determine good/evil. |
That's what the rules are intended to do. I think Jedi, especially under the Council, see things as pretty black and white (with the notable exception of Clone Slavery). But I think the actual spectrum is a bit more gray - but only light gray.
| Quote: | | In my opinion, deeds that are performed primarily for the purpose of personal gain AND infringe upon someone else (no matter how slightly) result in a DSP. |
At first glance this seems fine, however personal gain is either too narrow or too broad to be very useful in our play. Narrowly, I don't see Jedi in play who are mercenary or acquisitive. So a narrow definition is pretty useless for my play group. Broadly and on the other hand, I see lots of things that a Jedi does in play that benefits the PC group or the larger group (Jedi Order, Rebellion, New Republic) that the Jedi belongs to. Ruling all of those out, would be pretty problematic - since then you can't steal that Imperial shuttle, affect mind the speeder salesman to give you above Blue Book value on a used speeder, use affect mind to get the shop owner to accept Republic credits, or alter to cheat at dice to free a slave and get you the part you need to fix your ship.
| Quote: | | Doing the "easy wrong" instead of the "difficlut right" will earn a DSP regardless of the rationale. |
That seems fine as a general rule of thumb. | Quote: | | The question we need to answer is "what does the code consider "right." |
Well, I am suggesting that the following are right.
(1) A Jedi should act in harmony with the Force.
(2') A Jedi should value life.
(3') A Jedi should value and support choice - his own and other's.
(4) The Dark Side should be avoided.
(11') Anger, hate, and fear are of the Dark Side and should be avoided.
Items marked with a single apostrophe or prime are modified from the original list to put them in prescriptive or "should" form. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10395
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the breakdown and thread, Bren. Lately I've really been questioning some of WEG's interpretation of the Force and morality in Star Wars, as well as my own previous interpretations. For my game, I also want a game system for Force-sensativity, Force abilities, Force Points and Dark Side Points that makes the most sense with respect to the entire film saga. I will say that I reject the notion that the prequel and classic trilogies contradict each other with respect to the Force. I am commited to the idea that it all can be reconsiled.
The only things that jumps out at me as apperent contradictions is how Yoda and Obi-Wan manged Luke & Leia's Jedi training (or lack thereof): why the twins were allowed to age to adulthood before being trained after what happened with their father being an exception to the usual Jedi policy, and why after Luke's initial training with Obi-Wan, Luke's continued training with Yoda was delayed for 3 years (and Leia was not trained at all). I have explainations for these things.
I'm sorry that I am not at the point where I can participate more deeply in this thread right now.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's mind boggling how detailed we can get over some movies... I doubt if GL even has answers to most of these questions... or if he even knows what a "dark side point" is... LOL
| Bren wrote: | | I don't see the films that way. Nor is it clear that Obi-wan failed only because Maul was more skilled, it may have been also because he wasn't fully acting in anger and fully committed to killing Maul. If he had been, to use your analogy, he would have spent his last FP killing Maul before he went over the side. Or he would have called on the Dark Side to get an extra point. |
Anyway, my only worthwhile contention here comes as a response to this statement. Depending on your response, I may change my mind:
Dooku to Anakin: "I sense much fear in you, boy: you have anger; you have hate; but you don't use them." This line seems to me to illustrate that any Jedi can act while experiencing his "dark side" emotions as long as the action (even if it is applying lethal force) is not motivated by those feelings. This is where true mastery of the self is developed. The things that no-one but the individual can know or control. The "sin of the heart" is vile because it is not apparent to anyone other than the self. Externally, a person can appear to be totally squared away, but inside he may be totally evil. That is why I say that a character can act during anger, as opposed to on its behalf, and still not get a dark side point, even if he kills his enemy while angry. Duty and emotions sometimes cross paths. In most cases, I'd say that duty trumps emotion.
The scene in Ep II where Padme falls out of the transport while they're chasing Dooku... Obi-Wan convinces Anakin that his duty comes first, and Anakin agrees. So, even though Anakin is experiencing some negative emotions (fear, anxiety maybe anger at the possibility that Padme could be hurt or lost or later killed if they leave her behind), he still must carry out his responsibility, fighting through the emotions. I see the same thing in Obi-Wan vs. Darth Maul. Anger, fear anxiety notwithstanding, Obi-Wan must confront Maul or Maul will march right up to the throne room and slaughter everyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
