Help, this homeless person is going to oppress my fish!
Morality is weird and complex. If two people have an equal chance of dying, is it moral to save the one you like better? Philosophers are having drag-out fights about that question as I type this. However, despite morality’s frustrating ambiguity, we generally agree on a few things: killing someone who hasn’t done anything is wrong, slavery is wrong, saving someone from death is good, etc. So why do these stories violate those basic moral rules?
1. Lightning Evil, Laser Swords Good: Star Wars
In Star Wars, the Force gives Jedi* great power. Levitation, precognition, preternatural reflexes, extraordinary feats of agility, the list goes on. Most Force powers are fairly benevolent, but there’s a subset that are generally considered “dark side,” or evil. Choking another person and shooting lightning from your hands are the two most prominent.
While no character explicitly says on screen that lightning and choking are dark side only, those who use them are always evil, and they are always filmed in such a way as to make them look scary. Numerous soft-canon sources, from books to comics to video games, have backed up this assertion. It’s well understood by Star Wars fans that if you use lightning or choking, you’re a bad guy.
Meanwhile, light-side Jedi chop off limbs with their lightsabers all the time, and no one bats an eye. It’s usually agreed that they use the Force to guide their blades, but that isn’t seen as a problem. Why is it OK to kill someone with a laser sword, but not a direct application of the Force? Choking is almost certainly a more merciful death than dismemberment.
It could be argued that Force Lightning is only useful as a torture instrument, as demonstrated by Palpatine in Return of the Jedi. If that were true, then its use would be a purely dark-side act. However, it’s usually accepted that the Emperor could have killed Luke quickly if he’d wanted to and stuck with torture because he’s a sadist.
Taking the various factors into account, we are left with a world in which it is immoral to shock or choke people, but acceptable to cut their legs off. At best, this makes the Jedi Order a bunch of cosmic-rules lawyers. They’ve discovered a way to kill all the people they want, without getting any of that nasty dark side on them.*
Why Did This Happen?
By accident, as far as I can tell. I don’t think George Lucas had the Force and all its potential applications mapped out back in 1977. Darth Vader choked people because it made him more threatening. How were you supposed to fight someone who could kill you by raising his hand? Palpatine used lightning on Luke because it was a cool visual metaphor for frustrated rage.
When other creators came to Star Wars, they saw bad guys using these powers and kept the theme. They produced books, cartoons, and all manner of other media with this idea in mind. And that’s how we arrive at a universe where shooting lightning out of your hands is evil.
2. It’s OK to Let People Die: Star Trek
When Gene Roddenberry and his team of co-writers created Star Trek, they envisioned something called the Prime Directive. This grand doctrine boiled down to the idea of not interfering in the affairs of other cultures, especially cultures with less advanced technology.
That’s a great idea for the enlightened future Roddenberry wanted. Throughout human history, from European colonialism to modern conflicts in the Middle East, we’ve seen the great harm of interfering with other cultures. The Prime Directive ensured no one from the Federation would use advanced technology to impersonate a god and that the Federation itself couldn’t exploit weaker neighbors for its own gain.
Then The Next Generation (TNG) rolled around, and something changed. In season one, they almost forgot the Prime Directive existed at all, considering how often the crew beamed down to talk with the locals. Then it roared back with a vengeance in season two, with the episode Pen Pals. The Enterprise comes across a planet in danger of breaking apart, which will kill all the inhabitants. The Enterprise can save the planet, except they almost don’t, because doing so would violate the Prime Directive.
What? The Prime Directive was created to protect other cultures from harm. How can letting everyone in a culture die fit into that goal? What possible damage could arise from the Enterprise saving them that would be worse than complete destruction? When the characters discuss the situation, their logic for letting the planet break apart is laughable. They invoke a “cosmic plan,” which they have no right to tamper with. Did the Prime Directive become God when I wasn’t looking?
Fortunately, the Enterprise eventually saves the planet in Pen Pals. But this situation comes up over and over again in TNG and beyond. We’re left with a Federation that thinks saving people from death, even when it would cost almost nothing, isn’t worth doing. In fact, it’s morally wrong. That doesn’t sound like the enlightened future I was promised.
Why Did This Happen?
I suspect Gene Roddenberry’s failing health had something to do with it. He had a lot of very strange ideas at the beginning of TNG, such as children on the ship and that no one in the future experiences grief. In the two decades when there was no Star Trek, he may have become so fixated on the idea of non-interference that he took it to ludicrous extremes.
After Roddenberry passed away, certain voices on the Trek creative staff* decided to keep non-interference alive at all costs. They probably thought they were honoring Roddenberry’s memory. We can only hope the next Star Trek series will leave this trope in the past where it belongs.
3. Magical Caste System: Harry Potter
The Wizarding World is a place of magic and wonder: living photos, flying carriages, chocolate frogs hope around and croak!* Also species-based slavery, because why not? In the second book, Harry meets Dobby, a house elf.
Through Dobby, we learn that all house elves are slaves. They’re born slaves, live their lives as slaves, and die as slaves. The implication is that of American-style chattel slavery, in which the slave has no rights at all and killing them is at worst destruction of property. That’s really dark and clashes with the book’s theme of childlike wonder. Or at least it would if it was examined for five seconds. Instead, Dobby gets his freedom, and that’s treated like the end of the story. Never mind all the other house elves slaving away.
House elves aren’t the only casualty. Goblins are forbidden from carrying wands. Giants are forced to live in isolated colonies deep in the mountains. The list goes on. The more we learn about the Wizarding World, the more we discover a horrible structure of institutionalized speciesism. While modern day Western countries are no strangers to prejudice, it’s usually social or indirect, not enshrined in law. The wizards have turned discrimination into an art form that Dark-Ages Europe would envy.
At no point do the characters stop and say, “This is messed up.” Hermione does make a half-hearted attempt to liberate the house elves, but it’s mostly played for laughs. The house elves enjoy being slaves, you see. They wouldn’t know what to do with freedom. Wow.
Worst of all, this isn’t portrayed just as something evil wizards do. It’s widely accepted that oppressing other species is correct and just. Nor do we see any organization against these injustices. Even in the worst days of American slavery, there were abolitionists fighting against it.
Once you realize the full extent of discrimination in the Wizarding World, it badly damages the books’ stakes. If Voldemort wins, there will be a slightly more evil wizard in charge. That’s hard to get excited about.
