Are Sith really evil?

[Shokzman]

From my perspective the Jedi are evil

Quoted from Anikin in episode 3. I totally agree with him .

(though Instead of killing the younglings I would've kidnapped them and raised them as sith.)

[Haajib]

I quote from star trek

 

"It may turn out that the moral thing to do is not the right thing to do."

 

Even if you act on moral and ethical like a light sided jedi would. In the end you will only destroy the order you seek to protect

Edited February 19, 2012 by Haajib

[MGriffith]

Alright, I'm hearing a lot of adversity towards the Sith. I'll agree that they have corrupt leaders, yes... But let me offer this as a follow-up question?

 

Are the Jedi a necessarily good organization?

 

Organisations themselves are neither good nor bad. They can however be directed to be doing good or bad things. Now if you compare the Jedi and the Sith, as an organisation, you see that the first attempts to help other people who are in need of help or protection, while the second primarily attempts to help itself.

 

 

Morality choices in SW:TOR (and in other Bioware games) are not along the christian good-evil dichotomy but along the altruistic-machiavellian scale.

 

Why did the senator on Coruscant need to be exposed? Not because she was evil but because she operated on a 'the end justifies the means' basis and as such would continued to put her own believes of right and wrong above the laws. Somebody who has such a degree of control over an entire planet and even directs the course of the entire republic can not be allowed to disregard the law when it is convenient.

Even if from a good-evil point of view it can easily be argued that the senator was doing good deeds and that the light side choice was evil in that it created or prolongued the suffering of the most vulnerable part of the population of Coruscant.

 

 

So the OP's question is a false one (well, not really, but it is not really applicable)

The question if the Sith are evil can not be answered, because evil is in actions not in people. The Sith philosophy is about 'might makes right', 'the end justifies the means' and 'allowing excess (emotion) control your actions'. None of these are automatically evil in their own right, but each make it very easy to slip into evil actions, and into justifying anything you want to do no matter how repulsive on a good-evil scale.

 

The closest answer I can give is therefor: Is it necessary for a Sith to act in an evil way? No, but given their philosophy it is highly likely they will slip into acting more and more evilly.

 

The Jedi philosophy interestingly enough is not a polar opposite of the Sith one. If I would condense it into one principle it would be the question 'How can you control others if you can not control yourself first?' (and yes, I deliberately worded it as a question rather than as a definitive statement).

Considering that the Force is the underlying principle that binds the universe together it gives those that can make use of it great power. They can control the perception of others, stop objects with a thought, dodge blaster fire because they know intuitively where it will be before the shot is even fired. They can create lightning, earthquakes and can kill with a thought.

With all that power it is easy to let yourself believe you are a god compared to those who do not use the force. So before you should be allowed to control that kind of power, you first should be able to control yourself so you do not give in to the temptation of using it 'because you know best'. The code is teaching things that help ground the Jedi morally. The no attachment rule is for the same reason as the celibacy rule in many priestly and monastic orders in all religions. The Jedi must apply the force for -all- people, and forming attachments means that there will be some people more important than the rest.

Similarly I do not think the code forbids the Jedi to have emotions. That would be silly as they are as inevitable to being alive as, say, breathing. The code however does teach that Jedi should not allow their emotions to guide or control their actions. They need to remain impartial and slightly detached, same as a police officer, a judge or a doctor needs to be, because in the end the needs of the whole must come before those of an individual. (and I deliberately used the word whole here as that is quite different from the majority)

[Megaphys]

Well, I've been shot down defending the sith, with nothing but resonding "no's" and it's been said that a light sided sith is an abomination and the result of bad writers, so as such, my light sided sith that seeks a better empire is a failed and lost cause, and I wash my hands of this discussion.

 

Have fun all, I will RP my sith the way I want to in game and to hell with your lore, lol

 

you can play a good sith if you want, but much like in the story, you will still be asked to do many evil things, you can justify it if you want, but not much good to choosing to either poison a bunch of rebels instantly or poisoning them slowly. Also you will have to hide your good intentions from the people in power over you, or at least ignore them. The thing you have to understand, is they are trying and hoping that you will become evil, if you dont, they will destroy you, unless you can destroy them. As far as the non sith, they dont really know what a sith is other than basically a being of tremendous power socially and in reality.

 

Truth is most sith at some point in their lives walk in the grey, but in order to be true sith all that we have seen have had to abandon such notions.

