Are Sith really evil?

[Chanez]

IMO(kotor 1 and 2 explored the intentions of sith and the light side and dark side, if anything, the jedi are blind and the sith can see, the jedi are misguided and the sith are honest. Of cource the you can be light sided sith or dark jedi, so those options are there also.)IMO

[shamanhobbe]

I believe the Sith code to be a much better following than the Jedi code. However the Sith order is evil because of the majority of Sith committing terrible deeds. Nowhere in the Sith code does it say that you much embrace wickedness to become a Sith. that why despite my dislike of them I still think they lend great strength to the Empire (to which I am loyal to).

But in the end the Jedi are just as bad as the Sith when it comes to non-force users they both see them as weak and not fit to follow, the Jedi just hide it.

[JakeTetra]

As a whole i think there isn't much difference between the Sith and the Jedi, the original "sith" discovered things that were considered dark by the "jedi" they then both fought to beat the other the jedi won and the with were exiled then when the with come back to take revenge they are considered evil for trying to destroy the jedi and the republic, but the jedi did the same thing to them at an earlier time, in my opinion the sith in general aren't evil more so unconventional while the jedi are just plain ignorant

[kdiperi]

The path to the dark side leads to many powers deemed to be unnatural . Sith are the superior race of the force . The Jedi are cowards and are afraid of what they can achieve by giving in to their desires .

[Silimaa]

I suppose the real question is which do you prefer: A benevolent dictatorship with a dash of Fascism or a Theocratic meritocracy with Medieval elements? Because the first is the Jedi order (unelected governing body loyal to the state (in this case the Republic)) the second the Sith (led by a Force using Council who must earn their positions and an Emperor they all follow.))

 

If you want to argue against the Jedi being a dictatorship then I suggest you look up the definition: A government controlled by one person, or a small group of people. In this form of government the power rests entirely on the person or group of people, and can be obtained by force or by inheritance. The dictator(s) may also take away much of its peoples' freedom. The Fascism is because REAL Fascism involves loyalty to a state. The Jedi always fight for the Republic, no matter how bad the Republic gets.

 

(It should be noted that The Republic does not act like a Republic. It acts like a parliamentary democracy: A Parliamentary System is a system of government in which the ministers of the Executive Branch get their legitimacy from a Legislature and are accountable to that parliament body, such that the Executive and Legislative branches are intertwined. A Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The leader of a Republic is chosen by the people. The Supreme Chancellor of the Galactic Republic is chosen by the Senate, thus it is not a Republic... Oops.)

 

The Sith are a Theocratic Meritocracy. A theocracy is: Theocracy is a form of government in which official policy is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group. Substitute Force for divine and you have the Dark Council. A Meritocrcy is: Meritocracy, in the first, most administrative sense, is a system of government or other administration (such as business administration) wherein appointments and responsibilities are objectively assigned to individuals based upon their "merits", namely intelligence, credentials, and education, determined through evaluations or examinations. The "most common definition of meritocracy conceptualizes merit in terms of tested competency and ability, and most likely as measured by IQ or standardized achievement tests." Supporters of meritocracies do not necessarily agree on the nature of "merit", however they tend to agree that "merit" itself should be a primary consideration during evaluation. Just change the merits to strength, cunning and power... The Medieval aspect is the structure of the Empire and the loyalty to the Emperor. Because the Sith are so into the individual there are elements of anarchy and democracy in there as well.

[Captain_Zone]

I suppose the real question is which do you prefer: A benevolent dictatorship with a dash of Fascism or a Theocratic meritocracy with Medieval elements? Because the first is the Jedi order (unelected governing body loyal to the state (in this case the Republic)) the second the Sith (led by a Force using Council who must earn their positions and an Emperor they all follow.))

 

If you want to argue against the Jedi being a dictatorship then I suggest you look up the definition: A government controlled by one person, or a small group of people. In this form of government the power rests entirely on the person or group of people, and can be obtained by force or by inheritance. The dictator(s) may also take away much of its peoples' freedom. The Fascism is because REAL Fascism involves loyalty to a state. The Jedi always fight for the Republic, no matter how bad the Republic gets.

 

(It should be noted that The Republic does not act like a Republic. It acts like a parliamentary democracy: A Parliamentary System is a system of government in which the ministers of the Executive Branch get their legitimacy from a Legislature and are accountable to that parliament body, such that the Executive and Legislative branches are intertwined. A Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The leader of a Republic is chosen by the people. The Supreme Chancellor of the Galactic Republic is chosen by the Senate, thus it is not a Republic... Oops.)

