Are Sith really evil?

[Palar]

Since we're apparently going with the TOR version, not Palpatine's, how does the story kick off?

 

"We're bored... let's start the war up again and kill people."

[Warlord_Maliken]

YES SITH ARE EVIL. AND IN THE MOVIE EPISODE 3, ANAKIN OBEYS ORDERS TO KILL CHILDREN (5 YEARS OLD).. SLAUGHTERS THEM ALL. MUST I SAY ANYMORE.

 

P.S. This isnt world of warcraft, where the ugly monster races are actually nice on the inside and just want peace.

[alricka]

Generally speaking, I think that "good" and "evil" are sort of loaded terms that can't be absolute. With that in mind, most Sith indeed are power-hungry, opressive, vindictive, callous and self-serving. If those qualities define them as "evil", then yes, they are evil.

 

I think that the Sith are a good illustration of what would happen if most people had such god-like powers. In general, people adhere to morality mostly out of fear of reprisal if they demonstrate deviant behavior. Without that fear, they will be free to do as they please and that would include trampling others who might stand in the way. That's pretty much what the Sith are about - to be free from the shackles of morality and law so they can become perfect and all-powerful.

[Captain_Zone]

Darth Baras was a puppetmaster, but he wanted more puppets. He had a huge spy network, but he wanted more. That's what he gets though. You'd think the cookiee's would be enough

 

Cookies are never enough for Baras. He wanted the whole pie!

[JacksonMo]

I think to answer that question, you have to ask what evil is.

There are shining examples of evil like the Holocaust. But there are everyday example as well, small actions with selfish motivations. Not all of them have discernible negative effects on others, but can carry the risk of injury (speeding), or the cumulative effect of many small acts (taking short cuts at work when the boss isn't looking) that make you look good in the short run, but undermine the business in the long run.

There is also evil that mascarades as good. The politician who crows about helping "the little guy" but drives employers away leaving said "little guy" unemployed and dependent on government for mere subsistence, while the politician's personal wealth soars into the stratosphere. The whole time accusing the politician who tried to bring business into the area of "lining his pockets" and "only caring about the rich".

So which one is truly evil? Even if the second politician really is just motivated by personal greed, can he really be called evil?

If the first politician is driving his constituents to poverty out of ignorance, naivete and good intentions, is he any less evil?

[kaelanR]

I really want to be a person who acts morally like a Jedi, but uses both sides of the force.

 

Man, that would be awesome.

 

Maybe wielding a grey lightsaber, too.

[ScarletBlaze]

YES SITH ARE EVIL. AND IN THE MOVIE EPISODE 3, ANAKIN OBEYS ORDERS TO KILL CHILDREN (5 YEARS OLD).. SLAUGHTERS THEM ALL. MUST I SAY ANYMORE.

 

P.S. This isnt world of warcraft, where the ugly monster races are actually nice on the inside and just want peace.

 

Anakin could have chosen not to. Yes he had the order but the ultimate decision for doing so lies within him. So the choice comes down to the Sirh or the Jedi and what you want or believe in.

[ScarletBlaze]

The government of the Sith can be classified as evil I will grant you but to say every Sith is evil may be doing them an injustice just as saying every Jedi is good.

 

The choice in what a Sith or Jedi does comes down to them. They can choose what they want to do. A Jedi and a Sith always have a choice in the matter. Will there be consquences yes but guess what last time I check there are always consquences to your actions.

[Aurbere]

Cookies are never enough for Baras. He wanted the whole pie!

 

I think Darth Baras is a guy that loves a good Boston Cream Pie. Or a triple chocolate bundt cake...

 

Now I'm hungry!

[ScarletBlaze]

I think Darth Baras is a guy that loves a good Boston Cream Pie. Or a triple chocolate bundt cake...

 

Now I'm hungry!

 

What about double chocolate brownies lol.

[JLazarillo]

The Empire (in this game, as well as in the original trilogy) is evil. This isn't really up for debate. One can argue over whether it can be salvaged into a more positive form (and heck, doing so seems to be the goal of Empire-aligned player characters in this game, a lot of the time), but in its form, as it's presented, the Empire is evil.