[GregMD]

Yes sith are evil, I think I even remember seeing a george lucas quote somewhere describing star wars as a simple good guy/bad guy story. Edited February 19, 2012 by Moitteva
removed IC (political, nazis)

[BinxDarkstar]

No Jedi ever did that though, no Jedi ever became sterile and became pacifists. The Jedi during the Mandalorian War, the only thing you could possibly be referencing, didn't choose to not go because of peace, they chose because they knew something was up, the simply did not know what was up exactly.

 

 

 

Again nothing like that ever happened, on the Jedi side anyway. The Sith side happened pretty much every time.

Um... Twi'lek Settlers on Tython that were being massacred and the Order refused to help them until the Flesh Raiders started killing Jedi.

 

 

No. Because we have never seen any evidence of the "light side extreme" anywhere, only the Dark Side.

 

You mean aside from excommunicating Jedi for falling in love even when they HAVEN'T fallen to the dark side? Here's a thought for you: Would Anakin Skywalker have fallen to the Dark Side if he had been allowed to be married to Padmé and not had to keep it all a secret? Also, there's a period of time that the Jedi Order took direct control of the Galaxy, and had to be ousted by the Republic who wanted their sovereignty back.

[ProfessorWalsh]

Um... Twi'lek Settlers on Tython that were being massacred and the Order refused to help them until the Flesh Raiders started killing Jedi.

 

Incorrect.

 

Twi'lek settlers who went to Tython were combating flesh raiders. They were not being "massacred" by them or their village would have been overridden and it was not. Furthermore the settlers weren't supposed to settle there and the Jedi were asked by the republic not to interfere.

 

You mean aside from excommunicating Jedi for falling in love even when they HAVEN'T fallen to the dark side?

 

Yes. Because them engaging in the active romance and hiding it from the Jedi Order is against the rules of being in the Jedi Order. They have every right to kick people out who don't follow the rules.

 

Here's a thought for you: Would Anakin Skywalker have fallen to the Dark Side if he had been allowed to be married to Padmé and not had to keep it all a secret?

 

Yes. Anakin was being manipulated by Palpatine, he would have fallen either way.

 

Also, there's a period of time that the Jedi Order took direct control of the Galaxy, and had to be ousted by the Republic who wanted their sovereignty back.

 

That is a lie.

 

The Jedi Order took control of the Republic during the time of the war with the Brotherhood of Darkness. After that they held the position until the Republic was strong enough to sustain itself and an election was held.

 

That was hardly the Jedi being "ousted" since they willingly stepped down and such.

 

If you want to see someone who was "ousted" you should look at Emperor Palpatine.

[BinxDarkstar]

but again, if such a thing wasn't forbidden in the first place, they wouldn't have to hide it. Palpatine would not have been able to manipulate Anakin nearly as easily had he been able to be open and honest about his relationship with Padmé, because that was the main focus of Palpatine's manipulation, preying on the fact that Anakin wanted so desperately to save his wife, and he COULDN'T TALK TO THE JEDI ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY'D KICK HIM OUT. "Them's the rules" is not a valid argument to saying it isn't an extremist view. They may have the right to kick him out because relationships are forbidden, that doesn't make the views any less extremist.

[LyriaFrost]

but again, if such a thing wasn't forbidden in the first place, they wouldn't have to hide it. Palpatine would not have been able to manipulate Anakin nearly as easily had he been able to be open and honest about his relationship with Padmé, because that was the main focus of Palpatine's manipulation, preying on the fact that Anakin wanted so desperately to save his wife, and he COULDN'T TALK TO THE JEDI ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY'D KICK HIM OUT. "Them's the rules" is not a valid argument to saying it isn't an extremist view. They may have the right to kick him out because relationships are forbidden, that doesn't make the views any less extremist.

 

It's kind of a "what came first, the relationship or the rule" thing, I'd imagine.

 

Jedi Councillor: Sigh, Bob just fell to the dark side.

JC #2: Really? Damn, that's the seventeenth one in the last decade. Why did he fall? Don't tell me...

JC: Yup. In love. Something threatened his wife. He went ballistic on them and fell in order to save her.

JC #2: Ugh. You know, maybe we should just make a rule saying "you can't be in a relationship while you're in the jedi order"...

JC: That's pretty harsh, don't you think?

JC #2: Yeah. But at the same time, look at history. Nine times out of ten, what causes them to fall is their loved one(s) getting into trouble, and them becoming overly-emotional about it, and resorting to the dark side to attempt to save them. And it gets even WORSE if they FAIL!