 

The Sith are a Theocratic Meritocracy. A theocracy is: Theocracy is a form of government in which official policy is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group. Substitute Force for divine and you have the Dark Council. A Meritocrcy is: Meritocracy, in the first, most administrative sense, is a system of government or other administration (such as business administration) wherein appointments and responsibilities are objectively assigned to individuals based upon their "merits", namely intelligence, credentials, and education, determined through evaluations or examinations. The "most common definition of meritocracy conceptualizes merit in terms of tested competency and ability, and most likely as measured by IQ or standardized achievement tests." Supporters of meritocracies do not necessarily agree on the nature of "merit", however they tend to agree that "merit" itself should be a primary consideration during evaluation. Just change the merits to strength, cunning and power... The Medieval aspect is the structure of the Empire and the loyalty to the Emperor. Because the Sith are so into the individual there are elements of anarchy and democracy in there as well.

 

Ummm... Ok. Now, all political double talk aside, the Jedi Council is an OLIGARCHY, not a dictatorship. A dictatorship has ONE ruler. That's it. Oligarchies have ruling bodies that make decisions as equals. Now, they have a spokesperson (Grandmaster), but they make the vast majority of their decisions as a group.

 

Now, the Sith Empire is a bastardization of social Darwinism. Survival of the fittest taken to the extreme. The in-fighting has caused more wars to be lost than actual military action by their foreign enemies.

[Silimaa]

Read: Small group of people. An oligarchy has inherited positions only. A dictatorship can be ruled by one man or many. Look it up. No, the Sith Empire is NOT a bastardization of Social Darwinism. It is a Theocratic Feudalistic society, but lacks the formal honor code and has greater social mobility than feudalism as well as less emphasis on the religious elements than most theocracies, thus the anarchic/democratic elements. Yes, I know politics. Yes, I actually enjoy studying government systems. Now, look up feudalism, theocracies, the definition of a dictatorship, and the definition of democracy. Do NOT go by modern day systems. I'm not talking about those. Edited June 17, 2012 by Silimaa

[Jadenfango]

Is the sith order evil? - No.

 

Is the dark side evil? - Yes.

 

Do most of the sith in the sith order use the dark side? - Yes.

 

The sith order's goal is not evil, but the way they attempt to accomplish these goals is.

 

And just becuase one side is evil, does not mean the other side is automatically good. You could argue that both sith and jedi are good, and they that they are both evil.

[Silimaa]

I'm not talking about good and evil. I'm trying to explain the society. As for the Dark Side... Well, once upon a time George Lucas said it was a cancer on the Force. Then he made a TV show that he says is cannon and now the Dark Side and Light Side are siblings balanced by their Father. So apparently he's changed his mind...?

 

This is taken from wikipedia..

Read:

"Theocracy is a form of government in which official policy is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group.

From the perspective of the theocratic government, "God himself is recognized as the head" of the state,[4] hence the term theocracy, from the Greek θεοκρατια "rule of God", a term used by Josephus for the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.[5] A theocracy may have an administrative hierarchy of the government identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two 'arms,' but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy.

 

In a pure theocracy, the civil leader is believed to have a direct personal connection with God. For example, a prophet like Moses led the Israelites, and the prophet Muhammad ruled the early Muslims. Law proclaimed by the ruler is also considered a divine revelation, and hence the law of God. An ecclesiocracy, on the other hand, is a situation where the religious leaders assume a leading role in the state, but do not claim that they are instruments of divine revelation. For example, the prince-bishops of the European Middle Ages, where the bishop was also the temporal ruler. The papacy in the Papal States occupied a middle ground between theocracy and ecclesiocracy, since the pope did not claim he is a prophet who receives revelation from God, but merely the (in rare cases infallible) interpreter of already-received revelation. Religiously endorsed monarchies fall between these two poles, according to the relative strengths of the religious and political organs.

 

Theocracy should be distinguished from other, secular, forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God". In the most common usage of the term, some civil rulers are leaders of the dominant religion (e.g., the Byzantine emperor as patron of the head of the official Church); the government claims to rule on behalf of God or a higher power, as specified by the local religion, and divine approval of government institutions and laws. These characteristics apply also to a caesaropapist regime. The Byzantine Empire however was not theocratic since the patriarch answered to the emperor, not vice versa; similarly in Tudor England the crown forced the church to break away from Rome so the royal (and, especially later, parliamentary) power could assume full control of the now Anglican hierarchy and confiscate most church property and income."

