Are Sith really evil?

[SalsaDMA]

Predjuce brings nothing good to the table, and predjudice is exactly what the jedi brings to the table as far as Sith are concerned. This is VERY easy to see if you try and play a lightside sith where very few of the jedi you meet will actually agree to work things out peacefully despite your attempts to do so. As a sithwarrior, on my way to 50, I met less than a handfull of jedis that were able see past the predjudice they got indoctrinated with. The rest went for a 'resolution' where they tried to kill me in cold blood purely for being a sith.

 

The empire, as lead by the emperor is definately "evil", but that does not necesarily make the individuals within evil too.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Parali
reply to bad quote

[Kiralai]

While I do agree that the Star Wars universe as Lucas envisioned it for the purpose of his trilogy was very black-and-white with regards to good (Jedi) and evil (Sith), I tend to appreciate the broader EU scope a little more (personally). It just seems more realistic to me that there are shades of grey in there somewhere; more interesting as well since it obviously leads to more possibilities.

 

Clearly, the Sith ideology does lend itself more to selfish/evil doings, while the Jedi ideology lends itself more to selfless/good doings. However that's not to say that a Jedi cannot perform evil acts, and that a Sith cannot perform good acts. So long as they maintain their ideology at large, I can see room for a little bit of flexibility with an individual Sith or Jedi's actions/morality without them necessarily being a traitor to their order. I don't think that a Sith can be purely good and still want to maintain their identity as a Sith; I struggle to understand what would keep them tied to the Sith way if they completely disagree with it. Likewise, I can't see a Jedi delving deep into the Dark Side without becoming corrupt.

 

I suppose this flexibility issue is a lot more difficult for a Jedi due to the corruption cascade that comes with dabbling in the Dark Side, where the corruption is a more natural development that occurs whether the (former) Jedi would have willed it or not. The situation may be different for a Sith: choosing to abandon the Dark Side due to conflicting morality issues (or, okay, being eliminated if their beliefs are too extreme). As far as I know there is no "Light Side corruption" that pushes them in that direction regardless of their nature or will. Perhaps the Sith have a little more flexibility in their morality in that regard. Of course they're still subject to corruption from the Dark Side and while there may be Sith with some underlying morality or honor, it's entirely likely that it would be snuffed out as they continued their quest for power.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Kiralai

[alricka]

. This is VERY easy to see if you try and play a lightside sith where very few of the jedi you meet will actually agree to work things out peacefully despite your attempts to do so. As a sithwarrior, on my way to 50, I met less than a handfull of jedis that were able see past the predjudice they got indoctrinated with. The rest went for a 'resolution' where they tried to kill me in cold blood purely for being a sith.

Interesting. I'm not yet a 50 SW, but the (NPC) Jedi I've dealt with so far almost always brought up the "surrender peacefully" line. On Balmorra one even offered me a "chance for redemption". And I'm not a Light Side Sith - actually, I'm a slightly dark Neutral.

[Asalai]

The question of wether the sith are evil and the jedi are good isnt really a relevant question. The entire mythology of the jedi and sith revolve entirely around the jedi philosophy. The sith are simply a by product. They are an inversion of the jedi for the sole purpose of providing an antagonist.

 

That being understood its important to realize that the jedi philosophy / code is based loosely on zen Buddhism. This is where all the no attachments no passion only serenity stuff comes from. Dont think for a second that Lucas dreamed this stuff up himself. I mean take a look at obi-wan and yoda dying and becoming one with the force. If thats not a direct representation of achieving nirvana I dont know what is. Anyways this is probably fairly obvious to anyone who knows anything about buddhism or who grew up in the 60s when eastern philosophy was really popular. By the way i most certainly am not saying that jedi is the same as buddhism (dont flame me) just saying it borrows alot from it. Also borrows alot from taoist influences as well.

 

So why does this matter. Jedi and Sith arent good or evil because buddhism and infact most eastern philosophies that the jedi borrow from simply dont recognize the existance of good and evil in the same way that western philosophies do. Good and Evil are not absolutes they are simply a way of describing sets of actions or beliefs that typically lead to negative outcomes.

[swifferdude]

Yes, the Sith are really evil.

 

The Empire, however, is not. Merely a collective of war-focused peoples.

