Are Sith really evil?

[Marak]

I didn't even address the ocean post because George Lucas himself has already completely stated that the force doesn't work like that. You cannot "combat" the logic of the dark side being evil, because it's already been stated by the creator of Star Wars itself that the force is balanced when there are no dark side users. Using the dark side itself is an evil, destructive act, not only to the user but is considered to be causing an imbalance in the force.

 

If your character has ever shown mercy, he has contradicted the Sith code. If they are light sided, they are definitely contradicting the Sith code.

 

 

George is irrelevant. He doesn't care about the EU.

 

"The Star Wars Expanded Universe encompasses all of the officially licensed, fictional background of the Star Wars universe, outside of the six feature films produced by George Lucas. The expanded universe includes books, comic books, video games, spin-off films like Star Wars: The Clone Wars, television series, toys, and other media. This material expands and continues the stories told in the films and, excepting where it contradicts the films, is generally considered canonical. However, George Lucas has viewed it as a separate canon from his movie series."

[GoggleBoi]

 

I believe this philosophy has a place in SW and I do not believe it goes against the Sith Code. I think LucasArts agrees with me.

 

 

Ah, well there I must, with respect, disagree. It is my belief that the Dark Side corrupts, absolutely. As a Sith, born and raised within the Empire, you would be entirely steeped in the Dark Side, surrounded by it at all times. Your 'morality' would be questionable to begin with. What you would consider 'right' and 'wrong' would be defined by the society in which you live. They are not entirely 'universal.' One of those morals is that helping others, for no other reason than to help, is weak. And to aid an individual weaker than yourself is to make yourself weak.

 

The Sith Empire is built on Survival of The Fittest, with an emphasis on homicidal competition. Note: I am talking of the Sith Order, not the Empire at large - IE, Non-Force users. I cannot see a merciful or compassionate force-user surviving in that environment for any length of time.

 

Mind you, LucasArts could very well end up backing you, rather than those of us dissenting, but until then, I suppose that we, you and I at least, will have to interpret the Lore in our own ways, and, for my part at least, respect one another's opinions, yes?

[Marak]

Ah, well there I must, with respect, disagree. It is my belief that the Dark Side corrupts, absolutely. As a Sith, born and raised within the Empire, you would be entirely steeped in the Dark Side, surrounded by it at all times. Your 'morality' would be questionable to begin with. What you would consider 'right' and 'wrong' would be defined by the society in which you live. They are not entirely 'universal.' One of those morals is that helping others, for no other reason than to help, is weak. And to aid an individual weaker than yourself is to make yourself weak.

 

The Sith Empire is built on Survival of The Fittest, with an emphasis on homicidal competition. Note: I am talking of the Sith Order, not the Empire at large - IE, Non-Force users. I cannot see a merciful or compassionate force-user surviving in that environment for any length of time.

 

Mind you, LucasArts could very well end up backing you, rather than those of us dissenting, but until then, I suppose that we, you and I at least, will have to interpret the Lore in our own ways, and, for my part at least, respect one another's opinions, yes?

 

I think that's where the Inquisitor backstory lends itself well to the whole non-evil moral choice, though.

 

They aren't born-Sith. They are force sensitive slaves. As a slave would you not be more sympathetic to the suffering of others? I would think so. You're also not likely indoctrinated, or at least not nearly as much.

 

edit: And of course I have no issue with people that want their Sith to be evil. I'm all for it. There is room for both. (hence my point )

Edited February 7, 2012 by Marak

[BigBashkar]

Strawman much?

 

If you have mounds of evidence.. let's see it.

 

And what of the mounds of evidence against you? Nothing in the Sith Code, which were your words.. not mine--I just showed you what the Sith Code actually was, states anything about being a brutal, deceitful, or any other sort of negatives. Also there are quests IN THE GAME that show SITH being GOOD. Ergo.. NOT ALL SITH ARE EVIL.

 

And LucasArts would not sign off on a simple gameplay decision to retcon later. They will either reconcile it or they already have. It's not difficult to understand this. LucasArts had all final say in matters regarding the lore. There were no accidents.

 

The Sith Code you are calling to is the most basic of Sith teachings, a simple mantra. If you take one step beyond that - given that you played your Inquisitor's questline, no? - you obviously see that throughout the entire game the Sith are perfecting their strength and mastery of the dark side. That is a core belief.

 

In fact, the toggle ability in the game to show your dark side corruption is called Sith Corruption, due to how interchangeable the two terms are.

 

The are mountains of books, games, shows and the movies themselves that explicitly espouse the idea that the Sith use the Dark Side. Find me a single Sith that uses the light side and isn't hunted down and killed, and do this without pointing to the Old Republic itself - which is not fully integrated into Star Wars canon yet. You spoke of a Sith who spoke the strength of the light side? Was it not denied by the other Sith and ignored for contradicting their teachings? Is it not the dark sided choice to destroy it?

 

The EU and the Star Wars lore define the Sith as an order of dark-side users. The Star Wars lore defines Sith Sorcery as a "manipulation of the dark side." Nearly every art they perfect, ranging from Sith Alchemy to the Sith styles of saber combat call on the dark side of the force for power. I could list hundreds of Sith that use the dark side, speak of it fondly, and have mastery of it. Can you list a single Sith that uses the Light Side, without pointing towards The Old Republic - which is, as I already stated - not fully in the lore and additionally the first known time there's ever been an apparent contradiction?

[Marak]

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

[TrollBerzerker]

Strawman much?