 

The Sith Empire is a theocracy. The Emperor is both the secular and religious leader. The problem is that the Emperor does not truly serve the Force, but seeks to become it. This IS evil. But the people who serve him are NOT. They honestly believe he is guided by the Force. This is why the Council follows him, even though they may not always agree. The people follow the Force blessed council... The emperor is the problem.

 

The Empire is also feudalistic.

 

"The classic François-Louis Ganshof version of feudalism[2][3] describes a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals and fiefs. A lord was in broad terms a noble who held land, a vassal was a person who was granted possession of the land by the lord, and the land was known as a fief. In exchange for the use of the fief and the protection of the lord, the vassal would provide some sort of service to the lord. There were many varieties of feudal land tenure, consisting of military and non-military service. The obligations and corresponding rights between lord and vassal concerning the fief form the basis of the feudal relationship.[2]

 

Manorialism was characterized by the vesting of legal and economic power in a Lord of the Manor, supported economically from his own direct landholding in a manor (sometimes called a fief), and from the obligatory contributions of a legally subject part of the peasant population under the jurisdiction of himself and his manorial court. These obligations could be payable in several ways, in labor (the French term corvée is conventionally applied), in kind, or, on rare occasions, in coin."

 

The Emperor is on top, the Lords (who are also the clergy) are next, then the freemen, then the vassals, then the slaves. What is different than the typical feudal system is the lack of a unified honor code. The Sith leave that up to the individual. Unfortunately this leads to troubles and excesses among the lords as many do not bother with such 'inconveniences.'

 

The duels, the Kaggath, even the becoming strong by defeating your enemies, they are all part of the Feudal system as practiced by the Empire. They are part of becoming a man. It is formalized, ritualistic. It isn't haphazard. This is the society and people are not to be faulted for the society they are raised in. And in the Feudal system only the nobility meant anything so killing commoners isn't even worth mentioning... Now as to whether that society is evil or not... Well, we'll leave history to decide that, but history can't make up its mind, can it?

Edited June 17, 2012 by Silimaa

[Menthro]

The Sith do not have to be evil. The Sith simply use and embrace their emotions where the Jedi deny them. using ones emotions does not make one evil. However the Sith have fallen into a trap in that they overuse anger and fear. While anger and fear are among the strongest emotions out there, they cause the evil in the Sith. If the Sith just balanced their emotions better and did not just use anger to get even more angry they would be way stronger and not evil. The stronger aspect because all this backstabbing convinng ******** would be done with and not evil, well because they don't randomly murder everyone around them because they are angry. Emotions are simply a tool, like the force, and when misused they blow back on you, like the force. Everything about Sith culture is about anger. Even "dark side" coruption is just their personal force field, heh, effecting themselves. So in short, less angry = less evil. Sith philosphy is not inhertiantly evil it just gets twisted.

 

Hell their isn't even a dark side or light side to the force just personal emotional "echos" but that is another debate.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Menthro

[Silimaa]

Agreed. My personal belief is that Ajunta intended for the Sith to act with far more honor than they do. After all, he turned away from Darkness out of disgust for all the backstabbing. Further, the older Sith all hate the Emperor, so apparently he isn't truly following the Sith way. The true way of the Sith would probably be a lot more honorable. There would still be some backstabbing, but with words and not with actions as often, more akin to how the Dark Council operates.

[Vlad_Dracul_]

No, they aren't. Be a Sith means to be FREE. As a Sith, you have freedom of choice, no restrictions, no codex, no rules, you can change always everything, if you have a power.

Reason why is there so much Sith guys and girls full of selfishness, greed and cruelty isn't problem of Sith Code - it's just simpler fall to hatred and anger than have personal codes of honor or thinking about mercy to enemy.

 

But this still isn't so extreme like Jedi emotion-restrictions by my opinion, what pratically learn you to be emotionless droid, programmed to serve always others.

 

On the other hand, really succesful Siths are more reasonable, with wisdom, patience and personal restrictions. Darth Sidious and Darth Tyranus manipulated with people, help them, if they proved be useful in the future. In words of Dooku, even be merciful to enemy is useful sometimes.