 

ya, I agree with this, the sith are evil, but the empire itself is just alies with the sith... tht doesnt make them evil, neccesarily

[AndersonDustin]

I think the difference between the light and dark side of the force, is the difference between selfishness and selfless-ness. Which is at the heart of several religions. Just something I think I've noticed.

[Sathla]

I'm not sure that "Peace is a lie" is actually a bad thing to start with, it's not pretty, but it's honest. I see it as more of a reality then a declaration of war.

 

Peace is also kept with lies.. There for peace is hypocritical of its own definition.

 

I.E.

 

"Political peace" Is kept with lies.

[nameisimmaterial]

I have a few semi unrelated things to share.

 

I recall a mission on Dromund Kaas about a Sith claiming that the beasts there were simply manifestations of the Force, and that Sith were the highest level of that manifestation. That would make sense with the "Living Force", specifically the Midi-chlorians. That would make the Jedi no different.

 

My personal philosophy is that there is no chaos or order, those are ways to categorize the way of the universe. There are no Sith or Jedi, those are simply ways to categorize the differing interpretations of the wills of the Force.

 

The Empire is not evil, simply a bloated, bueracratic, xenophobic, militaristic form of government.

 

Thanks for reading my ramblings on the subject at hand.

[Venea]

This has possibly been touched on before, but I'm not willing to read 12 pages

Additionally, only the most dedicated of people will likely read this....

 

The Sith Inquisitor has a Companion Conversation (several, actually) with Ashara about this very topic.

While it will take a considerable amount of time (Ashara is gained in Act 2, during the Imperial visit to Taris), it really brings some thought to if being Sith (force user, not race) is truely to be evil.

 

 

 

Long story short, early on Ashara asks if you are evil, being a Sith. You have the option to tell her that being Sith is not inherently evil, but rather the actions of the Sith that make them good or evil. Furthermore, you point out to her that the Sith Code isn't a strict set of rules as the Jedi Code, but rather a loose guideline to be interpreted at your own will. You tell her that Jedi are tightly controlled by the order, while Sith are truely free to enact their own desires, be they morally good or evil. Through Victory I gain freedom. The Force shall set me free.

 

 

It's all actually a rather deep conversation, and rather nice. At least if you say the right things.

[Atsurak]

This has possibly been touched on before, but I'm not willing to read 12 pages

Additionally, only the most dedicated of people will likely read this....

 

The Sith Inquisitor has a Companion Conversation (several, actually) with Ashara about this very topic.

While it will take a considerable amount of time (Ashara is gained in Act 2, during the Imperial visit to Taris), it really brings some thought to if being Sith (force user, not race) is truely to be evil.

 

 

 

Long story short, early on Ashara asks if you are evil, being a Sith. You have the option to tell her that being Sith is not inherently evil, but rather the actions of the Sith that make them good or evil. Furthermore, you point out to her that the Sith Code isn't a strict set of rules as the Jedi Code, but rather a loose guideline to be interpreted at your own will. You tell her that Jedi are tightly controlled by the order, while Sith are truely free to enact their own desires, be they morally good or evil. Through Victory I gain freedom. The Force shall set me free.

 

 

It's all actually a rather deep conversation, and rather nice. At least if you say the right things.

 

having not played an inquisitor to that level.... surely you have to take that conversation with a pinch of salt? you're in the process of trying to corrupt her, i hardly think lying is beyond you

[Nyaralath]

Darwinist

 

Nietzsche-an

 

Seems to work for them

 

strongest lead, rest follow

 

Yes I see the Sith as more of a "might makes right" philosophy.

 

For my character I have not made one light side choice. He views the ultimate state of being as being nothing...the emptiness that the universe tends to gravitate toward....so death seems rather inconsequential, a necessary step to emptiness, and it is his birth born right to kill and bring beings closer to nothingness...being a force user he believe nature imbued him with his talents to serve this purpose....an intergalactic grim reaper.

 

Thanks for reading!

[Niddhog]

It has been mentioned in lore that the dark side does in fact increase aggression/negative emotions in people. That is what is supposed to have happened to the Rakata. The more they devled into the dark side, the more evil they became. They became so ruthless that when they lost their powers (some plague supposedly) their slaves wasted no time in visciously rising against them.