Why Did This Happen?
For the same reason we have time turners and all the other magical gadgets that should change the Wizarding World forever, but don’t. Rowling is good at a lot of things, but worldbuilding isn’t one of them. A race of elven house servants probably seemed harmless when first introduced, and if she ever realized how ugly her world was, then she probably didn’t do anything about it because the story was too focused on fighting He Who Must Not Be Named.
4. More Caste Systems: Legend of Korra
If some people had access to magical powers and others didn’t, inequality would almost certainly follow. We have plenty of that in the real world, where humans are all really close together in ability. So it was exciting when we found out that Avatar: Legend of Korra’s first season was going to feature an uprising of normal people against the bending* elites.
At first, the story looked promising. The Equalists had worthy goals but inexcusable methods. We saw in several episodes how non-benders were disenfranchised and taken advantage of. The Equalists’ grievances were legitimate, but their violent solutions made them a menace. A great setup for a bad guy organization.
Unfortunately, the Equalist story never goes anywhere. Korra defeats their leader, and that’s it. The show acts as if removing one person can end a movement with broad popular support. The root causes are never addressed, leaving non-benders’ resentment to fester until the next time it explodes. Governments make this mistake in real life all the time, and it always comes back to bite them.
At no point do the main characters stop to consider why the non-benders are so angry. They come off as a bunch of privileged benders with no clue how anyone else lives. The one non-bender in their group, Asami, is rich enough that she doesn’t have to care either. Her money insulates her from the discrimination that plagues other non-benders.
This cluelessness is particularly bad for Korra herself. As the Avatar, her entire job description is keeping the world in balance. The dynamic between benders and non-benders is clearly out of balance, yet she does nothing. Instead, the show starts season two as if the Equalists never existed, and the characters go off to fight some nonsensical spirits.
Why Did This Happen?
Legend of Korra was, by all indications, written one season at a time. When making season one, the creators didn’t know if they would get a season two. So it makes sense to end the first season with a climactic fight between Korra and Amon, the Equalist leader. With only 12 episodes, there wasn’t time to wrap everything up.
What I don’t understand is why they didn’t revisit the issue in season two, even in passing. Perhaps the creators thought it would be beating a dead horse to bring up the same problem a second time. If so, they were mistaken. That was a rich story vein, and leaving it untapped hurt the show.
5. Killing Baby Vampires: Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Perhaps the most recognizable scene from Buffy is the Scooby Gang* patrolling through the Sunnydale graveyard, staking vampires as they rise, and enjoying a few witty quips. At first, this seems really brutal. None of those vampires have done anything; they haven’t had time. But vampires are really, really dangerous, right? They’re so focused on exsanguinating humans that a kill-on-sight policy is the only solution.
So it would seem. But later in the series, and even more so in the spin off Angel, we see lots of vampires walking around not murdering humans. They hang out in bars, play cards,* and work as bodyguards. Perhaps they’re killing people offscreen, but if that’s the case, why isn’t the Slayer doing anything about it? Buffy knows where these vamps hang out.
Another explanation presents itself: If every vampire we see in Buffy and Angel killed humans for food, the murder rate would go through the roof, even in a city as big as L.A. In a small town like Sunnydale, it would be national news. Even if the bodies were never found, the sheer number of missing persons would be impossible to overlook. FBI task forces would descend on the town, politicians screaming at them to do something about the crisis.
But none of that happens, so perhaps these vampires are not killing anyone at all. We know vamps can survive off blood packs, so maybe they’re just going about their undead lives in peace. If that’s the case, it would show that the kill-on-sight policy isn’t justified and make Buffy the true villain.
Or vampires could be just as dangerous as the show claims, but if that’s the case, the Slayer is spending her time in the wrong place. Let the normal humans go after newborn blood suckers; they can handle it.* Then Buffy can deal with the vamps and other monsters who are already up and about. Otherwise, we’re left with the implication that graveyard patrol is more important to the Slayer than saving lives.
Why Did This Happen?
At Buffy’s conception, vampires were little more than monsters hiding in shadows and sewers. They had no culture or personality to speak of. Even the Master, the only vamp with any screen time, was limited to ominous mutterings about doom. DOOOOOOOM.
That changed with the introduction of Spike and Drusilla. While still villains, now vampires could be witty and fun; the kind of characters a writer wants to keep around. From there, the show evolved into the urban-fantasy trope of monsters having their own culture, hidden from human eyes. To do that, there had to be a relatively stable population of vampires who weren’t constantly out murdering.
At the same time, the writers were unwilling to ditch the scenes with Buffy staking newborn vampires in a graveyard, so we were left with this bizarre contradiction.
6. Wizards Don’t Care About Humans: Dresden Files
Like Harry Potter, Jim Butcher’s The Dresden Files portrays a world where magical beings have their own secret society, hidden from the eyes of humanity. Each magical species has their own culture, interacting with each other the same way nation states do in real life. Unlike Rowling’s books, wizards in the Dresden Files do not live completely segregated from the mortal population. While their existence is secret, they mingle with non-magical humans more than the students at Hogwarts ever do.
In The Dresden Files, wizards are born of mortal parents, date mortal lovers, and have mortal friends. This may not apply to some of the really old and crusty gray beards, but it’s true for every younger wizard we see in the series. As such, it’s hard to understand why magical practitioners are so divorced from events in the human world.
One of the most powerful wizards in the books is a Native American named Joseph Listens-to-Wind. The book implies that his tribe was wiped out when he chose not to intervene in the European colonization of the Americas. Why would he do that? What could have convinced him that allowing the slaughter and forced removal of his people was a good idea, when he clearly had the power to stop it? If the White Council* ordered him not to intervene, surely that would be a source of conflict for him?
Listens-to-Wind is not the only Native American with magic. Even if he decided for his own reasons not to oppose the European and later American settlers, there would have been others who didn’t make the same choice. The same problem crops up in other conflicts. Were Jewish wizards content to sit back and do nothing against the Third Reich? In the present, are there no Syrian wizards who would object to the atrocities being committed in their country?
If the White Council is actively stopping wizards from helping their oppressed kinsmen, that puts a much darker lens on the world than Butcher wanted. The only other explanation is that the moment a person’s magical power manifests, they turn their backs on all ties of friendship and family.
Why Did This Happen?