Palpatine could hide perfectly his true nature no matter how much Jedi Masters were around him, and this is not a simple thing to learn. He did must perfectly controlled own feelings as much as the Force.

 

If Sith Code would allow selflesness, compassion, honor or duty as a part of Sith passions and freedom of choice, there wouldn't be any problem anymore.

(save harmless civilians or destroy enemy army faster to help imperial colony can still lead to great passions within Sith)

 

For example, compassion or honor would have always right for a Sith in cases, when there is some possible bigger gain in the future - living enemies can spread words about your success and create more fear, saved imperial citizens means more loyal servants. That's why i playing Light Siths, cause you can see some gain in more cases in the story.

I know, there is already in the Sith training try to don't waste resources, and still, most of the ordinary Sith wasting everything for stupid bloodshed or evil laughings. That's just dumb.

[Maaruin]

No, they aren't. Be a Sith means to be FREE. As a Sith, you have freedom of choice, no restrictions, no codex, no rules, you can change always everything, if you have a power.

Reason why is there so much Sith guys and girls full of selfishness, greed and cruelty isn't problem of Sith Code - it's just simpler fall to hatred and anger than have personal codes of honor or thinking about mercy to enemy.

 

But this still isn't so extreme like Jedi emotion-restrictions by my opinion, what pratically learn you to be emotionless droid, programmed to serve always others.

 

On the other hand, really succesful Siths are more reasonable, with wisdom, patience and personal restrictions. Darth Sidious and Darth Tyranus manipulated with people, help them, if they proved be useful in the future. In words of Dooku, even be merciful to enemy is useful sometimes.

Palpatine could hide perfectly his true nature no matter how much Jedi Masters were around him, and this is not a simple thing to learn. He did must perfectly controlled own feelings as much as the Force.

 

If Sith Code would allow selflesness, compassion, honor or duty as a part of Sith passions and freedom of choice, there wouldn't be any problem anymore.

(save harmless civilians or destroy enemy army faster to help imperial colony can still lead to great passions within Sith)

 

For example, compassion or honor would have always right for a Sith in cases, when there is some possible bigger gain in the future - living enemies can spread words about your success and create more fear, saved imperial citizens means more loyal servants. That's why i playing Light Siths, cause you can see some gain in more cases in the story.

I know, there is already in the Sith training try to don't waste resources, and still, most of the ordinary Sith wasting everything for stupid bloodshed or evil laughings. That's just dumb.

 

(Speaking from a Sith perspective now:)

 

Sorry, but if you follow a code of honor or a code of morals, you are not free. These are rules you make yourself to obey. These are chains that bind you.

 

Only those who admit they are evil are truely free to do whatever they want. No one can question them.

 

And don't try to talk yourself out with "you spare others because they are useful". If you spare them to use them later and get rid of them after they outlived their usefulness, it is no less or more evil than killing them on the spot. It is only the smarter from of evil.

And if you don't get rid of them when they are no longer useful, they make you weak.

 

There are Sith who follow some morals or whatever. Who deny that being Sith means to be evil. But almost all of them are weak Sith who only deserve death or a life as slaves.

 

(end speaking from a Sith perspective)

 

Also, Jedi aren't like emotionsless droids. Watch the movies again, especially look at Obi-Wan in Episode II and III.

[Morgris]

(Speaking from a Sith perspective now:)

 

Sorry, but if you follow a code of honor or a code of morals, you are not free. These are rules you make yourself to obey. These are chains that bind you.

 

Only those who admit they are evil are truely free to do whatever they want. No one can question them..

So my response would be that being evil is just as much a chain as being good is. To be true to the Sith Code is to not submit to simple descriptions and to do what you individually believe is the correct action. It's clear that this promotion of individualism has lead to selfish actions, but that doesn't mean that being free inherently means you have to inherently be selfish. The current state of the Sith Empire does violently compel force-sensitives to become Sith and promotes selfishness and backstabbing instead of freedom, which is why my warrior wants to reform the Empire.

[Silimaa]

Having a moral code is not a chain. YOU create the code. You CHOOSE to follow it. YOU can decide to set it aside if it doesn't suit you. And I repeat - the man who created the Sith as we know it turned away from Darkness out of disgust for the backstabbing and trickery. The formal battle between Master and Apprentice is both a battle of wits strength and honor. The Kaggath is a battle of honor. It's twisted honor, but it is honor. Stabbing someone in the back does not prove you are stronger than they are. That's why Bane was so worried about Zannah. She needed to defeat him in his prime, not once he had become old and weak.