JC: Sigh. Yeah. I guess I can see the point...they won't like it, though.

JC #2: I don't like it either. But it's either that, or we constantly have people falling to the dark side, despite all our teachings to control their emotions.

JC: People are going to look at us like we're some sort of non-emotional order, you know...

JC #2: Small price to pay, I think, for keeping the number of fallen jedi to a minimum.

 

...

 

While saying "you can't be in a relationship while in the order" IS a bit of an extreme stance, I CAN see how such a rule would come about. Not because they want to go "neener neener, we don't like love!", but because it kept leading to more and more jedi falling when their loved ones were in danger/killed.

 

So they just made a rule saying "don't do it."

 

That doesn't make them evil, though.

[anthemambient]

Yes, the Sith are really evil.

 

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

 

in other words .. the Empire is a war monger.

[ProfessorWalsh]

but again, if such a thing wasn't forbidden in the first place, they wouldn't have to hide it. Palpatine would not have been able to manipulate Anakin nearly as easily had he been able to be open and honest about his relationship with Padmé, because that was the main focus of Palpatine's manipulation, preying on the fact that Anakin wanted so desperately to save his wife, and he COULDN'T TALK TO THE JEDI ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY'D KICK HIM OUT. "Them's the rules" is not a valid argument to saying it isn't an extremist view. They may have the right to kick him out because relationships are forbidden, that doesn't make the views any less extremist.

 

You are making assumptions here.

 

Palpatine would have been able to manipulate Anakin just as easily. Why? Because Yoda would have told him the exact same thing that he did when he talked to him and Yoda acted as if it were Obiwan. (Good chance Yoda actually knew.)

 

Here would have been the scene:

 

Anakin: "I think Padme will die."

 

Yoda: "Perhaps. Death Anakin, is the way of all life, it is the way of the Force. When gone are our friends, our loved ones, miss them we should not, morn them we should not. Luminous beings are we, not crude matter, those who pass to the Force, not gone, transformed are they."

 

Anakin: "But we can stop it! We can save her!"

 

Yoda: "To go against the cycle of life and death, against the Force it is. Accept death we must, to accept the Force."

 

Then Anakin would have walked out, swore that he would find a way, and Palpatine would have done exactly what he did. Palpatine would have told Anakin there was a way when there wasn't and that the Jedi simply wouldn't tell him what it is because of their philosophy. The rest of Anakin's fall would have played out exactly the same.

[alricka]

but again, if such a thing wasn't forbidden in the first place, they wouldn't have to hide it. Palpatine would not have been able to manipulate Anakin nearly as easily had he been able to be open and honest about his relationship with Padmé, because that was the main focus of Palpatine's manipulation, preying on the fact that Anakin wanted so desperately to save his wife, and he COULDN'T TALK TO THE JEDI ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY'D KICK HIM OUT. "Them's the rules" is not a valid argument to saying it isn't an extremist view. They may have the right to kick him out because relationships are forbidden, that doesn't make the views any less extremist.

Anakin was ready to leave the Jedi Order on his own as soon as the Clone Wars were over. He didn't talk to the Jedi not because he was afraid they'd kick him out but because 1) he didn't trust them and 2) he didn't think they'd do anything useful. Palpatine managed to sway him because he offered knowledge that the Jedi couldn't give him.

 

As for your previous question, yes, Anakin was a guy who was always susceptible to the call of the Dark Side, secret marriage or not. He was prideful, selfish and possessive. He fell because of those qualities, not because of love. Love actually redeemed him from the Dark Side in Episode 6.

[Quickpaw]

@Walsh: Highly ironic, isn't it, Anikan thinking the Darkside is the only way to save someone from death. Meanwhile, we gamers gleefully keep our allies alive with simple applications of "Force Heal."

 

Though I suppose, this being a time of war, the Jedi Order can't really afford to lose people to the "death is the will of the force" line.

[CatoFel]

Eveyone's been doing such a lovely job going back and forth on this issue, and I love the nuances of moral and political philosophy applied to SW as much as anyone (I'm intensely LS Imperial myself and think very, very poorly of most Jedi) but at the end of the day, perhaps we ought to step back and realise that throughout EU, which is much more complex and nuanced than the movies and shows, most Sith are bad news, virtually all if not all rely on the Dark Side, and such a strong correlation is highly suggestive of causation. Don't know what else it would be. It's not quite like the situation where Lucas and company have worked overtime to discredit the poor Separatists, most of whom have legitimate grievances against the Republic, by having Count Dooku in cahoots with one nasty Separatist leader on every Separatist planet. You can dig up plenty of examples of good Separatists regardless of the slander. Good Sith...it's tough, reeeeeal tough.