The Dresden Files is meant to be a story about the titular Dresden dealing with largely supernatural threats. As a white man from a first-world country, it makes sense that the largest threat to Dresden’s group would be fairies and demons, rather than other humans. But many of the magical practitioners Dresden meets are from far less well-off groups and cultures.
Butcher is to be commended for including wizards from diverse cultural backgrounds; however, he does introduce other issues the narrative is not able to address. It would certainly be a distraction if Butcher stopped the story every five minutes to explain a new wizard’s motivation for not trying to end global poverty or another serious problem, and so the questions remain unanswered.
7. Mathematical Right and Wrong: Fallout 3
It’s no surprise that video games have a twisted sense of morality. For the sake of entertainment, electronic protagonists rack up kill counts that would make even the most over-the-top action hero cringe. Obviously, this is done for the sake of gameplay and not meant as a commentary on murder.
However, Fallout 3 has a system specifically designed to measure your character’s morality, called karma.* You are awarded positive points for moral acts and negative points for immoral acts. For example, stealing is an immoral act, so you would lose karma for doing it. Giving water to a thirsty old man is a moral act, so you gain karma. When a character’s karma is high, they are a paragon of virtue. Sounds simple, right?
Not so fast. The game has some odd ideas about what constitutes immorality. Often, killing enemies is fine, especially if they attacked you first. But then, when you go loot the stuff in their camp, the game counts it as stealing. Come on, game, I’m pretty sure the bullet-ridden corpse outside doesn’t need it anymore!
Most of the time, attacking someone without provocation loses you karma. So if you run around murdering people willy-nilly, that makes you evil, right? Yes, unless you have a lot of water. Remember that thirsty old man? He’s a specific NPC outside the town of Megaton, and it turns out his thirst is unquenchable. You can give him as much water as you like, and each time it increases your karma. Water isn’t hard to get. You can slaughter half the population of Rivet City, and so long as you make a stop at the Water Man, everything is fine.
Adding to the absurdity, having super-high karma or super-low karma will get bounty hunters sent after you. This happens even if you do your deeds in a way that couldn’t possibly be tied back to you. The bounty hunters aren’t after you because of your reputation; they have a Paladin’s Detect Evil ability, and you’re registering too high on the scale!
Why Did This Happen?
Morality is complicated, so trying to measure it mathematically couldn’t help but produce comical results. We all know on some level that there are crimes that can’t be made up for. We’ll forgive a litterer if they make a donation to charity, but the same isn’t true for a murderer. The concept was doomed from the start.
Being able to gain infinite good karma by giving water to an old man only made the situation more hilarious. I’m not sure why the designers added that feature, because it’s not as if a high karma is required to finish the game.
None of the creators on this list meant to send these messages.* The bizarre implications arose because they didn’t think through their world and what its rules meant. When crafting a setting for your story, especially if it’s a long story, be more careful. Don’t sacrifice your world’s integrity for narrative convenience or to make a quick point. Audiences are clever; they’ll see what you’re up to. These creators were fortunate enough to succeed despite their mistakes, but we can’t all count on such luck.
P.S. Our bills are paid by our wonderful patrons. Could you chip in?
In the case of Pen Pals, the prime directive is treated more like an ecological principle; it’s not a magical, mystic cosmic plan at risk, it’s everyone beyond that system, their cosmic neighbours. Who’s going to have to give up a class M planet to make room for them (the most likely solution, before their easy way out is Wesleyed in at the last minute)? What impact would such a transplant have on the lifeforms already native to that planet? Should any other species be transplanted too, or do we pretend that only humanoids with radios have any moral value? And what if any of the ‘valuable’ transplanted species (humanoids included) are dependent in some crucial way on any species (including micro organisms) that are left behind? And the more we transplant, how much greater will the impact on the new planet be? What if the transplants grow up in future to be hostile spacefarers; what if they start attacking other worlds that would have been safe if they’d never reached warp capability? Then there are the million-trillion questions covered extensively elsewhere about how premature first contact could create harmful new elements in their culture. It is conceivable that saving them from death, only to induce/reinforce a truly reprehensible and abusive set of mores, could be seen as causing more harm than help. Does Starfleet even have the capacity to transport so many people (and all the other species that get a survival visa) in such a short time? (My rough maths says no way.) Who and what else in the galaxy will suffer while Starfleet is neglecting it to focus (presumably) solely on this one task?
The risk to the threatened Dremans is important and undeniably serious (which is why it was a compelling episode), but the impact of >the means< of their survival is nothing trivial either, and absolutely bears serious contemplation. This episode does skim across these considerations rather lightly, but ought to be given the benefit of remembering all the other times that Star Trek episodes have dived into those aspects more deeply, and assume that Starfleet has definitely debated this back and forth for decades. Picard's initial policy is not equivalent to a casual, dismissive, "Ah, fuck 'em."
You can easily argue that Dreman survival is what's best for the Dremans. No question about that, and I don't think we here nor the characters on the Enterprise ever argue that their deaths would be a good thing. But to insist that this is a simple problem to solve, even theoretically, is to admit that you haven't thought it through in much detail or particularly far into the future. I would be completely on Data's side, arguing for a Dreman rescue, if I were in that situation, but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary to think through the consequences of a literal world-changing choice for more than 5 seconds. Non-interference tends to be reversible (as it was in the case), while interference, by its nature, is more often a one-way process. This is why, for example, the Hippocratic Oath traditionally has the "first, do no harm" non-interference guideline as its default setting, and doctors deal with equally urgent and serious (if much smaller scale) risks of death to their patients.
That’s an interesting argument, Chris. I wish the characters on Pen Pals had made it. They were not nearly so interested in exploring the consequences of saving the Dreman as you are. Riker does actually invoke the “Cosmic Plan” idea.
As I said, it works fine if you acknowledge that this isn’t a stand-alone story, that it’s part of the larger ongoing thread of prime directive stories. The cosmic plan line might not have been the best writing, and it does sound silly out of context, I agree. But why choose to take it out of context? I have a guess.
Nobody (well, few people) complains that there aren’t whole episodes devoted to detailed lectures on warp core operation, covering every aspect of the technology that could be relevant to any story. Instead, we accept that we’ll be fed small fractions of the concept at a time, over many, many episodes, and it’s on the viewer to piece it all together. Accepting this means of getting to know the show’s internal logic for warp drive, but insisting that it can’t be used for getting to know the specifics of the prime directive (that it must all be spelled out clearly within one episode that addresses it) suggests a double standard.