 

The Sith have a code. It's really only a basic guideline, but it is a code and they all follow it, though each Sith finds their own interpretation. Lacking any sort of compass is not a freedom from chains. It is the worst chain of all. Being controlled by your emotions, ruled by your baser instincts is a complete loss of control. An honor code, whoever warped and twisted the code may be, lends you that direction and grants you power over your passions. The first step to becoming a master of others is to master yourself. Sadly most Sit skip that step. It's much easier to allow your emotions to rule you than to create a chain to bind those same passions to your will.

 

This is why I said the Sith were intended to have an honor code, likely a cross between Jedi (because the Jen'jidai came from them), Mandolorian (because the Sith were a warrior culture and all warrior cultures have some similarities), and some parts that were all their own (think the principals of Rajivari, but harsher.) Note the word INTENDED. And even then probably only intended by Pall himself (I don't see any other Exile being redeemed, do you?)

 

Think about it though: Who were the greatest Sith with the greatest effects? Ajunta Pall, Naga Sadow, Ludo Kressh, Vitiate, Exar Kun, Revan, Bane, etc. They all had codes and set goals. Different ones, twisted ones, but codes all the same. (Sighs. I love the ancient Sith... Yes, I think Vitiate does have a code. Just a VERY twisted and warped one. Kun also had one - he felt it was his duty and his right to restore the Sith Empire.)

 

So, Sith without codes cause more collateral damage... And Sith WITH codes have long lasting effects that the Galaxy still suffers from. Maybe honor is the wrong word. I'm using it because I can't think of a word to fit the concept. it's the rules you live by, your goals and duties. And you choose it. YOU are in control. So no, a code is not a chain. It is a fence to stop your emotions from overwhelming you without your permission. It allows you to achieve power without being consumed by it. Because if you allow power to completely consume you then you have become its slave. And how is THAT freedom? YOU want to be the one in control.

 

(BTW, does anyone realize that the Exiles knew how to make themselves immortal? Or explain to me how they managed to fight for a hundred years and then live another to or three centuries? And look as young as they did when they came to Korriban after the war? I'd say they all killed each other out, but Ajunta seems to have died naturally according to cannon...)

[Vlad_Dracul_]

Freedom is what you can choose. Be enslaved by your emotions is same nonsense like totally deny them. Create own restrictions, own rules isn't same way like you must follow some path commanded by other people.

 

Really succesful Sith, most powerful Sith, had always some own rules, conspiracies, seeking wisdom like jedi do, not just brainless killing from battle to battle. From Naga Sadow, saving Republic prisoners to use their escape as reason of war, to Darth Sidious, using even retrained Padawans to hunt remaining Jedi.

Nobody can't deny this FACT. End of line.

 

And my opinion about Jedi still remain. Follow Jedi Code means to be emotionless droid what is programmed to always help others with set of command codes called 'mercy' and 'compassion'.

Mace Windu or Shaak Ti were very 'droidy', following code at any cost, no smile or anger. Like programmed brainwashed beings, like DROIDS.

Only reason why Obi-Wan wasnt completely brainwashed as typical Jedi, was his teacher, his former master Qui-Gonn, cause he was GREY.

[Maaruin]

So my response would be that being evil is just as much a chain as being good is. To be true to the Sith Code is to not submit to simple descriptions and to do what you individually believe is the correct action. It's clear that this promotion of individualism has lead to selfish actions, but that doesn't mean that being free inherently means you have to inherently be selfish. The current state of the Sith Empire does violently compel force-sensitives to become Sith and promotes selfishness and backstabbing instead of freedom, which is why my warrior wants to reform the Empire.

 

Well yes, a Sith might as well just say he doesn't care for good and evil and does what he wants to accomplish his goals. But in most cases that would lead to normal people calling him evil.

 

@Silimaa: I would destinguish between a code of honor (or a moral code or whatever) and goal. The code normally describes the means to reach your goals.

 

The Sith you mentioned:

 

Ajunta Pall: Probably as you described, intened the Sith to be more honorable

Naga Sadow: Followed some Sith traditions, but didn't care much for honor. (He even killed a good friend to stage a republic attack, because he wanted war.)