 

Now the Sith themselves...they're a little less cut and dry. Certainly, the reason the Empire in its current form is evil is because there are evil Sith in charge. But is the nature of the Sith inherently evil?

 

The way the Jedi present it, Force sensitivity is more of a curse than anything else. It grants power over the galaxy, but loss of control over one's self. Even if wielded for the sake of a positive emotion, like love or compassion, the Force itself seems to corrupt those emotions with time. The Jedi often seem less focused on facing their enemies, and more, at times, at protecting the galaxy from themselves. That's why they'll commit horrific acts for the sake of protecting others. Emotion isn't bad for everyone, but it is unacceptable for Jedi because it will, without question, lead them to become evil. From the Jedi's perspective, I suspect they'd be happier if the Force never existed in the first place, as despite its power, its "will" seems to be a corrupting influence.

 

The Sith, on the other hand, believe they control the Force, rather than being controlled by it. They don't fear emotion the way the Jedi do. This allows them to be both good, and evil, in theory. It's interesting, though, that we don't generally see Sith who are guided by positive emotion. Not all, but I'd say an easy nine out of ten Sith hanging around in this game, at least, are pretty corrupt. Even when Sith have "good intentions", like, say, Revan, they still follow a dark path to them.

 

So this leads us to an interesting discrepancy. We have the "emotionless" Jedi, and the "negative" Sith, but we don't have any force for the "positive" making up any significant portion of the galaxy. I could see, therefore, two options, It could be that it's the nature of the aforementioned evil Empire. Because the Empire is an evil place, those in power want evil Sith, so they are trained from the beginning to embrace only the negative. The other possibility is that the Jedi are right, the Force itself, essentially, is evil, and the Sith are therefore evil by nature. The fact that we do get some exceptions, such as Scourge or Keleth-Ur, makes me think the Jedi are likely wrong, and that the Sith are not inherently evil. However, the fact that such Sith are the exceptions means it could also be that they simply had much stronger willpower than anyone concerned. It really comes down to a question of whether nature or nurture is the more powerful influence.

 

So essentially...maybe.

[Antillian_]

They are both not without flaw. The Sith of course use hatred and anger and all of those emotions, but at least they use EMOTIONS. However the Jedi are the opposite, they have NO emotion. Only peace. Like old monks.

But here's the thing, when Luke Skywalker came into the picture, he brought balance to the Force. He was a Jedi, but he also got married and had children. There is a balance between the Dark Side and the Light Side. Remember the Force is just that: the Force. It's not God, it's not a righteous king, it's not any of those things. It's the Force.

[Aurbere]

What about double chocolate brownies lol.

 

Ooh I love brownies! lol

[errant_knight]

The empire as it stands is certainly evil as is the emperor, but the people within that empire can be either. Lord Scourge, for example, is obviously DS, regardless of the neutrality of companions, but he isn't evil--a big Ayn Rand fan, true, but not evil. My Sith are very interested in what Kel'eth Ur has to say, and to me, his philosophy is one of the most interesting parts of the game. If there is no DS and LS, just different methods of accessing the power, then there's room for more methods than are commonly used now. Maybe there's no ls or ds, just what's in one's heart.

 

Sith can use the force by chanelling positive emotions as well as negative, but can jedi truly be emotionless? Not really. And is cutting yourself off from emotion really a good thing, if it's possible at all in the long term? I don't think so, myself. Maybe my LS sith and grey jedis are the way of the future.

[Khevar]

Just to add my voice to this rather interesting debate.

 

Sith as a group, and as a philosophy and as a code may not be inherently evil.

 

However, the philosophy makes it easier to BE evil, and to ACT evil without consequences. The idea that strength is all-important and weakness should be purged can easily be twisted. In the movies, the books and this game are several examples of a Sith killing a subordinate or an allied Imperial on a whim, a perceived insult or merely out of a desire to see someone suffer. This sort of behaviour is practically encouraged.

 

The idea of "The Rule of Two" came about because the backbiting and self-interest of the Sith order meant that two apprentices that were NOT strong enough on their own could team up to kill the master, then turn on each other, leaving a new "master" that was weaker than before.

