#myrenders (art tag)

Even back in the classic series, the Time Lords were known to be corrupt and almost evil. In the new series, they were talked about positively, but only because the Doctor was talking about a people who were all killed off. As soon as they found out that the Time Lords might come back, the Doctor literally grabs a gun and rushed as fast as they can to prevent that from happening.

But the most we ever actually SEE the Time Lords do is just be assholes. They're jerks. We hear that they did terrible things during the Time War, but any time we've seen them they're just asshole politicians talking shit about the Doctor while also putting them in charge of the planet. (I actually think it would have gone a long way if there was a scene in the 50th anniversary that showed the Time Lords casually wielding weapons of mass destruction beyond anything we have on Earth. "Sir, there are Daleks in this populated star system with billions of life forms!" "Alright, destroy the entire star system.")

The Timeless Child could actually fix that. Time Lord society is actually built on the torture of and experimentation on a child. Regeneration is tested many times, which means that this child was repeatedly killed in order to recreate regeneration and give it to the rest of the Time Lords.

And then, in season 10, The Master (or Missy, at the time) gets a MASSIVE character arc. Even back in season 8, they showed a desire to reconnect as friends with The Doctor, and by season 10 was showing progress towards becoming more of an antihero, or possibly even a proper hero. However, in season 12, we get reintroduced to The Master, who is just evil again. Not a single ounce of that character arc remains. And we later find out that The Master destroyed Gallifrey. Again. After we just spent so many years working towards getting it back. All because The Master learned about the Timeless Child.

Anyways. It could be rationalized that The Master learned about the Timeless Child, and because of the newly rekindled friendship with The Doctor, they became insanely angry at the Time Lords for what they did, and destroyed them, and in the process of this genocide they slid back into being evil to cope with it. But that's not what they did, or if that was the intention they didn't really do a good job with it.

However. I argue that it would be better overall if The Master was the Timeless Child. Learning what the Time Lords did to them would have broken the Master, causing this singular burst of unbridled rage, which would end up destroying Gallifrey (or not, because I still don't like that Gallifrey was destroyed so soon after it was restored). Then, when The Master meets back up with The Doctor, they can be conflicted, because The Doctor is still their friend, but is also a Time Lord, with that aspect that was tortured out of The Master. So, The Master is constantly in an internal battle between fighting The Doctor or not. There's also this anger about how the fight for extra regenerations that The Master was fighting in the classic series was essentially just a waste of time. They always had more regenerations. They have this power in an unlimited capacity now, and that could go to their head, driving them insane with power, also explaining the backslide into villainy

It would also spark an internal battle within The Doctor, as they would now be aware of what regeneration truly cost, so the next time they regenerate they could reflect on what it would mean. Do they have the right to use this gift, knowing it was stolen from their best friend? Should they just let themself die? Or do they regenerate, and continue to pay it forward? Which is even better since The Master is who killed that version of The Doctor.

Is what I would say, until I saw that that episode was entirely created by George Lucas.

For those who don't know, George Lucas and his family have cameos in Revenge of the Sith as some blue aliens in the background of the Senate building.

And apparently, when George was writing this episode, he centered it on his character and was like "My OC is one of the most important people on his planet, and also he is an amazing crime scene investigator, and he also knows how to navigate the criminal world of Tatooine, and also he is really good at fighting, and he uses two pistols at once, and he's also a really good father who would do anything for his kids! He doesn't have any flaws, either."

Also, when we see a Jedi use the Force on something large, we see a physical strain on the wielder. Lifting something takes physical effort, then though the Force is a metaphysical thing.

I would like to put forth the theory (that may or may not have already been addressed) that the Force does not negate inertia, but rather redirects it through the Jedi. Essentially, it's subject to Newtons Third Law of Motion. In order to push something away, you need something to push against. In order to lift something, you need to be on something that can handle the weight. The Jedi does not directly deal with the weights and pressures, but the environment does.

So, trying to lift something heavy while in a ship means that the ship will take that weight, and trying to lift something too heavy will bring the ship down. Or pushing something could end up pushing the whole ship in an unexpected way, causing more of an issue.

So, the Jedi must be on solid ground to do big things with the Force to avoid unintended consequences. Now, the Force does still have a mitigating effect on inertia, which is how the ground doesn't get destroyed all the time, but it's not absolute.

All of this is well and good, standard Star Wars fare.

Later, we learn that defeating the wielder of the darksaber in combat gives you ownership of the darksaber, and thus also ownership of the planet Mandalore. This is fine. It is heavily implied that defeating the wielder of the darksaber means that the wielder is killed, passing the saber on to the person who killed them. That's how Maul took over Mandalore, he killed Pre Vizsla.

After Maul is taken down, the saber ends up with Sabine Wren, then with Bo Katan, then Moff Gideon, then Din Djarinn, then back to Bo Katan. Some of that line didn't have anything to do with killing the original wielder, which does throw the lineage off.

If we go with the logic of "Whoever kills the wielder of the darksaber then wins the darksaber" then the darksaber is owned by Obi-Wan Kenobi, as he kills Maul in Rebels. Darth Vader then kills Obi-Wan, The Emperor kills Vader, then much later Rey kills the Emperor. Or, you could consider that Vader killed the Emperor, then died of natural causes, and I would assume that the darksaber would be inhereted by his heir, which would be Luke, then since nobody killed Luke it would go to Leia, then to Ben Solo, and then it kinda would go to nobody. Or maybe Rey, since she takes the name Skywalker.

However. If we go by the logic that is literally set up by the Mandalorian season 3, when Bo Katan takes it back, then defeat does not mean death, but just a general defeat, and maybe even just disarming the wielder. Let's run it back. Nobody defeated Din Djarinn beforehand, except the armorer kinda did during a sort of training montage, Moff Gideon was also defeated before he even revealed he had the saber, I don't remember Rebels enough, Ahsoka defeated Maul during the Siege of Mandalore, the Emperor defeated Maul before that, but the icing on the cake is at the start of this post.

Obi-Wan defeated Pre Vizsla the very first time we ever saw the darksaber on screen in a fight which included Obi-Wan disarming Pre Vizsla. Which means that from that point on, Obi-Wan is the actual owner of the darksaber. Until Obi-Wan is defeated in combat, and I don't even know who would own the darksaber. Unless the fight explicitly has to include the darksaber, in which case Obi-Wan never wields the darksaber, and he owns it until his death.