But warp drives are fun and nobody (well, few people) thinks Star Trek would be better without them. Nobody feels that compelled to shut down the whole idea of warp travel. The prime directive, on the other hand, is not fun, it makes us think uncomfortable thoughts, on a huge scale, and these are thoughts that (unlike the probably bullshit warp drive) have a real effect on the lives we choose to live once the show is over. It’s difficult stuff, and so it’s no surprise that people love to push against the prime directive and look for ways to dismiss it outright. But those challenging concepts are exactly the sort of things that make Star Trek great.
I actually did see an interesting argument for Star Trek without warp drives. On this very website in fact: https://mythcreants.com/blog/obeying-the-celestial-speed-limit/
Having a Star Trek style series in which it is the adventures of the starship Enterprise as they explore the developed Oort cloud would certainly be interesting. Especially if one accounted for time dilation allowing them to see worlds that are potentially more advanced than them, making it that much harder for our heroes to escape alive. It would also save money on their special effects budget as all of the characters could simply be different branches of humanity, with some genetically engineered to be slightly alien.
That argument would be better if the Federation wasn’t planting colonies all over the place. What, humans and vulcans can have a billion planets each, but these folks have to suck it up when their only planet goes asplode?
Rowling based the concept of the house elves on the story of The Shoemaker and the Elves http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/175/grimms-fairy-tales/3113/the-elves-and-the-shoemaker/ as well as ancient Celtic and British folklore that predates and inspires that original story. Some British spirits like hobs demanded payment in food or gifts to help people prosper; others like brownies were offended to be offered gifts because by their laws they were supposed to do their work unseen. She does reference the plights of all the non-human magical creatures, as well as half-bloods and muggles, to call attention to the inequities and prejudices of the wizarding community and indicate that it is not only a Very Bad Thing but in fact was the basis of Voldemort’s rise to power in the first place. While defeating Voldemort takes priority at the time of the novels (since his stated aim is to make pureblood wizards the ruling class of the world and destroy or enslave ALL non-magical persons as well as non-human entities), the implication is that, having been made aware of these inequities, the young wizards of Harry’s generation go on to dismantle the antiquated wizarding heirarchy and rebuild a more equitable system of government when many of their number subsequently ascend to prominent positions in the Ministry of Magic.
I agree, EC. When I read that example in the article I thought I was remembering the book incorrectly.
I always took the House Elves plight to be one that Harry and Hermione had managed to kick into a full civil rights movement. Dobby was trying to rally support, and after his death the Elves fought for Harry (and Dobby’s memory). As such, I thought it was drawing parallels between the civil rights movement of the last century.
Spot on, EC.
Racism, discrimination, and bigotry are among the main underlying themes of HP. That Rowling didn’t put these issues (and characters) front and center with Harry’s journey isn’t because these things aren’t important, but to show that Voldemort isn’t the only thing wrong within the wizarding world…In fact, she’s showing that there is PLENTY wrong, with or without The Noseless One, and that these issues, attitudes, and practices require just as much bravery–albeit in a different way and with different actions– from characters such as Dobby, Hermione, Mr. Weasley, et al, as is required from Harry in his quest to rid the world of the Dark Lord.
How the author missed that message and those points is a bit mind-boggling.
Thanks for this elaboration, guys! I continued reading through the comments because I found some of the points in this article disquieting, but couldn’t place my finger on why. You described it perfectly. I see now that it is a different of opinion, and I simply don’t agree with all of them. This is a complicated subject as pointed out at the beginning.
I don’t believe that these authors were deliberately being ‘lazy’ or bad at their world building… It’s because they see the world differently. They had a specific reason for the things they built into their story, and sometimes diving too deep into issues like this would break the story or even make it off putting to some readers. They made choices that were best for their story, and that’s all any of us can do.
The Fallout issue more generally applies to other RPGs. Amusingly, also relating to the issue of hypocritical Jedi, it was interesting in KOTOR to earn light side points by manipulating an enemy into attacking you so that you can defend yourself. So apparently, Darth Sidious is on the Light Side according to KOTOR. Mass Effect also had this problem apparent with the decision of what to do about the Geth heretics. For such an interesting moral dilemma, it was odd that one answer was automatically good while the other was automatically bad.
With regard to the issue of lightsabers versus Dark Side force abilities, it partially comes down to how those attacks kill people. When you kill with a lightsaber, it is quick and merciful. When you kill with the Force directly, it drains the life force from a person and causes them to suffer. Even if the mechanical attack shouldn’t be any more harmful. Though amusingly, in the Jedi Knight series of games dark side Force abilities actually allowed one to spare non-Force using enemies by using Force choke to remove their weapons. While perfect light side users had the ability to mind control enemies. Somehow that seemed odd.
I was also really confused in KOTOR how the “Destroy Droid” power was lightside. Droids are people too!
In Mass Effect’s defense, Paragon and Renegade weren’t supposed to automatically equal good and bad, though they did turn out that way more often than I’d like.
As for the force, you’re right that it’s weird that mind control is considered lightside. At the same time I’d argue that while lightsabers can be used to kill quickly, they can also be used to dismember, which is not quick. That’s not even considering the time when Yoda wanted to use flame throwers on the bug aliens who had the nerve to defend their homes.
Star Wars tends to be ambiguous over the droids’ status. Probably because if droids are people, they’re also slaves, with even “good guys” owning them. Some books mentions that droid rights and liberation groups exist, plus revolts took place in the past. This would be another good issue to get into, if you haven’t already.
Given there’s also free droids, like IG-88 (the bounty hunter droid you see in The Empire Strikes Back), droids should be treated as people, at least those with nearly-human programming. (That would leave out droids merely build to transfer goods or do other jobs for which no free will is necessary.)
That, of course, does indeed bring up the question of slavery. Because if droids are people, then they’ve been enslaved for a long time.
I’m confused about the third paragraph, where you say that “they can also be used to dismember, which is not quick.” Maybe I’m missing something, but apart from Ponda in ANH and I think the wampa in ESB. every dismemberment/cutting wound from a lightsaber (Luke, Vader, Maul, Anakin, Dooku, Mace Windu, ect.) is cauterized, preventing blood loss. So, how would dismemberment via blood loss kill someone? Am I missing something?