 

The ideals of a Sith involve strength and power for themselves, not power for the Sith order or the Sith empire as a whole.

 

I would say that the Sith code, the Sith philosophy and the Sith order encourage evil behavior and make it easy to be evil and for evil people to rise in ranks.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Khevar

[errant_knight]

Just to add my voice to this rather interesting debate.

 

Sith as a group, and as a philosophy and as a code may not be inherently evil.

 

However, the philosophy makes it easier to BE evil, and to ACT evil without consequences. The idea that strength is all-important and weakness should be purged can easily be twisted. In the movies, the books and this game are several examples of a Sith killing a subordinate or an allied Imperial on a whim, a perceived insult or merely out of a desire to see someone suffer. This sort of behaviour is practically encouraged.

 

The idea of "The Rule of Two" came about because the backbiting and self-interest of the Sith order meant that two apprentices that were NOT strong enough on their own could team up to kill the master, then turn on each other, leaving a new "master" that was weaker than before.

 

The ideals of a Sith involve strength and power for themselves, not power for the Sith order or the Sith empire as a whole.

 

I would say that the Sith code, the Sith philosophy and the Sith order encourage evil behavior and make it easy to be evil and for evil people to rise in ranks.

 

I can agree with this. That's why I enjoy playing a light side Sith as much as I do. It would take immense courage an fortitude to defy all that is taught and choose a different path. The first time I played a warrior, not knowing which choices might have repercussions (which sadly none of them really do), every decision and conversation was fraught with peril and tension because I expected to be discovered at any time.

 

People compare the knight story to the warrior one unfavorably, but I think that does it a disservice. The warrior story is one of peril from outside, from society, while the knight story is equally perilous, but on an internal level--and the choices as you progress build in such a way that my jedi ended up being my most DS character. Still LS, but definitely no longer pure by the view of the order.

[ForeverSteadfast]

I know this thread as been dead for a little while, but the topic of discussion is one of the more interesting of what I've found on the boards as of late, so I'll post my two cents on the matter.

 

As many have said before, The Sith are stark believers in survival of the fittest. They strive for power; to be powerful, and are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve it. Power is the ultimate goal, but their actions in attaining it are merely a means to an end. Think about someone who's a stark survivalist. He will do what it takes, when ever it requires, to survive; even if it means the sacrifice of others. And his willingness to do what it takes for self-preservation is what powers him over his peers. Those who are unwillingly to dirty their hands in order to survive and attain power are those who will fall to the stronger.

 

That does not mean that a Sith has to be a sadistic psychopath who enjoys torturing kittens and puppies. A Sith can be an honorable, ruthless warrior and still ascend to power. Unfortunately, given human nature, we tend to take the easiest route towards what we want. If given the choice to massacre an entire populace, but rapidly ascend the rank structure; or honorably duel masters ahead of you, one at a time, for a slow climb into power - which choice do you think most people would take? The majority would take the quick and easy way.

 

Of course you'll have complete psychopaths within the Sith ranks; the dark side promises immense power and those who have a few screws loose are going to flock to it. But this is not to say that one cannot be an honorable Sith. This is not to say he has to be some kind of senseless killer, going on rampages. The ultimate goal is POWER; not bloodshed. Not torture. Not slavery. Those are merely methods of attaining power, and which methods we choose to use are what makes us "evil" or "good."

 

Hate and rage are only two passionate emotions the Sith can use, and quite frankly, the easiest to channel. However, what of pride? Could a Sith not tap into his arrogance, his belief that he is a higher species than his opponent, in order to defeat them?

 

I honestly believe you hear more of anger and hatred fueling the Sith because these are the most basic and easiest to use for the common Sith. Someone pisses you off, it's easier to swing than walk away. But what if our Sith chose to challenge said person to a duel, in order to quench their pride and show their strength? Does that not show more control over one's emotions - to give their opponent a fair and honorable chance to save face; to show strength - than merely lashing out? The ultimate goal is still to kill the opponent who dishonored you - killing for the sake of saving face and asserting dominance; which may still be "evil." But it's a different kind of "evil." It's controlled, bound by an honor system that separates true warriors from the common man; the strong from the weak.