 

The idea is that the use of the dark side is supposed to be like a narcotic, a rush of ecstasy/power. The more you use it, the harder it is to resist, and the more corrupted you become. Not just in body (prolonged use of the darkside will rot flesh, loss of limbs, sickness, eyes/skin changing color, etc), but in the soul as well.

 

That is why the Jedi fear those who are truly Grey (like the Voss). They draw on both sides of the force, yet somehow shield themselves from the corruption of the dark side. The Jedi fear they will become true dark siders at any moment.

 

As far as the empire being evil? As long as its controlled by the Sith (the emporer) then yes it is evil as well. The sith hold all the positions of power, and are unquestionably evil. While some sith are evil for the sheer thrill of it, most seem more concerned with power. This pursuit of power without any limitations is what makes them evil. They think nothing of war/enslaving others- it is a personal gain for them.

 

Oh yeah, this was all from Wookiepedia articles

 

The OP is right though, the Jedi/Sith differences can be stated on a more chaos/order scale of things. While I still feel Jedi are good, their rigid structure/adherent to the codes (the limitations on attachments wasn't in the original jedi, but instead a rash measure taken to stem the flow of darksiders. After one outbreak of "fallen jedi" the measures were instituted along with a formal council to oversee everyone.)

 

The Jedi purged the galaxy of sith for the very reason of the Empire (in the game and in the movies). Basically they feared dark siders taking direct control over subjects, then using their power to conquer/enslave. Its what the rakata did, and its definately what the empire is doing.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Niddhog

[Jorander]

Lot of wild ideas and big misconceptions floating around in this thread about what the Sith and Jedi are and aren't. I have seen a few people notice them and try to tackle them. If I had more time to type up this post, I would attempt to do those details greater justice, but I don't, so I can't. Instead, I will give the cliffnotes version of my debunk of what I have come to know as, "The Lie of Lumiya."

 

The Lie: Sith philosophy does not have to be evil, and can be used for a good end. People like Vader and Palpatine were misrepresenting Sith teaching and what it is that they stand for.

 

Misconceptions and reality: Bear with me, this will take a bit.

 

One big misconception I have seen, is the idea that Jedi don't use emotions when tapping into the Force. They do. Specifically, they use emotions like joy and love when they tap into the light side. Not all Jedi from all eras function this way, but it is seen enough in the EU, particularly within the post RotJ era that I think it has merit.

 

Another big one is that the Sith use the full range of emotions. They don't. They can't. Emotions that are either weak or positive don't fuel the power of the dark side. Vader, for example, loses access to his bodily regenerative abilities when he experiences joy. Another example is when guilt completely shuts off Bane's ability to access the dark side.

 

The dark side corrupts. This is not true. People think this because they don't know what the dark side is. People externalize the dark side, when they shouldn't. The cave in TESB, Jacen Solo's experience with Vergere, and Mace Windu's reasons for creating Vaapad all demonstrate how darkness is something that is internal. If the dark side corrupted, then everyone in Star Wars would be all corrupt, all the time.

 

With those three big ones out of the way, I am going to quickly examine their philosophies, and their mantra. Note that the two are not the same, but one is designed to facilitate the other. I will look at each successive line one at a time, to better understand how the two relate.

 

There is no emotion, there is peace. Many people take a literal reading of the first line of the Jedi code and think, "oh, they don't like emotion, or think it is a bad thing, so they avoid it or something." That is not true. What this is, is a denial of a personal ego that is separate from the rest of the galaxy, and a recognition of the connection to all life through the Unifying Force.

 

Peace is a lie, there is only passion. This is not stating that the natural state of all things is war. This is not saying that peace is bad. From the Sith perspective, peace is impossible, because there is nothing to have peace with. Everything in the whole galaxy is wrapped up in the self, the ego.

 

There is no ignorance, there is knowledge. My actions are informed by guidance from the Force. Simple as that. Note that this is an ideal, or rather a goal, not a statement of fact.

 

Through passion, I gain strength. I use the Force through an imposition of will via the ego, and there is no stronger imposition of will than that of passion. Specifically, anger, which has been confirmed to be the strongest emotion available to Force users. Note the difference in focus with the mantra so far.

 

There is no passion, there is serenity. Hm, look at that, passion, peace, lies, serenity... I'm sensing a pattern here. Rather than impose my will on the Force, I recognize my connection to all life, and through that connection, access the Force.