P.S. good article!
*via lightsaber, not blood loss
It’s an open question how much lightsabers actually cauterize a wound, but even if they did it 100% of the time, that’s a horrific kind of wound to inflict on someone before killing them. Even worse if you aren’t trying to kill them, especially in a universe that has stun weapons.
And of course, cauterized wounds are very vulnerable to infection in real life, more so than if you just let them bleed. Sometimes even the shock alone can kill you.
This is why I’ve always considered lightsabers to be infinitesimally sharp energy fields which simply shear through whatever they encounter.
As a corollary, bacta has existed in Star Wars since 1980 as medical handwavium (if it can keep Luke from dying of exposure and frostbite, it can work on an amputation wound, cauterized or not).
Of course, Jedi being so loose with the amputations plus the availability of robot arms does assume that everyone is compatible with a prosthetic device, or would want one.
With Mass Effect, it’s critical to remember that it’s not “Good and Evil”… It’s Paragon and Renegade. So being completely Renegade and also good is completely possible. Renegade is the “Dirty Harry” side of things, so things that are breaking the rules or are pushing the limits in that way are rewarded with Renegade points. Paragon is the stalwart boy scout type. so that’s rewarded. So if you look at it in that context, it makes a great deal more sense, and in my opinion is generally more interesting than the good or evil sliders.
While it’s Force uses who do use lightsabres, the films have never presented a reason why other people couldn’t (it just needs Force abilities to make using one a viable option in combat when everyone else has guns, but that’s not the same thing as needing the Force to use one at all).
Which implies that when you kill with a lightsaber, you’re not using the Force to do the killing – with the choke and lightning, you are. That might be why it was ok for Luke to choke Jabba’s guards enough to make them back off without killing them.
The fact that Han can use Luke’s lightsaber to cut open that critter at the beginning of Empire shows you can activate a lightsaber as a non-Jedi. While it’s suggested that the lightning reflexes that come with the force give you an advantage in a fight, that doesn’t mean you can’t be good with a lightsaber without the force, too. And in the prequels which never happened, we have Grievous who is no Jedi, but also uses lightsabers he has actually taken from Jedi he killed.
It’s also important to note that without Jedi Powers, the principal advantage of having a lightsaber… the ability to deflect blaster fire, is gone and basically you’re just bringing a really long, really sharp knife to a gunfight. I suspect that’s why we don’t see that all that often. That’s also why KOTOR had to make up new tech to explain why people were using melee weapons.
Yes, in a world with a lot of ranged weapons (especially high-speed ranged weapons which reload quickly, unlike your regular crossbow or bow), a bladed weapon isn’t exactly the most practical piece to rely on. The Jedi can deflect energy shots (and both blasters and Wookie crossbows shoot energy), which makes it an efficient shield which also can be used for attacks. However, Jedi can also deflect or absorb shots without a saber (see Vader in Empire), so they wouldn’t absolutely need the lightsaber in a fight. I think it’s pretty much some kind of prestige object to show they’re force users.
Well prestige may certainly be a part of it. I think it’s worth noting that only Vader has been seen to deflect blaster shots without a saber, and only using a hand that was a prosthetic, so I would assume a lightsaber is useful in that case.
In the movies, only Vader has been seen doing that, yes. In the no-longer valid EU, there was mention that he could actually absorb them and make use of that energy to boost other force powers (like his relatively weak levitation). It was also mentioned that others could do that as well.
Even if a Jedi didn’t have that power, though, they still could easily move quickly enough to avoid the energy bullets or just levitate something into their path. Unlike, for instance, the Harry Potter wizards, they don’t need the lightsaber to use their powers.
I’m not sure that holds true, in a swordfight you can parry or deflect things that you could not possibly dodge. It’s important to remember that it takes a great deal more time to move your entire body than to slightly move your wrist. And Jedi Precognition is generally shown as being only a fraction of a second having the lightsaber is a definite combat advantage over force dodging.
We also note that in scenes where the Jedi did not have the lightsaber often the leap or bound out of the way, which means that they have a much restricted list of ways they can move, I can advance towards somebody while parrying, in fact I can deflect and move forward, I can’t do that while dodging, especially if I’m dodging by leaping 20 feet in the air.
I’m not saying the lightsaber isn’t useful, I’m just saying it’s not the only way the Jedi could do their work or deal with dangers. And I’m not saying the Jedi are the only people who can use it well (or that only force-sensitive beings can).
The Emperor’s personal guard for instance (the guys in those red robes with the red helmets), has some kind of staff with an energy lance at each end which is not unlike a lightsaber (in a now-defunct EU comic, the reader even learns Vader is trained with that weapon, too, and the last obstacle for new recruits). They are pretty dangerous with that, too, without being force-sensitive.
I would suggest that the Prime Directive is even worse than you suggest. In a nutshell it is amorality posing as the height of morality. While there are certainly benefits, as you point out, there are also potential problems. And those problems almost certainly outweigh the benefits, especially with the way it is invoked with peer nations.
The issues with interventionism are vast, especially when done for economic or strategic benefit. But suggesting that this means that it is always wrong to assist a foreign culture is absurd. Was it wrong when the US Military assisted with the 2004 tsunami or 2010 Haitain earthquake? For that matter, the world has eliminated smallpox globally and is on its way towards eliminating a couple more fatal diseases. Are those actions really immoral?
They additionally invoke it with regard to the internal disputes of the Klingons(Redemption). Had the Prime Directive been in effect in 1940 America, the world would have almost certainly been a much worse place. Even the attack on Pearl Harbor would have likely not occurred, as it was a result of American economic warfare. While one could argue that had something akin to the Prime Directive been in place for America during WW1, WW2 would have never occurred, with the situation as it existed in the late 1930s, intervention was the least worst solution.
There is also the deeper potential problems when used with peer states. There is something subversive about the Federation’s usage of the Prime directive. It provides rather strong incentive for independent planets to join the Federation if potentially threatened by a larger neighbor(The Hunted). They also use it to make deals with immoral governments while claiming that their hands are clean(The High Ground). While ignoring the Prime Directive when it threatens a trade route(Man of the People). While all of these actions are perfectly understandable, one cannot call them moral.
