Luke Skywalker: Jedi or Sith?

[db44]

What we know of the Jedi code:

Jedi are to attack only in defense.

Jedi are not to use force on innocents.

That said, did Luke start down the path to the Dark Side when he destroyed the Death Star?

Points to ponder:

Does defense mean attacking him or attacking friends as well? Even when that friend (the rebels on Yavin) are on the offensive themselves?

Was everybody on the Death Star "evil"? That would be like saying all Germans were Nazis, or all Muslims are Taliban, isn't it? Especially when you consider the dominance of the Empire, the fear it ruled by and the tyranny it caused. I would imagine many people were on the base because they were drafted and/or forced to be there. Were they people to be defended against, or people forced into the service who had no desire to fire a weapon. Techs and computer operators for instance.

Wouldn't that make Luke a mass murderer?

Also, to think about in that case, if anyone's ever read Tales from the Mos Eisley Cantina (and a reminder, this is from a time when Lucas considered the books canonized), there's a story about a stormtrooper who realizes the problems with the Empire and decides to fight the fight from within. There wasn't one sympathetic person on the Death Star?

Or perhaps when he nearly shoots Jabba in the palace, when he's not being attacked. Or as well the Gormenean guard, who doesn't attack, but takes a defensive position himself... Only to be choked (don't know if to death though) by Luke. That's using the force to attack... The guards didn't attack, they set up an obsticle, which Luke uses the force against in attack.

[BrianWilly]

In the case of the Death Star, I guess you'd have to argue necessity in war. Every person on that ship knew the risks of their livelihood, particularly if they were working as a double agent. If you're stationed onboard a moon-sized weapons system whose primary purpose is to destroy planets, you can't really pull the "No fair!" card when someone from the planet that's about to be destroyed destroys you first. There's a difference between killing someone and murdering them, I think; it's a subtle difference that borders on being a difference purely of semantics, but the point remains that if we're going to call every death in the war a murder...then Han, Leia, Chewie, Obi-Wan, and every single soul who fought in the war is a mass murderer too. Also, at that point Luke wasn't really a Jedi yet. And it's not as if he did the act out of hate, which is the key dark side warning signal.

In the case of Jabba, at least, I can't see much room for argument against Luke. He did attempt to reason with the Hutt. He did attempt to parley. He warned Jabba about the consequences of his disobedience over and over again. Only when pretty much every course of action failed did he resort to violence. Even though they were pacifists, the Jedi were hardly reactionary; in the days of the old Republic they were very proactive in rooting out corruption throughout the galaxy, lethally if necessary. Someone like Jabba who was unapologetically corrupt and dealt in all manner of vices seems exactly like the type of person against which the old council might have implemented "aggresive negotiations." I don't remember what exactly happened with the guard(s), but I can't imagine that he was a peach, either.

I think that, with the intentional allegory between the Jedi Code and some of the more pacifistic real world religions, it's easy to forget that the Jedi were first and foremost a police force. They did kill when necessary, sometimes remorselessly so if the opponent is particularly evil. A lot of people didn't welcome Jedi at all, but were instead deathly afraid of them, seeing no real difference between them and the Sith...and, it has to be said, a lot of their actions were similar. It's the key paradox to the Jedi Order, and one that's often been pointed out both in-canon and out: how can you truly follow an Order that preaches peace but practices war? I suppose the deciding factor is the intention behind the act; when a Sith initializes an attack, for example, their motivating intention is to initialize an attack. When a Jedi initializes an attack, on the other hand, their motivating intention is to protect others. And so forth.

[db44]

When Luke drew on Jabba however, Luke had yet to be attacked. He also was the one posturing as you say, making the threats. The Jedi we've seen now are negotiators first, and negotiating isn't threatening. The Jedi killed, yes, but except for when the enemy was a Sith, they always waited until attacked. Furthermore, back to the guards, is it legal to kill in order to trespass? He wasn't part of a police force then, as he was a lone entity not representing anyone.

Was Anikan technically a Jedi when he killed the Tuskan Raiders? He was still a padawan, wasn't he? When does Jedi come into being? After all, Luke had started his training by the time of the Battle of Yavin.