 

Through strength, I gain power. With my strong passions, I can impose my will onto the Force, and bend it to my will.

 

There is no chaos, there is harmony. The focus here is again on the galaxy as a whole in macrocosm vs. microcosm. The Force guides life, rather than individual egos forcing things.

 

Through power, I gain victory. With the power that I gained through imposition of will, I can kick anybody's butt that dares disagree with me.

 

Through victory, my chains are broken. Because I can kick anyone's butt, I don't have to do what anyone says. No, really, this is the main thrust of those two lines. Sounds pretty childish when seen in those terms but there it is.

 

There is no death, there is the Force. Ah, now we come to a realization of where the Jedi code leads. My death is immaterial, because I am giving back everything that I was and am, into the Force. We see the ego finally subsumed by the Greater Force. I will come back to this later. It is at this point, that the Jedi returns all that they are to the Force, including their own power. Yes, Jedi do go after power as well, but not so they can cling to it, fearful of losing it. They claim it for the purpose of surrendering it. Specifically, surrendering it back into the Force, literally giving strength to all life everywhere, which is the focus of their code. There is so much more to say about Jedi teaching here, but I have classes to attend, and I may very well come back to this if I can tear myself away from Book of Sith.

 

The Force shall free me. At first this seems like the least scary line in the bunch, sounds like a good thing, freedom achieved through using the Force. What it actually means though, is certain death for every living thing in the galaxy, should it ever be totally realized. Here we see the Force actually being subjugated into the position of actor on behalf of the ego, freeing the ego from its constraints. This should scare the hell out of every single character in the setting. A Sith that has achieved this has literally made the energy of life itself, his *****. There is so much more I could say about this, and I may when I have the time.

 

But for now, I will say that once a Sith has complete control over life everywhere, due to their quest for power, they will likely kill everything so they become stronger in the dark side. That was, after all, Palpatine's, and now Vitiate's goal. The Sith code is centered around what the Sith teach about using the Force, and how personal power is the greatest virtue one can achieve. That is the heart of Sith teaching, in a nutshell. They take everything, so they can have the greatest power.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Jorander

[Kiralai]

having not played an inquisitor to that level.... surely you have to take that conversation with a pinch of salt? you're in the process of trying to corrupt her, i hardly think lying is beyond you

 

That very well could be true; though a lot of times when your character has the option to tell a blatant lie in SWTOR it is marked as a "(Lie)" in your response options. Not always true I imagine, but I do feel like I see it when lying would serve a purpose (as I imagine it would if you were attempting to corrupt someone). It's up to interpretation though, whether you want to view it as your character lying, simply stating his/her own opinion on the matter, or perhaps telling something that has a degree of truth to it. Without the "(Lie)" tag it's hard to say definitively.

 

Admittedly this next bit comes from Wookieepedia, so the legitimacy of it may be up for debate, but it could be a good place to start anyway:

 

"The Sith believed that the only being who could truly live up to the code and attain freedom was the Sith'ari, and as such saw it as a guideline by which to live, not a law to abide by. "

[TheNegotiator]

Evil is a subjective term, but in the Star Wars world the Sith are definitely evil. They use hatred as a motivating force. Yoda told us Sith use lies and deception to get what they want (true...see Palps, Dookoo, the planet Voss). That sounds like a pretty corrupted group of people if you ask me. However, if you play an empire character you will find lots of "normal" NPC's in the Empire...Sith included...which is a lot closer to what real life would be like.

 

I think the movies have shown that all users of the dark side are morally corrupted o a degree, some more than others. I think the game mirrors this.

Edited February 14, 2012 by TheNegotiator

[Aloro]

There are multiple truthful and accurate answers to the question, "Are Sith evil", varying based on how you define "Sith" and "evil".

 

"Sith" is a race. "Sith" is a religion. "Sith" is an organization (actually more than one). There's a lot of overlap but these are three different groups.

 

The race isn't innately good or evil, though their culture is steeped in evil (evil by modern Western standards). Most Force-sensitive Sith purebloods follow the Sith religion.