 

For instance, my Sith character believes that genocide is beneath him. If anything, his pride is what fuels his power. He duels honorable opponents, in order to show his strength and ascend into the ranks. My SW doesn't run around chopping the hands off of people, or torturing them needlessly. He believes in becoming the very essence of martial power; the best warrior he can be. Would the Jedi accept this mindset? No. Because he lusts for war, to test his mettle against the greatest of warriors. Out of the two primary organizations (Jedi or Sith), only the Sith respect that kind of power, and that, in itself is why he chose to follow in their footsteps.

 

The Sith ideology - survival of the fittest; only the most powerful are destined to lead - is not evil. It is self-serving, it is brutal, and it isn't for the feint of heart, but it in itself is not evil. Merely, the actions we take on achieving this will echo who we truly are. One cannot approach the ideology from a black/white standpoint. Much like real life, and how we live our lives, there are shades of grey.

 

A psychopath who tortures for the fun of it is a very different person than an honorable warrior who shows no quarter to his enemies; yet both can be Sith. Both can thrive in Sith society; both can attain power.

 

P.S. This is the whole premise of "Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, etc." To represent the different shades of each side. A Lawful Evil character won't needlessly slaughter innocents, nor does he get his jollies off in doing such an act, but he also will not compromise himself or his ultimate goal for the meek; he will not defend those who cannot defend themselves (and in today's society, we consider this "evil." I consider it - survival of the fittest) Where as, a Chaotic Evil character would be your blood-soaked psychopath, running around cutting the limbs off of women and children, because he gets off on the torment of others.

Edited October 21, 2012 by ForeverSteadfast

[Maaruin]

P.S. This is the whole premise of "Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, etc." To represent the different shades of each side. A Lawful Evil character won't needlessly slaughter innocents, nor does he get his jollies off in doing such an act, but he also will not compromise himself or his ultimate goal for the meek; he will not defend those who cannot defend themselves (and in today's society, we consider this "evil." I consider it - survival of the fittest) Where as, a Chaotic Evil character would be your blood-soaked psychopath, running around cutting the limbs off of women and children, because he gets off on the torment of others.

 

Simple question: Would he slaughter innocents if it serves his goals? If yes, he is evil. Lawful evil, but still evil (and, as far as I know, in every society, not just in ours).

[Khevar]

I also think that the Sith philosophy should be considered evil as it promotes selfish power and personal strength over strength for the group. Compare the Spartans, who's philosophy of survival of the fittest had, as it's goal, Greek power and dominance, and had an expectation of cooperation and teamwork and respect with other Spartans.

 

While these things can be found in the Empire, especially among the more capable members, the members of the Sith order itself are expected to embrace personal power, even at the expense of the Empire as a whole.

[Ikorus]

I'd like to apologize in advance if this seems disorganized and ramble-y. My mind operates in disconnected jumps forward and back, and it's sometimes hard to arrange my thoughts in the way that best gets my point across.

 

Now see, I've read about 60-some pages of this and I think we're starting to confuse the issue of good vs evil with dark vs light or empire vs republic.

 

are the Sith really evil?

 

Yes. There may be individuals who are neutral or even good, but the overwhelming majority of sith are evil.

 

are the Sith dark?

 

pretty much, yeh. couple lightsiders, using good and skywalkery passions, or none at all, but pretty much solely dark.

 

is dark evil? is light good?

 

you probably expect another affirmative. you would be wrong. granted there are more evil darksiders than there are neutral or good (and vice versa), but "dark" in terms of aligned choices pretty much just makes you an ******e. almost all classes, most of your non-stupid "kill all the things for teh evulz" dark choices make you sound like an utter *****. granted imperials have more "kill all the things" options, but the point stands.

 

now, a lightsided Sith; they are real. and most them are still evil, or at least that seems to be what is generally intended.

 

take the Sith Warrior player character, known by the moniker "Emperor's Wrath, Cold War Era." I played through to Taris, making mostly light choices after getting Vette because it made her happy.