Ludo Kressh: Yes, he was honorable

Vitiate: definitly not. He wanted power, that was all. He would break every rule for that

Exar Kun: I think I don't know enough about him

Darth Revan: "honor is a fools price", it is not clear if he had some noble goals or if it was just for power

Darth Bane: he put the Sith Order above himself. besides that, no honor, no moral etc.

 

(You forgot Marka Ragnos, a clearly honorable Sith, and Darth Ruin, who was either completly crazy or brought the Sith philosophy to perfection: He believed that he was the only person who existed and everyone else was an illusion.)

 

Yes, the Sith Empire has tradition and codes and I would say it was not completly evil. And there were many Sith who weren't completly evil. But over the years the Sith philosophy became more and more:

 

goal: power

means: any means

 

A Sith would be completely amoral, and his views and actions would fit the definition of evil.

 

(I myself would interpret the Sith code very differently. In my interpretation the last lines mean you break free from this very Sith code, which would make persons like Ajunta Pall, Bastila, Visas Marr, Darth Vader etc. the true Sith. After their redemtion.)

 

Edit: @Vlad_Dracul_ Yoda wasn't very droidly either, was he?

Edited June 19, 2012 by Maaruin

[Vlad_Dracul_]

Maaruin: Yes, he was. Not some nice little guy, when someone break Jedi rules, he was zealot. Maybe peaceful, but still zealot, fanatic without any try to understand, why anybody did Dark or Grey choices no matter what.

His all universe is stupid fanatical droidy code, what really enslaving you in every moment even if your heart telling you otherwise.

 

 

I agree with these points, but i dont see any connection with necessary bloodshed or useless cruelty:

 

goal: power

 

Mercy - resources, servants - POWER

Compassion - informations, conspiracy, learn about weaknesses of others - POWER

Honor - Better probability to find loyal allies and your servants remain loyal too, if you always fullfil your word - POWER

 

means: any means

 

Yes. Any means. Make friends amongst your enemies, helping and push others to make debts is just another strategy. In SWTOR, we can see many Darths very different between themselves. For example, Darth Tormen and Darth Decimus are totally 'warrior' Siths, but Darth Jadus and Darth Baras made more complicated plans to take power and destroy their enemies, cause they had more patience and wisdom than others.

In 'present time' of SW galaxy, you can see same difference between Darth Sidious and Darth Krayt, even despite pure evilness in them.

 

So, MAIN reason, why Sith are there normally evil, is traditionalism in Sith Empire full of Purebloods, Jedi Order as sworn enemy and cause fall to the dark side to take power is just simpler, as much as complete selfishness looks more pragmatic for every young Sith than thinking about others. That's all.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Vlad_Dracul_

[Silimaa]

Yeah, that's why I said honor isn't the right word. I can't find a word to explain the concept. It's sort of a cross between honor and goals and focus and power. I'd also like to note that honor can be very harsh and cruel. The Sith typically take a hash view, but that is RIGHT. They are a warrior folk of the ancient kind. They don't live by modern rules.

 

About Vitiate - I get the feeling he believes he was born to become the Force. Anything towards this goal is therefor 'right' because this is what he was born for. I never said I agreed with him... He's obviously insane, but I think HE believes he's right. The belief that you are right, or have a right and proving it is a form of honor. Vitiate has simply chosen the most evil way of going about this... (I can't be certain though because I haven't played my warrior yet.)

 

Naga Sadow - believed that the Sith had a greater destiny and should no longer cower in hiding. He was willing to do anything for this. And as for killing his friend - the Sith believed a sacrifice was necessary to be come strong. Killing someone important to you was a breaking of your chains. By this manner of thinking the sacrifice is a coming of age and is a matter of honor. Twisted honor, but honor.

 

Exar Kun - Felt he had a right and duty to restore the Sith to glory. That intention is a form of honor - following a cause. He had the Brotherhood attack their own masters as a test in, oddly enough, a perversion of the Sith master/apprentice battles. He also had some loyalty to Qel-Droma, though I have no idea why... Maybe they genuinely liked each other...?

 

Revan - varies. Depends on whether or not he really was trying to save the Republic by destroying it. Either way he definitely sought to save everyone from Vitiate. Even when Revan attempts to commit genocide (and I don't CARE if he says he's a Jedi; he's obviously fallen again) it's a matter of honor and what he believes to be right.