 

The Sith religion was clearly uneqivocally evil in the movies, but much more grey in the EU. Why am I so certain about the Sith religion in the movies? George Lucas talked about it in the Special Edition of "A New Hope": "Which brings us up to the films 4, 5, and 6, in which Anakin's offspring redeem him and allow him to fulfill the prophecy where he brings balance to the Force by doing away with the Sith and getting rid of evil in the universe." That's pretty cut-and-dried, even if he's missing a lot of what most of us would consider the larger philosophical picture, e.g. isn't Grand Moff Tarkin also evil? Wouldn't there be more normal non-Force-using people out in the Galaxy who were also evil? But those very reasonable questions have an answer. I don't like the answer, but there it is. When Vader killed Palpatine and died in the process, he eliminated evil in the universe. By extension, the Sith in the movies were Evil. That's that.

 

In the movies, Lucas developed a very black-and-white Manichaean philosophy, while in the EU, the vast majority of authors have tried to lend a more nuanced view to things. That's why we have a lot more liminal characters in the EU, perched on the threshold of being one thing or another. Those tend to be more interesting to me as a reader, and more realistic as well. But they contradict the movies.

 

In the movies, it is absolutely clear that the Dark Side of the Force is evil, and is based on evil, and causes evil. I know a lot of people prefer more complex views and don't like the simple either-or distinctions that Lucas used, and so a LOT of people try to retcon the Dark Side based on their own views. For good and for ill, Lucas was absolutely clear on the issue of good and evil and how they relate to the Force. Anything to the contrary is, sadly, not technically Star Wars canon. It's his baby and he gets to decide.

 

Some people would prefer to think that Anakin, being motivated out of love, couldn't have been really evil. Wellllllllll you might want to tell that to the Sand People he murdered (including the women and children) or for that matter the Jedi younglings. Anakin was motivated by pride and greed; he wanted to be the best and most powerful Jedi, and wanted to have Amidala, even though the Jedi code forbade it. I'm sure he had a lot of positive emotions as well, but notably those weren't what drew him to the Dark Side. The tipping point for little Annie was his fear of losing Amidala; Yoda explained all of this to us back in ESB, when he said, "Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." And, hey, he was right!

 

The people who, in the EU, managed to work their way out of the Dark Side ALL, without fail, stopped believing the core precepts of the Sith religion. Similarly, every Jedi who fell to the Dark Side stopped believing in the Jedi Code along the way. The endpoints are always the same; the Light Side isn't compatible with the Sith religion any more than the Light Side is compatible with the Jedi religion.

 

As a tangent, I call these "religions" because they were a lot more than philosophies. Over time, the Jedi and Sith religions became burdened down by dogma and tradition, which caused them to lose track of some of their core ideas. But I digress.

 

The Sith organization changed a lot of times over the course of Galactic history. As has already been demonstrated in this thread, it's quite possible to belong to the Sith organization while not adhering to Sith religious views (or for that matter being of the Sith race). The vast majority of the members of the Sith Empire aren't Force-sensitive, and don't much care about the Sith religion (which really only is at all meaningful to Force users), and obviously also aren't Sith purebloods. Most members of the Sith Empire are probably just perfectly normal people (i.e. neutral in D&D terms).

 

So, to recap:

 

Sith race: Not inherently evil, but they tend to choose evil for social reasons.

 

Sith religion in the movies: Evil. Just Evil. Capital 'E' Evil. No grey areas. No confusion.

 

Sith religion in the EU: Moooooostly Evil, but it gets confusing when authors apply different core philosophies. Generally speaking, it's VERY safe to say that someone who follows the Sith religion and really believes in it will be Evil, and anyone that follows the Jedi religion and really believes in it will be Good. There are examples of people who kinda sorta follow one path but aren't really committed to it, and these tend to be confusing.

 

Sith Empires: Usually pretty evil as a collective but full of ordinary people, too.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Aloro

[Kiralai]

One other thing I forgot to mention that is somewhat perplexing to me is the way Light Side/Dark Side conversation options are used in-game. Not all "Light Side" choices are morally good, and not all "Dark Side" choices are morally evil. Sometimes they seem contradictory to the idea that Light = Jedi = Morally Good, and Dark = Sith = Morally Evil.