 

Two conclusions:

1) Boba Fett's take on it, that the galaxy would be better off without all of these blasted Force users running amok and going at each other's throats constantly, is hard to discredit.

 

2) Many of the most reasonable Force users, the ones that are "good" if only because they avoid the worst aspects of the Jedi and Sith extremes, seem to be the "greyish" ones that both orders reject. My understanding is that Revan may fit this category, ultimately, and the one in the Dromund Kaas hologram. A "Light Side Sith" isn't really a Sith by any standard definition, but there can be good characters that use either LS or DS or both to some extent.

 

I imagine a good "LS Sith" order would be something like the Fel Imperial Knights: They serve the LS and are well-regimented but also allow for personal attachments, especially in their personal devotion to an Emperor or Empress.

 

That's my two credits' worth, anyways.

Edited February 20, 2012 by CatoFel

[ProfessorWalsh]

Two conclusions:

1) Boba Fett's take on it, that the galaxy would be better off without all of these blasted Force users running amok and going at each other's throats constantly, is hard to discredit.

 

I'll discredit it.

 

In the history of Star Wars before the introduction of the Jedi and Sith there were three times as many wars, Jedi, specifically, stopped many wars before they could begin through skillful negotiations. We can assuredly say the Galaxy is better off with these Force Users than without them.

 

By the same "logic" Boba is using, if there were no Force Users like the Jedi the Mandalorians would have conquered the Republic and enslaved it if they didn't completely destroy it. I am not, by the by, referring to the Mandalorian Wars as shown in KotOR.

 

So we can also say:

 

The galaxy would be better off if the Mandalorians were all wiped out.

 

And it is just as hard, actually it is much harder, to discredit. (Actually the Galaxy would be better off without Mandalorians as they have not given anything of fvalue back to the Galaxy, unlike the Jedi who clearly have.)

[CatoFel]

*tips hat to Professor Walsh*

 

I take your points, sir. Boba's dialectical interpretation of history is oversimplified and I daresay self-serving. He still has a point, though, I think, in that the Sith-Jedi rivalry in some way instigates most of the major wars thereafter, and that includes the Mandalorian Wars in which the Sith rile up the clans. The galaxy at large may not always realise it, particularly in the case of the Clone Wars and First Galactic Civil War when not many are aware of the Sith influence.

[TheRainstater]

I have a light side Sith. My reason for making him light side was because I feel that if one does not fully embrace the Jedi way they out cast them. If you continue to train in the ways of the force you really only have a few options. If you tried to join the Republic army the Jedi would become uncomfortable knowing you are force sensitive and possibly could be a danger. They would likely send someone to execute you.

 

My moral choice was more in line with the teachings of Revan.

[Esproc]

Early on you learn that Both the Republic and Empire are corrupt and the same, steeped in depravity.

 

There are Jedi that go Dark and Sith that go Light. They can not change sides.

I find many Jedi that attack at every opportunity the Sith.

 

 

When Forcewalking Ashara's ancestor, killing her teachers even though going Light Side choices, they initiate the attack, you just defend yourself.

 

 

 

You can not corrupt Ashara, she remains neutral. Ashara also talks of the Jedis fighting/lack of willingness to fight (division in the ranks) and learns "so Peace is a lie".

 

 

So often it seems that the Jedi are the instigators, but we know that there are many Sith that are as well that are worse.

 

Light and Dark, Good and Evil, are just concepts of civilized people and change between cultures on many details.

[Valsdad]

"Don't use valid proof against me" is all I read.

 

I'm just popping in to say that after reading 11 pages of this thread I have come to the conclusion that Marak would argue with a brick wall insisting that it could fly.

[Clonedzero]

yes there are.

sure theres exceptions, but that doesn't make the rule.

 

a vast majority of sith are violent sociopaths obsessed with power and conquering the galaxy. its also a tradition for the student to kill the master after they learned all they can. yeah thats real good huh?

 

anyone who says sith just have a different culture and its not evil is trying to convince themselves more than anyone else.

[parkerprice]

Nothing in the Sith code says "Kill all the things!"

 

I agree with the Spartan assessment. The Sith govern their world view through a "Might is Right" lens with the direction and ambition being left to the individual.