Despite the fact that every single captain in the history of Star Trek has violated it, the deeper problem with the Prime Directive is that it is treated as an absolute moral imperative. Which only Sith Lords deal in. That is a moral element in Star Wars that is commendable in contrast to the rigidity of Star Trek. It points out that those who see things in black and white are often more likely to be turned to evil, while those who see shades of gray are more likely to be moral in their actions. Strict adherence to any code is often wrong, as it always listening to those with authority over you. They can easily be wrong, especially when they try and convince you to kill the Chosen One.
I suspect this is just another example of the way in which as new writers enter into a series, they change things based on their earlier interpretations of events. In the original series, the Prime Directive was treated as much more flexible and open to interpretation, with Kirk outright violating it on multiple occasions without any apology.
I would suggest that a better course of action is to properly consider when intervention is the best alternative. I would agree that much of the time, the answer would indeed be no. But this is not to say that it is always bad.
I take a more charitable view of the PD than you do, Adam. I feel that there are episodes which treat it rationally, in which assistance is different than interference. The episode High Ground is one such. The Federation delivers medical supplies to the Rutians without any problem, as is reasonable.
But they stop short of getting involved in the violent conflict until they have no other choice, which is also reasonable. Violent conflicts are usually complicated affairs, and the intervention of an outside force will often make them worse rather than better.
Of course, then we have episodes like Dear Doctor, which is like Pen Pals but worse because they don’t actually help the aliens at the end.
As for the WWII example, I don’t find it as convincing as most people. WWII is the one time when American military involvement in someone else’s war can unequivocally be said to have improved the situation. WWII was a unique situation, which likely would never have arisen if we had pursued more rational policies in times of peace.
That said, I also believe that the PD, when interpreted rationally, leaves room for such a situation. In the Klingon Civil War, for example. As I recall, the Federation didn’t have proof that the Romulans were involved. If they had, they’d have gone to Gowron and ended the whole thing. So they set up their blockade to get proof. If they had backed Gowron without proof, it would have made him seem like the weakling who required outside aid, likely hardening the resolve of the Duras supporters.
We also see in Deep Space Nine that the Federation can recognize the need for military force in the rare instance of a truly unreasonable and aggressive enemy.
So a lot of situations involving interference with other powers would have been better explained if the Prime Directive wasn’t mentioned and they explained why interfering would worsen the situation.
In regard to the Star Wars example, Luke uses the Force Choke on two of the little pig guards upon entering Jabba’s palace in Return of the Jedi. Barring some unexpected revelation in Episode 8, Luke was never a Dark Side user. In fact, aside from Luke and Vader, I don’t think anyone else uses the technique in any of the films. If anything it’s a Skywalker thing.
If we want to dive into the tangled mess that is Star Wars ‘canon,’ we see a large number of darkside force users employ Force Chock in the Clone Wars, and Clone Wars is still officially canon according to Disney. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Force_choke#Users
I feel that’s a little beside the point though. While it’s true that Luke does appear to choke those Gamorians (he’s even listed on Wookipedia), it’s still pretty widely accepted in secondary media that Force Choke is a dark side power.
Actually, in the Dark Empire comic mini-series (set several years after the movies in the original EU), Luke does become a Dark Side user for a while, but he returns to the Light Side.
I think this is also one of the instances where writers interpret the universe they write for. Several of the Jedi Knight games define ‘Dark Power’ and ‘Light Power’ different as well. I remember that the original Jedi Knight put down the Force Lightning as something you could learn without going dark, which seems strange, given it was one of the Emperor’s favourites (given how often he’s used it in the movies) and can only be used to injure, hurt, or kill people.
Technically, you’d need ‘Light Side,’ ‘Dark Side,’ and neutral powers, since stuff like levitation is neither good nor bad, just useful.
And Vader’s ability to consume energy (like the blaster shot from Han in Empire Strikes Back) should technically be ‘Light Side,’ since it prevents damage, yet the novel I, Jedi characterizes it as a dark power when used by the main character on the verge of turning dark.
One of the cinematic trailers for Star Wars: The Old Republic showed one of the Jedi using the energy absorption/redirection ability on a lightsaber, and she’s one of the Big Goods of the time period. It’s also the same ability used by Yoda to deal with Dooku’s lightning during their duel on Geonosis.
Regarding Avatar and Legend of Korra, the issue of nonbenders is solved between season 1 and 2. In Season 1, Republic City is ruled by a council of 5 benders. In Season 2, the council is no more, and the city is ruled by a President. The President is a non-bender politician, and he seems to be at the top of the hierarchy. For example, Korra wants her friend in the military to help her free the Southern Water Tribe. They make a plan where the military will make exercises at the southern waters and then attack the troops occupying the Southern Water Tribe. But then the President hears about this and forbids the military friend of Korra from making any exercises near the Southern Water Tribe (since he wants to keep the peace between the nations and considers their problems internal). The military guy (a firebender) obeys the president and says he’s sorry to Korra. There’s no question who’s at the top of the chain of command now, and it’s a non-bender democratically elected. Considering the non-bender to bender ratio, which greatly favors non-benders, Republic City will probably only have non-benders as presidents for the foreseeable future.
That explanation wasn’t enough for me.
1. It was unsatisfying to wrap all that up off screen like it wasn’t a big deal.
2. The Council’s issue wasn’t that it represented benders, but that it represented the 5 other nations. Each member represented either the Fire Nation, Northern Water Tribe, Southern Water Tribe, Air Nomads (all 4 of them), or Earth Kingdom. We don’t even know if the three unnamed counselors were benders. Considering how easily they were captured, I’m guessing no.
With the President, Republic City finally has actual sovereign rule, but that’s not the problem that the Equalists were upset about.
3. I didn’t see anything to indicate the President was doing anything different. The Triads (bending mafia) for example, seemed to be flourishing under the new administration.
4. Electing a non-bender President wouldn’t end the troubles faced by non-benders, any more than electing Barack Obama ended racism in the United States.
All of this just makes me wish Season 2 had been dealing with the fallout of Season 1 rather than sweeping it all under the rug like they did.
Buffy just sends vamps & demons to Hell; she disapproves of beating them up first. Hell is where demons are from, and people come back from there occasionally. So she’s really more of a border patrol guard. Staking = deportation.
Vamps are no demons as a such, but one could argue that they are dead already, just still moving (since the series points out that Vampires lose their soul when they are turned, hence the whole Angelus/Angel topic).