 

For example, the very first option you get that results in LS/DS points as a Sith Warrior is the option to either kill a faction-neutral assassin (which rewards DS points) or spare her life and turn her over to Imperial Intelligence to make use of her talents for the Empire (which rewards LS points). The thing is, there is a "right answer" in terms of what the Sith overseer (and Darth Baras) are looking for in your response--they want you to spare her because it means that you have not squandered a valuable resource. According to your Sith superiors, the option that gives LS points is the "correct" one, the one that is the most valuable to a Sith aspiring to join the order. If you choose to kill her (for DS points) you get reprimanded. But why is the right answer a Light Side option? It's clearly what the Sith (at least as they are presented in terms of Overseer Tremel and Darth Baras) approve of. And it's certainly not a morally good response. Yes, you're saving her life, but only because you believe there is potential for her to take multiple lives for the benefit of the Empire.

 

Another one (though one I don't necessarily disagree with in terms of being a Sith), is another of the early quests on Korriban where you have the option for a Sith to bring that Tukata brain back to Lord Renning and turn Malora over as a traitor for plotting to discredit her master. Assuming you bring the brain back to Renning, you have the option of telling him that there's nothing else he needs to know (thereby letting Malora escape punishment, and giving you LS points) or by exposing Malora as a traitor (and gaining DS points). I can understand why the Dark Side option is what it is--by turning her in, you pretty much guarantee that she will be tortured. The choice is morally wrong in that regard, but there's also an issue of honor. While the Light Side option is morally right in a sense that you are saving her from torture, it's also the more dishonorable/deceptive of the two. The Dark Side option allows for a more sound honor system, in that you aren't allowing a known traitor to continue scheming against the person she is sworn to serve, but is amoral in a sense that you are passively subjecting her to torture.

 

The only other situation I can think of off the top of my head is on Hoth, when your character has to decide whether to commend a Chiss officer or a Human officer. In this case the distinction between LS/DS points ultimately seems to come down to an issue of morality, rather than an issue of Jedi ideology vs. Sith ideology. The Chiss officer is far more intelligent and worthwhile in a strategic military sense, but he is an alien and is generally subject to prejudice within the Empire. The Human officer is worthless and incompetent, but he is a race that the Empire readily accepts. You gain LS points for nominating the Chiss for promotion (presumably because you are being fair, and not allowing prejudice to interfere with your decision--the morally good option). You gain DS points for nominating the human (presumably because you are giving yourself over to prejudice--the morally evil option). The problem I have is that the best Sith option could very arguably be the moral, "Light Side" one--presumably the same one a Jedi would pick in the same scenario. Sith seem to be very unforgiving of failure and incompetence, and very adamantly against squandering valuable resources. Would a Sith really want to promote a functionally worthless Human instead of a strategically valuable Chiss? I don't really think so. His decision certainly wouldn't be based on a desire for galactic "equality," but in terms of a Sith's perspective on weak/worthless individuals vs. strong/valuable individuals the choice would be the same.

 

From what I can gather, it's fairly obvious that the Sith as a whole are "evil," but it can be expressed in ways that aren't overtly morally wrong just by definition. A Sith can be merciful and still be a Sith, so long as that mercy is selfish. A Sith can also be honorable, so long as it is expressed as duty to the Empire (or to his master). The other thing I gather is that the idea of the game's "Dark Side" options directly relating to being a "quality Sith" is somewhat flawed, given that sometimes options that are marked as Light Side are either "blatantly" Sith (at least in terms of the game's universe) as with the first example, or arguably/logically Sith as with the last example.

[dreoff]

The sith do not operate off of positive emotions - True

 

The dark side is inherently evil and negative - True

 

The dark side powers are fueled by negative emotions - True

 

Star Wars has clearly defined good and evil - True

 

The jedi don't seek to become emotionless - True

 

The jedi still experience positive emotions - True

 

Dark jedi and light sith - the product of bad writers who don't understand the very basic concepts that Star Wars and the force are built upon.

 

I disagree entirely. The entire reason Anakin became a sith was to save Padme. Yes he sorta killed her, but his intention came from love. Also, he saved palpatine in his office from Windu because he loved palpatine like his father. The dark side is not inherently evil because, as mentioned, good and evil is a matter of perspective. our 3rd point is wrong and I disagree. Star Wars does not have defined good and evil if som what was Mace Windu? Was he good because he's a jedi? Was he Evil because his first thought was always killing and not sparing people (i.e. Jango fett or palpatine). The jedi do not try t be emotionless because they still believe in compassion for all life, which is an emotion. And the jedi also feel negative emotions.