 

Bane - putting a cause above yourself is actually one of the highest forms of honor. The way he had master/apprentice battles take place is also intended to be honorable.

 

Like I said, I can't get the concept into words. I know what I mean, but I can't seem to explain it properly. The point isn't about honor necessarily. The point is a focus and a goal you deem worthwhile, as well as how you act in achieving it. The last part being the most important. Having an honorable goal simply requires you to believe you are RIGHT. However, having following a course through simply because you believe in it is not enough. Most Sith don't go beyond the first part though and some don't even get that far, preferring to lose sight of their goal in favor of wanton destruction. Vitiate stops at the first part as do Kun, Sidious, and countless others.

 

The next step would be to place the goal above yourself. Revan does this. Bane does this as do a nice chunk of the Rule of Two. Caedus does this. Then there's how you achieve this goal. Bane's way is actually quite honorable. He has no intention of seeing the end. He WANTS his apprentice to kill him. Everything is about making the Sith stronger. (Personally, I think Ajunta would have approved of that...) Revan's way is actually not as honorable - there are better ways of achieving a goal than committing genocide. (Especially when that plays right into Vitiate's hands...)

 

Yes, I know about the others, but I figured that I'd better stick with the better known names...

 

Oh, and on the matter ofthe Jedi as sworn enemies - that is about as honorable a thing as you can get. The Jedi attempted genocide on the Sith species. They also killed out any Massassi that Exar Kun left alive. Not only that, but they have been attempting CULTURAL genocide for a millenia. They destroy everything that there is about the Sith. Leaving aside the reasoning behind those decisions, OF COURSE the Sith hate them. Wouldn't you? The living Sith are the blood redeemers for those killed at the end of the Great Hyperspace War.

 

Meaning of honor:

honesty, fairness, OR integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor. (So if you honestly believe you're right then you are following honor, believe it or not.)

2.

a source of credit or distinction: to be an honor to one's family.

3.

high respect, as for worth, merit, or rank: to be held in honor.

4.

such respect manifested: a memorial in honor of the dead.

5.

high public esteem; fame; glory: He has earned his position of honor.

 

the privilege of being associated with or receiving a favor from a respected person, group, organization, etc.: to have the honor of serving on a prize jury; I have the honor of introducing this evening's speaker.

7.

Usually, honors. evidence, as a special ceremony, decoration, scroll, or title, of high rank, dignity, or distinction: political honors; military honors.

8.

( initial capital letter ) a deferential title of respect, especially for judges and mayors (preceded by His, Her, Your, etc.).

[Maaruin]

Maaruin: Yes, he was. Not some nice little guy, when someone break Jedi rules, he was zealot. Maybe peaceful, but still zealot, fanatic without any try to understand, why anybody did Dark or Grey choices no matter what.

His all universe is stupid fanatical droidy code, what really enslaving you in every moment even if your heart telling you otherwise.

 

We see Yoda laugh, we see him said, we see him disappointed etc. he has normal human (alien) emotions. Fanatic - maybe, but he was not emotionless. (Oh, wait, in Star Wars droids have emotions...)

 

I agree with these points, but i dont see any connection with necessary bloodshed or useless cruelty:

 

You mean unnecessary bloodshed. Well, in theory Sith would create bloodshed whenever it serves their goals.

 

goal: power

 

Mercy - resources, servants - POWER Enslaving your opponent instead of killing... that's not real mercy.

Compassion - informations, conspiracy, learn about weaknesses of others - POWER You mean you show compassion because being seen as compassionated furthers your goals. So you essentially stage it?

Honor - Better probability to find loyal allies and your servants remain loyal too, if you always fullfil your word - POWER Until someone uses this against you. You must be faster than them. Maybe obey a code of honor normally, but break it when it serves you better. (If everyone watches, accept the challange for a duel. But secretly put some poison in his drink.)

 

You understand what I mean: Mercy, compassion and honor are principles which are helpful in some situations and an obstacle in other situations. But if you are only honorable if it serves you, it is no real honor.

 

means: any means

 

Yes. Any means. Make friends amongst your enemies, helping and push others to make debts is just another strategy. In SWTOR, we can see many Darths very different between themselves. For example, Darth Tormen and Darth Decimus are totally 'warrior' Siths, but Darth Jadus and Darth Baras made more complicated plans to take power and destroy their enemies, cause they had more patience and wisdom than others.