Vampires are demons, they’re just considered the lowest rung on the demon hierarchy, since they are entirely dependent on a human host to propagate. They also have the most weaknesses among demons, and dissolve into ash when slain. Having a soul offsets the demon. (Demons don’t have souls, and Mayor Wilkins sold his soul in preparation to become a demon (likely in exchange for his longevity, since he didn’t gain invulnerability until Season 3.))
Forgot about the mythology in Buffy. There, vampires are low grade demons, that’s true.
Hm… Great article and stuff, but I have to desagree regarding Harry Potter. J.K. Rowling makes explicity clear that all that opression system against other races only made Voldemort stonger and with more allies. Dumbledore keeps repeating that in Book 5 and 6.
The goblin scene in Book 7 its a proof of that. Besides, Hermione founded an organization to free the elves.
Sorry by my bad English, btw. Its not my first language. :)
Your English is fine, and I appreciate the respectful disagreement. While I do not find those examples compelling the way you do, it’s clear you’ve thought a lot about this.
It’s true that the Wizard’s mistreatment of the Giants does come back to bight them, but none of the characters except Hermione see that oppression as problem until the Giants force the issue by threatening to join Voldemort. Now, it’s possible Dumbledore was lobbying for better treatment of the non-human races off screen, but we never say that.
Hermione’s attempt to liberate the house elves, on the other hand, seems mostly to be played for laughs.
I would like to point out that as amazing as Hermione is she was a teenager. Her attempts, while in Hogwarts, were realistic and so we’re the reactions of her pairs. Who, like Ron, grew up on these ideas or Harry who had other things on his mind. Rowling did an amazing job of creating a world that is corrupt. The wizarding world was presented lacking morale but it was the point. It was not a plot hole. It is also cannon that after the war Hermione goes on to make a difference. She ends up working in law within the ministry. There she works for civil rights for house elves, goblins, and werewolves. After reading Harry Potter, with out looking up rawlings tweets or interviews, I felt like they had made a difference to their world. As a reader I felt uncomfterble with the the discrimination. As a reader I sided with Hermione. When I was no longer a reader and I was responding to the work I read I thought about real life discrimination real life events that compared to the stories. I thought about the way the characters were developed and I thought about what they would do. And knowing the characters the would not stand for it. And going back In history there have been plenty of times when horrible things happened and people ignored it.
http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Hermione_Granger
In one of the books they say explicitly Dumbledore spoke against exterminating the last giants in England. He also treats house elves well, even offering them full pay and vacation time. It’s apparent the Hogwarts elves are free to leave if they wished. Later he denounces wizard treatment of the other sapient races. So they do address it a bit.
Regarding Harry Potter – I think Rowling knew what she was doing. Reading the books as a young adult, I was struck with the parallels between the wizarding world and the real world: inequality that nobody notices because it’s “just the way it is”. Harry, going to the Ministry of Magic for the first time, is struck by – and made uncomfortable by – the fountain with the wizard on top and the other magic races basically being trampled. It takes an outsider – Harry (or Hermione for the house elves) – to see how wrong it is. The implication is that Harry’s generation – particularly those like Harry and Hermione who are not from wizarding families – will change things.
Interestingly, watching the films, there were a lot of parallels between the Ministry of Magic and Nazi Germany. Did you notice the big banner of Cornelius Fudge looking very like Hitler? The Harry Potter books can be pretty dark, if you pay attention to some of the details.
With respect to Harry Dresden, in one of the later books – Turn Coat, I think – there is discussion of why wizards keep out of non-wizard affairs. The idea is that if wizards started to get involved, changing things to what they thought best, pretty soon, wizards would end up in charge, because they know best, right? And they can fix all the problems, right? Hence, the White Council decided that whatever non-wizards could screw up on their own was minor compared to how epically screwed up the world could get with wizards trying to “make things better”: the freedom to starve, rather than well-fed slavery, if you like. It’s also a plot point that Listens to Wind regrets obeying the Laws of Magic and allowing his tribe to die (when he could have used magic to save them), and this regret pushes him into certain actions in the book.
I agree with you on Harry Potter. That was my reading of it as well. Sort of like our current generation are the progressives pushing for action on climate change, marriage equality, etc.
:-)
However, we should always remember that our progressiveness is built on the progressiveness of the generation that came before us.
They made homosexuality legal (at least, in the UK – Wolfenden Report and so on); we legalised same-sex marriage. We could not have the former without the latter.
It’s very easy to forget, standing on one’s moral high ground and looking down, who it was who carved the steps.
Duh. Could not have the latter without the former. I know what I mean…
Re: Dresden.
As we learn from Dead Beat, there has been a wizard war going on in Europe during WWII, involving a powerful necromancer named Heinrich Kemmler. I would imagine that he probably kept the Jewish wizards busy.
There are also mentions of an allied wizard active in ww1 I think (Klaus the toymaker).
But the real explanation why wizards do not fight in mundane wars is that killing a human with magic is one of the seven unforgivable wizard crimes punishable by death – Even if the grounds for the killing are justifiable. (you could maybe get away with self defense in case of an actual direct magical attack, but even that would not always work, and even so someone must vouch for you – and even then you are still on probation followed by a warden who will kill you for the slightest misstep). The explanation is that killing a person with magic fundamentally changes your soul, turning you evil over time.
Of course wizards could help in wars indirectly – and indeed they evidently do – but they are very limited by those seven laws. (e.g. mind tampering is also out)
The house-elf example is portrayed a bit differently in the books.
House-elves aren’t slaves, they’re servants. Though Dobby is clearly treated like crap by Lucius Malfoy, that’s one case. There are lots of house-elves treated well in the wizarding world.
Plus, house-elves love to work. It’s in their biology. Even after Dobby is freed in the books, he gets a job working in the Hogwarts kitchens. And when Hermione tries to free the house-elves in the kitchens, they become insulted. And they are paid!
Hermione brings up another point. It’s not that in the books no one cares about freeing them – they just don’t want to be freed. Hermione’s anger against the house elves being used to make their food (calling it “slave labor”) is a great piece added by Rowling to explain how the elves like working. Hermione wants them to be free, they don’t want to be freed.
And except for the cases of house-elves being owned by bad people like Lucius, most of the time the elves aren’t subjected to slave labor. When we had slaves in America, they had to work in the cotton fields with little to no breaks and were treated inferiorly. Most house-elves are treated well and do simple tasks, such as cooking.