 

Also, I resent your claim that the force is built upon good and evil. The force is neutral and isn't intrested in jedi or sith rule over the galaxy. The force is a tolltat can be weilded for good or evil, regarless of a title such as jedi and sith.

 

P.S. If Star Wars had defined good and evil, what exactly are Imp. Agents? evil for dealing with the sith? good for standing up for their ideals? or either one depending on point of view? Thank you very much.

[Geoteknate]

Watch the timeline video about the Jedi and the Great Hyperspace War....

 

http://www.swtor.com/info/holonet/timeline

 

 

No one is innocent.

[TKMaster]

The "they use all emotions even love" argument is moot since love is always twisted into death or/and revenge by Sith.

[Aloro]

I disagree entirely. The entire reason Anakin became a sith was to save Padme. Yes he sorta killed her, but his intention came from love.

 

Nope! Anakin FEARED losing her the way he lost his mother. He had force visions of Padme dying in childbirth and refused to let that happen; he'd do anything to save her. His fear drove him to the dark side, not his love. Although in essence this is precisely why Jedi avoided attachments, because it was easy to develop fear of loss. Yoda explained exactly what was going to happen to Anakin, but little Annie was too proud and too self-absorbed to listen.

 

Also, he saved palpatine in his office from Windu because he loved palpatine like his father.

 

Again, no. He was afraid that without Palpatine he couldn't save Padme. Yes, Anakin felt love, and friendship, and tenderness, but those were not what drove him to the dark side. "Fear is the path to the dark side", as I quoted above. The novelization makes this quite clear as well.

[sfatmedic]

Is chewbacca is to wookie as sith is to evil....

[Vecke]

The precursor to that question always has to be "Does evil exist?"

 

If evil exists, then I'd say the Sith fit pretty much every standard definition (especially when they cackle with glee as they shoot people with lightning).

 

If evil doesn't exist, then obviously they aren't.

 

In Star Wars, I think evil is an absolute. It does exist in that universe. As such, in that universe, the Sith are pretty evil. Just because they're very good at rationalizing their behavior doesn't mean they're not evil.

 

Their entire culture is based on lies, betrayal, and murder. It's not Darwinism. It's not about the strongest surviving. Killing someone who trusts you in their sleep isn't about strength. One could argue that the betrayal aspect to the Sith works against Darwinism, as it negates the ability to ever truly have an ally.

 

The Sith don't teach strength. They teach individualism. There's a difference.

[CareerKnight]

My two cents

All the sith we see in the movies are evil, in this game the leadership of the sith empire are evil as well, does following the sith code or exploring powers outside of the jedi's domain require or make you evil, no.

 

The explanation of this apparent contradiction lies in the origins of the sith. A rough quote from B5 that sums up the sith is "you're like abused children who have grown big enough to do the same thing to someone else, as if that will somehow balance the scales, it won't." The sith began as a rebellion against the oppression of the jedi code, the problem is they never lost this rebellious outlook so they never moderated themselves, never stopped each other from going to far and became more extreme and more evil as the focused on negative emotions because they were the fastest path to power. This sith in this game have all that and the fact that the jedi and republic attempted to commit genocide to try and remove them forever.

[Jorander]

I disagree entirely.

 

Okay.

 

The entire reason Anakin became a sith was to save Padme.

 

No. That was the lie that Anakin kept telling himself. He became a Sith to avoid facing the fears that tormented him for much of his life.

 

Yes he sorta killed her, but his intention came from love.

 

Two things: In multiple sections of Star Wars media, it is confirmed that actions are the only thing that matter, and intentions do not. Secondly, Anakin did not love Padme, at least not by the start of Episode 3. His motivation for being a Sith came purely from fear.

 

Also, he saved palpatine in his office from Windu because he loved palpatine like his father.

 

The RotS novelization, and the dialogue in the actual movie, makes it quite clear that he was trying to keep Palpatine from dying, because he wanted the information about saving people from death that was promised to him. Even though he hated Obi-Wan by then, he still saw Obi-Wan as more of a father figure than Palpatine.

 

The dark side is not inherently evil because, as mentioned, good and evil is a matter of perspective.