 

 

Evil is also very hard to define. Evil is really just the breakdown of morality and morality is really just the societal standard of right vs wrong. To a Spartan it wasn't really all that wrong to get downright genocidal on their enemies.

 

Was Darth Nihilus "evil"? Dude was just hungry, imo. Sure he was the harbinger of wanton destruction, but his motivations were pure. No more different than you eating that tasty burger.

 

Was Darth Malak evil? I would say yes. His modus operandi was deceit and betrayal for personal gain.

 

 

So I would say no. Sith are not intrinsically evil.

 

The Spartan assessment is terribly inaccurate. Read Plutarch's "On Sparta". The Spartans were never genocidal. Post-Lycurgus reforms they were in every way the most virtuous of the Greek City-States. The Spartan's never harmed retreating enemies and they never used "Total War" tactics. The Spartan's in 300, properly represented their warrior ethos, however in no way did it fully grasp Spartan society. They eliminated all trade = eliminated greed, they divided plots of land equally, and ate in social messes. They took social darwinist attitudes surely, however that was not the fundamental Spartan philosophy. Any trace of it was framed around the principal of the "state before the self".

 

"Ambition being left to the individual".

 

That is deeply anti-Spartan. The agoge wasn't made for personal gain in anyway, it's purpose was to strengthen it's citizens, thereby strengthening Sparta as a whole.

There are numerous accounts of Spartan leaders and citizens giving up their lives selflessly in the name of Sparta. Again I point to Plutarch's "On Sparta". Or any of Xenophon's writings.

 

One of the greatest stories being Lycurgus, the founder of the Sparta we know of today. He made the citizenry promise to maintain his reforms until his return, then he went off to the oracle of Delphi. There, after assuring that Sparta was indeed the pinnacle of society (as prophesied), he starved himself to death. Pretty selfless if you ask me.

 

Spartan society was based off much more then the principles of "might is right". In fact they weren't conquerers, they went to war with the other city-states frequently, they were never occupiers. Even when they defeated their Athenian rivals in the Peloponnesian Wars, they did not stay in Athens itself.

 

The Sith are intrinsically social darwinists, however they have framed the philosophy on the individual, not the greater society.

 

As to them being moral or not, what few people seem to understand is, in intergalactic politics, as in international politics, morality cannot play a factor. Both sides will take necessary measures to insure the survival of their respective civilizations. In Star Wars, however, Lucas has seemed to frame the "Republic" as the society with the true moral imperative.

 

Returning to the issue of comparison, the best example would be the post-Marcus Aurelius period of the Western Roman empire.

[Lightmaguz]

yes there are.

sure theres exceptions, but that doesn't make the rule.

 

a vast majority of sith are violent sociopaths obsessed with power and conquering the galaxy. its also a tradition for the student to kill the master after they learned all they can. yeah thats real good huh?

 

anyone who says sith just have a different culture and its not evil is trying to convince themselves more than anyone else.

 

That guy knows his ****.

[AscendantOps]

Sith who utilize the dark side wholeheartedly and follow their passions and quest for power in complete and utter blindness are evil. They lack the ability to feel love, empathy or compassion, going closer and closer to the void of their own demise. Traditional Sith teachings are based on these exact same principles.

 

There are 'unorthodox' Sith who have the ability to keep a head in a crisis and think rationally, not always resorting to brute force and violence. Sometimes they give their enemies mercy, and are not overly drastic when it comes to unleashing the full magnitude of their dark side powers. They are people who still exhibit a certain connection to the light side, but are not necessarily willing to defect to Jedi or the Republic.

[Malkavier]

The Sith Empire: The British Raj if Ghenghis Khan had been the king and Dr Joseph Mengele his chief science adviser.

 

The Sith: What you get when you cross pollinate Emperor Nero with Blackbeard, made clones of the results, and they get all Vladimir Putin mixed with Caligula on your ***.

 

The Republic: WWII-era Switzerland, shaken, with a twist of The Vatican and a hint of Canada. 'Nuff said.

 

The Jedi Order: If you combined UN Peacekeepers with Buddhist Monks, then you'd have your typical Jedi.

[SpiralTooth]

Well my SW is fairly limited (I saw all the movies, the Clone Wars shorts and played through KotOR), but in my opinion the Sith are evil, since a major part of their philosophy is lust for endless power...

 

I wish the Jedi didn't distanced themselves from emotions that are good in nature (love etc.), but it works since Jedi are (very) basically a cross between Buddhist monks and samurais.

 

btw, is there an EW comic about Sith remorse? that would be pretty interesting