I just never saw the house-elves’ treatment as slavery. In the movies, it’s easy to come out with that, but in the books it’s a whole other story.
I’m honestly not sure if you read the books if that is how you interpret the plight of the House Elves. They were definitely slaves and I interpreted their plight as an analogy to modern slavery. You might also want to look up the UNHCR’s take on slavery.
House elves are indeed slaves. They are owned and can only be freed by giving them clothing (which is what Harry tricks Lucius Malfoy into during The Chamber of Secrets). While most house elves agree with that treatment to a certain degree (they seem to be very fond of caring for humans, even Dobby still loves it after having been freed), that doesn’t change the facts. Neither does the fact that most families treat their elves a lot better than the Malfoys. You can enslave someone and still treat them humanely.
Most house elves, however, won’t accept freedom. This might stem, however, from centuries (or even more) of slavery. They are so used to it they consider it to be perfectly normal for them. They are house elves, so they are owned. Quite some slaves in the US thought like that, too, especially when living with masters who treated them well. Not everyone who is enslaved feels like rebelling against it.
Dobby is the odd one out, the rebel who sees the slavery and revolts against it, and from Dumbledore’s treatment of him it is clear that Dumbledore would free and pay all house elves in Hogwarts, if they agreed with it. But since house elves are very powerful (see Dobby protecting Harry against Lucius after being freed), he doesn’t want to force them into freedom.
Hey Cay Reet, love your comment as usual, just wanted you to know we emailed a little something your way. Let me know (either here or through the contact form) if you don’t receive it.
Hey Oren, I already received the email, but my provider’s mail server has been a little off today, so I haven’t managed to complete the Gravatar verification process yet. I’m very happy about the mail and will use the avatar with pride.
Editor’s note: I’ve removed a comment for crossing the line into defending actual slavery under the guise that some people “liked being enslaved.” That’s not allowed.
With the Dresden Files, wizards can and do get involved in non-magical wars, the problem is, they’re stuck fighting like muggles because killing humans with magic is punishable by death for a VERY good reason. Specifically that every instance of killing a human with magic irrevocably corrupts you.
They have a very rarely-used parole option called the Doom of Damocles that if someone vouches for you and are willing to put their own life on the line, and you’ve broken one of the Laws *ONCE*, you will be allowed to live (and not all of the Laws even allow that level of clemency). Break any of the seven Laws while under the Doom of Damocles, and both you and your sponsor lose your heads.
So, all the really effective stuff you could use with magic to turn the tide of a war is a no-go.
And as Ingwall pointed out, during both World Wars, the White Council were busy dealing with an incredibly nasty Necromancer named Kemmler, who engineered the first one to give himself more power to work with, got thwarted, and took advantage of the second one for the same reason. It says a lot about how horrifying the Dresden-verse version of Kemmler is that he is based outright on a character from the old Warhammer setting, and Games Workshop’s version is the LESS EVIL of the two.
Whatever happened to “A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack”?
A physical attack can, technically, be a defence.
Force lightning is a quick way of bringing down a group of enemies (as everyone who ever played the Star Wars video games with Jedi can tell you), which could save many lives when a Jedi is protecting people and is outnumbered.
This is wrong on several levels.
1. Luke uses the forcechoke as a Jedi. Force Lightning, however, Is sourced directly from the negativity the dark side draws power from. It’s a mechanic of the system.
2. Normal wizards are racist and bigoted. Voldemort is actively genocidal. This contrast is part of the commentary.
4. As mentioned on another comment, this was solved between seasons. A non-bending President May not have solved the discrimination against non-benders any more than Barack Obama ended racism against African-Americans, but beforehand they couldn’t even acquire such an office, so people are content. The bending Triads still exist, but that’s simply because bending is legitimately a real physical advantage for this who have it.
5. Buffy. Vampires are literally demons in a human suit. They’re repeatedly shown to be horrific and monstrous and malevolent towards humanity – Buffy’s charge – right out of the gate. So yes, she must destroy them. The graveyard shift / patrol is more of a pastime than anything else. The other option is sitting at home waiting for Giles to call her about something big, which happened… almost never, I think. She almost always brought things to him, which he then brought to her.
6. Dresdenverse wizards explicitly do get involved with mortal wars. The White Council even sent Klaus the Toymaker – one of their highest ranking member – to fight the Nazis. But they always to it subtly, because a war between the supernatural monsters hiding in the shadows and humanity is inevitable if those shadows vanish, and the Council – and everyone else who likes or needs humanity- wants to prevent that as long as possible, simply because they know that while humanity will probably come out ahead of that happens, it’s going to *hurt,* even if we win. It doesn’t help that the Winter Court and others like it preys upon and protects mankind from things it could never protect itself from.
I always envisioned light saber arm lopping to be a self cauterizing wound that hampered future damage by the opponent while still sustaining life. “Life creates it, makes it grow.”
Regarding Legend of Korra, did anyone in any faction ever suggest trying to give bending talents to everyone, instead of removing them from the people who did or leaving things as they were?
#1 really isn’t that illogical if you exclude specifically *killing* people with lightsabers. Limbs are extremely replaceable in the Star Wars universe; bionic prostheses seem to have no discernible limitations or drawbacks (aside from that you can’t or at least shouldn’t shoot lightning through them), even recreate the sensation of touch, and seem to be readily available to both rich and poor, and shock from traumatic injury doesn’t seem to be a thing. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to chop off an arm or a leg in combat; your opponent is swiftly incapacitated, the wound is cauterised as soon as it’s formed so there’s no risk of exsanguination, and they can easily get a new one afterwards. If anything, the fact this is such a quick and easy resolution to violent conflict makes the use of fatal strikes more morally questionable. As for abilities like force choking and lightning, it’s fairly consistently indicated that these are powered by the user’s anger or hatred, which Jedi are meant to avoid.
#4 was likely too rocky to properly address. Once those representing a cause have resorted to extreme, inexcusable tactics, it is difficult to address their grievances without suggesting that their methods were ultimately effective. I don’t think “terrorism gets things done” is a message many writers would want to risk endorsing. This kind of dilemma has plenty of examples in the real world, and if even the most masterful statespeople struggle to figure out solutions, it’s doubtful the writers of a cartoon would be the ones to solve it.