 

This is hilarious. This isn't just an appeal to relativist thinking, this is a poorly thought out appeal to relativist thinking. To start with, I am going to fire off a quote from the man himself, George Lucas.

 

"The Force is not inherently good or bad, but it does have a benevolent side and malevolent side." Yes, he specifically uses the words benevolent and malevolent. See, it works like this. It doesn't matter if your hand is numb, and you stick it in a fire. You may not feel it burning, but it is still inflicting damage in the same way as if a person who had feeling in their hand stuck it into a fire. The Force works the same way. You may be getting something different from your perceptions, but your perceptions are immaterial compared to the reality.

 

If we really want to get into how you are defining good and evil, I can simply say this. The light side, is totally 100% beneficial and helpful to all life everywhere. Rather than simply saying it is good, I will say, it is good for you. The dark side is the opposite in every way. It is bad for you, and is always, no matter what, harmful. To the user and the victim.

 

our 3rd point is wrong and I disagree. Star Wars does not have defined good and evil if som what was Mace Windu?

 

A good man who almost became evil. See? Still clearly defined. Having a clearly defined system of good and evil doesn't preclude people from crossing the line from one to the other. In fact, it is the only thing that makes it possible. Without a clearly defined system of good and evil, you have no line to cross.

 

Was he good because he's a jedi?

 

This begs the question, "what makes a good person?" If you are going to create a line of thought that poses a question, particularly one that could be an if-then, you need to answer the question, and not rely on an appeal to ignorance to make your point. The answer is no, of course he wasn't a good man because he was a Jedi. He was a good man because he was guided by the Force and followed the light, the benevolent side of the Living Force.

 

Was he Evil because his first thought was always killing and not sparing people (i.e. Jango fett or palpatine).

 

Mace Windu's first thought in any situation was, "be guided by the Force, and from there, act, regardless of how that turns out." There were plenty of times where he spared people. The thing about the Jedi approach to combat, is when they sense through the Force, that it is a fight to the death (which is why they are always on about the will of the Force, and being in-tune with it, so they don't mistakenly identify a situation) they respond by quickly and decisively ending the fight, saving innocent lives.

 

Also, I resent your claim that the force is built upon good and evil.

 

See the above quote about the two sides of the Living Force, you know, where George Lucas mentions benevolence and malevolence. Lucas was the one who defined the Force as it is, so resent his claim. Then there is of course the Unifying Force, or as Lucas called it, the Greater Force, which deals with our place in the universe, connection to all life, and destiny. Connecting to that is done through letting go of an ego or will-based understanding, which is absolutely beneficial.

 

The force is neutral and isn't intrested in jedi or sith rule over the galaxy.

 

This is true. but it is worth noting that the Force has a good and bad side.

 

The force is a tolltat can be weilded for good or evil, regarless of a title such as jedi and sith.

 

This is not true. The Force can only be wielded for evil. The Force can only be communed with for good. Note the difference there, and then go back and look at what I said about the codes of the respective orders. Imposing one's will upon the Force, regardless of the result, is dark, period. It also isn't the Jedi way.

 

P.S. If Star Wars had defined good and evil, what exactly are Imp. Agents?

 

Depends on which specific agent you are looking at, and what said agent does. Don't try and take this into the realm of generalization, as that is not where this is headed. If you want actual discussion, we can either focus on ethical philosophies of groups, or specific individuals within groups, not the groups themselves. I would however, say that the overall ethical philosophy of the Imperial Intelligence is pretty harmful to most life. Especially now that I know more about the story.

 

evil for dealing with the sith?

 

I think you know the answer to this is, "not enough information." This sounds like a lead-up to a point you are trying to make. Simply saying, "dealing with the Sith," does not provide nearly enough information to make a value judgement.

 

good for standing up for their ideals?

 

Standing up for one's ideals hardly constitutes good. What if those "ideals," are horribly harmful to everyone? Not enough information for a value judgement.

 

or either one depending on point of view?

 

Again, fire, it's either hot or it isn't. Doesn't matter how you percieve it, it still burns. Examine the facts of the case, and then based on what you know, make a judgement call. Personal perspective doesn't even have to play a major role in this. At most it can be limited to barely affecting judgement at all, depending on how much one wishes to keep personal bias out of an analysis

 

Thank you very much.

 

You're welcome.