 

i was still the villain.

 

i went from planet to planet crushing resistances, killing figureheads, and generally being an antagonist to the republic. But to quote Zangeif, perhaps the greatest wrestling philosopher ever, "Just because you're a bad guy doesn't make you a BAD GUY."

 

I massacred my foes, and was chill with my buddies - except Quinn. never did like him. I was the VILLAIN.

 

I was NOT however a MONSTER about it. Even Evil - with a capitol E Evil - has standards, and that IMO is the core philosophy of a light sided Sith. Not a person trained as a Sith who would probably defect asap if allowed as i'm sure some of you play, but an actual SITH, who believes in the code and in the empire and would turkey slap the Jedi for even OFFERING their so-called redemption.

 

"I'm the bad guy of this story, but that doesn't mean I have to be a complete monster and stabmurder babies in the face."

 

So really LS Sith who actually ARE Sith (though exceedingly rare these days, how sad) are a viable option, though defectors are more likely. They're less like the Saturday morning cartoon villains most people are familiar with and more like...the villains of ancient epics and Shakespearean plays.

 

EDIT: Even the anger/hate thing isn't necessarily evil, though still makes you come off like a massive douche - an LS marauder still operates on the resources of Rage and Fury with good reason (other than game balancing): RIGHTEOUS fury.

 

It's a thing. The smiting of the wicked, et alii.

 

But Sith get all ragemode over damn near everything, righteous or not >.>

 

Re-edit: I just looked at the timestamps, having found this from Google ratheer than forum crawling and HOLY COW was this a necropost. I am SO SORRY.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Ikorus

[Ugolino]

I've seen this topic come up a number of times, and it's gotten me to thinking: Are the Sith really a truly evil organization,

 

Yes they are.

[Laiov]

Where self-sacrifice and monastic primitivism are defined as good, egocentrism and power-seeking are rendered evil, in being opposing forces.

 

I reject that definition of good though. Both the Sith and the Jedi are evil from my perspective. But where the Sith are just evil, the Jedi are both evil and repulsive.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Laiov

[TalonVII]

Where self-sacrifice and monastic primitivism are defined as good, egocentrism and power-seeking are rendered evil, in being opposing forces.

 

I reject that definition of good though. Both the Sith and the Jedi are evil from my perspective. But where the Sith are just evil, the Jedi are both evil and repulsive.

 

Jedi are not really "evil" persay, but neither are they usually pargons of light and virtue everybody wants them to be.

 

Now are the Sith evil. Well yes and no. The homicidal, genocidal maniacs, yes total evil. Will most sith use the dark side of the force in combat and do anything to get an edge on the competition. Sure. But some are not evil. Granted they want to take over the galaxy, but look at it from their standpoint. Republic is corrupt and decadent and can't really govern courscant let alone the rest of the known galaxy.

 

I mean wouldn't you want to take it over so you could have some sembalance of order in the chaos of the republic?

[Khevar]

Jedi are not really "evil" persay, but neither are they usually pargons of light and virtue everybody wants them to be.

 

Now are the Sith evil. Well yes and no. The homicidal, genocidal maniacs, yes total evil. Will most sith use the dark side of the force in combat and do anything to get an edge on the competition. Sure. But some are not evil. Granted they want to take over the galaxy, but look at it from their standpoint. Republic is corrupt and decadent and can't really govern courscant let alone the rest of the known galaxy.

 

I mean wouldn't you want to take it over so you could have some sembalance of order in the chaos of the republic?

The Empire may not be evil. And there are individual Sith who aren't evil.

 

But as a group, they promote a philosophy where might makes right, the end always justifies the means, and the strong will dominate the weak. This is a breeding ground for evil. It makes it easy for evil people to rise in the ranks.

[TalonVII]

The Empire may not be evil. And there are individual Sith who aren't evil.

 

But as a group, they promote a philosophy where might makes right, the end always justifies the means, and the strong will dominate the weak. This is a breeding ground for evil. It makes it easy for evil people to rise in the ranks.

 

I do not disagree in the least. Spot on.