In 'present time' of SW galaxy, you can see same difference between Darth Sidious and Darth Krayt, even despite pure evilness in them.

 

There is a very good example for what I mean in the Sith Warrior Storyline, Chapter I, Nar Shadda:

 

 

You fight against some republic troopers. They surrender and if you spare them, they are in your dept. Later they can help you against Lord Rathari. Now, after they have payed of their debts, a smart Sith would kill them. They are no longer useful for him and will fight for the other side in the war.

 

 

All the Sith you mentioned are evil to the bones, they just use different methods. (I don't know much about Decimus, though.)

 

So, MAIN reason, why Sith are there normally evil, is traditionalism in Sith Empire full of Purebloods, Jedi Order as sworn enemy and cause fall to the dark side to take power is just simpler, as much as complete selfishness looks more pragmatic for every young Sith than thinking about others. That's all.

 

I think the main reason is that most Sith just want power at any cost. And inside the Sith Empire in most cases to be evil will bring you more power. The smart from of evil, of course.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Maaruin

[Maaruin]

Like I said, I can't get the concept into words. I know what I mean, but I can't seem to explain it properly. The point isn't about honor necessarily. The point is a focus and a goal you deem worthwhile, as well as how you act in achieving it. The last part being the most important. Having an honorable goal simply requires you to believe you are RIGHT. However, having following a course through simply because you believe in it is not enough. Most Sith don't go beyond the first part though and some don't even get that far, preferring to lose sight of their goal in favor of wanton destruction. Vitiate stops at the first part as do Kun, Sidious, and countless others.

 

I think (almost) everyone has a goal. For most Sith it is, as I said, power in some form. The power Vitiate wanted was different to the power Sidious wanted. I'm not sure if you have to believe you are right.

 

Do you have to believe you have the right to rule the galaxy to have the goal. I think not. I can very well say "I don't care if I have the right to do it, but I want it." That's were my Sith pamphlet comes from: Sith don't need to justify their actions. It is enough that they do it to achieve what they want.

 

The next step would be to place the goal above yourself. Revan does this. Bane does this as do a nice chunk of the Rule of Two. Caedus does this. Then there's how you achieve this goal. Bane's way is actually quite honorable. He has no intention of seeing the end. He WANTS his apprentice to kill him. Everything is about making the Sith stronger. (Personally, I think Ajunta would have approved of that...) Revan's way is actually not as honorable - there are better ways of achieving a goal than committing genocide. (Especially when that plays right into Vitiate's hands...)

 

Still, Bane's honor only applies to him and his apprentice. Everyone else is a tool to further his goals. It is even more obvious with Zannah and what she did to the resistance, the noble, the healer and Darovit.

 

Yes, I know about the others, but I figured that I'd better stick with the better known names...

 

Darth Ruin should be really interesting when we hear more about him. Not much is known yet.

[Silimaa]

I'd like to know more about the Exiles actually...

 

Ajunta cared about honor within the Sith (or at least he doesn't really talk much about non-Sith.) He didn't like the way they kept fighting each other and forgetting their true purpose. People tend to fight harder for what they believe in. it's hard to feel passionate about something you don't care about. To put it another way - you'll never find a Sith with a job he doesn't love. The indication of the Sith code is that you must give everything towards your ultimate goal - complete and utter freedom from the dictates of others. The concept of giving everything you have to an impossible goal is truly honorable... And something very few would seek to accomplish. That's why most Sith stop at power and/or victory. (And yes, true freedom is as impossible as true peace. There's always someone you will end up listening to, just as there is always someone who will have to wonder why and so shatter Utopia. Even the absence of others does not set you free of influence - with no one else to talk to you end up second guessing yourself and usually end up mad.)

 

Question: Who here thinks that all the fooling around with Revan's head, coupled with all the trauma he's experienced, has caused his personality to start fragmenting?

[ImperiumAlpha]

If they win they are the "good guy"

If they loose they are the "evil meany people".

 

[Maaruin]

If they win they are the "good guy"

If they loose they are the "evil meany people".

 

 

Yet in Empire Strikes Back and Revenge of the Sith they won and were still evil...

[TheBetty]

All I can say is during the game even as sith you're given light side options and it's up to you to decide. So to say the Sith are evil is a generalisation, it comes down to the individual. Same goes for Jedi being truly good.

 

I force choke if I didn't get a toy in my happy meal.