 

If you have mounds of evidence.. let's see it.

 

And what of the mounds of evidence against you? Nothing in the Sith Code, which were your words.. not mine--I just showed you what the Sith Code actually was, states anything about being a brutal, deceitful, or any other sort of negatives. Also there are quests IN THE GAME that show SITH being GOOD. Ergo.. NOT ALL SITH ARE EVIL.

 

First off, that is definitely the pot calling the kettle black. Second, we've been stating it throughout the thread, you've been choosing to ignore it. Third, the only sith I have ever seen being good is the player character's sith, and that one holorecording on Dromund Kaas that is obviously directly conflicting with the sith code and the dark side of the force.

 

George is irrelevant. He doesn't care about the EU.

 

Wrong. The EU is its own separate canon, but it still bends and adheres to the canon set by Lucas.

 

George Lucas's word is what's known as L-level canon. It's the highest form of canon in Star Wars, and trumps literally everything else, EU or not.

 

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

 

You mean, what you've been saying to us throughout the entire thread?

Edited February 7, 2012 by TrollBerzerker

[BigBashkar]

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

 

You can't be serious.. yes? You do realize that this is how the Star Wars EU has worked for decades, and will work for this game?

 

Player characters are always non-canon and in an ambiguous level of canon until it's stated what is canon about them.

 

Go ahead. List a Light Side Sith. Oh, it's just your Sith Inquisitor character, which happens to be a player character?

[Marak]

 

George Lucas's word is what's known as L-level canon. It's the highest form of canon in Star Wars, and trumps literally everything else, EU or not.

 

I would agree with you if we were talking about SWG era, but we're not.

 

Were there any non-evil Sith during Palpatine's era? Nope.

 

Lucas wins this round.

[Marak]

You can't be serious.. yes? You do realize that this is how the Star Wars EU has worked for decades, and will work for this game?

 

Player characters are always non-canon and in an ambiguous level of canon until it's stated what is canon about them.

 

Go ahead. List a Light Side Sith. Oh, it's just your Sith Inquisitor character, which happens to be a player character?

 

Revanites. Dude in the Sith Temple. Arguably Lord Scourge. Pre-Jedi recruitment Lord Praven.

[BigBashkar]

Revanites. Dude in the Sith Temple. Arguably Lord Scourge. Pre-Jedi recruitment Lord Praven.

 

Revanites are explicity defined as a dark-side cult of non-sith.

 

Dude in the Sith Temple has abandoned the dark side, and that's also why destroying the holocron is a dark sided and act and also why he's considered a raving lunatic by other Sith.

 

Lord Praven is

slowly leaving the Dark Side and doubts the Sith, and actually becomes a Jedi.. so he's actually proof that you can't be a Light Sided Sith.

 

 

Lord Scourge is manipulative and clever. He is obviously a Dark Sider, however.

[GoggleBoi]

They aren't born-Sith. They are force sensitive slaves. As a slave would you not be more sympathetic to the suffering of others? I would think so. You're also not likely indoctrinated, or at least not nearly as much.

 

Certainly; it is possible. But given the society, it is just as likely that they would seize the power and use it to better themselves, thinking that power is precious and rare, and not to be squandered on those that cannot help themselves.

 

As you say, there is room for both interpretations. Bioware, EA and Lucasarts have allowed for this within SWTOR. But the EU at large has not. I think that is the point others are so vehemently trying to make, while at the same time failing to see yours.

[TrollBerzerker]

Revanites. Dude in the Sith Temple. Arguably Lord Scourge. Pre-Jedi recruitment Lord Praven.

 

We've already debated the Revanites and that holorecording in the sith temple.

 

I don't even know why you keep bringing that dude up, he probably hurts your argument worse than anything else. He directly stated beliefs that were in direct confrontation with several sections of the Sith Code. As BigBashkar pointed out, the dark-sided decision is to destroy that holorecording. His beliefs are very reminiscent of the jedi code.

 

I don't know anything about the other two, but considering you said 'arguably' for Lord Scourge, I'm willing to bet that example is shaky at best. I will look him up.

[Marak]

Revanites are explicity defined as a dark-side cult of non-sith.

 

Dude in the Sith Temple has abandoned the dark side, and that's also why destroying the holocron is a dark sided and act and also why he's considered a raving lunatic by other Sith.

 

Lord Praven is

slowly leaving the Dark Side and doubts the Sith, and actually becomes a Jedi.. so he's actually proof that you can't be a Light Sided Sith.

 

 

Lord Scourge is manipulative and clever. He is obviously a Dark Sider, however.

 

Praven

 

 

A Sith pureblood, Lord Praven has trained in the ways of the Force since the earliest years of his youth. Fiercely loyal to the Emperor and an ardent believer in the philosophical teachings of the dark side, Praven is surprisingly calm and collected in his speech and actions.

 

He follows a strict code of personal honor, and unlike many other Sith, he eschews random acts of cruelty and sadism. Despite this, he is sworn to destroy the Jedi and considers them his mortal enemies.

 

During the Sacking of Coruscant, Lord Praven killed Master Usma–one of the Jedi’s most famous duelists–in an epic battle. But he spared Usma’s young Padawan, telling her to seek him out once she had finished her training so they could face each other as equals. When she tracked him down years later, he honored his promise, sending her to the same fate as her Master.

 

 

If anyone proves that you CAN be a non-evil Sith it is him. Yes he eventually leaves the Sith, but for his entire adult life as an actual Sith Pureblood he had a different view on things.

 

And I don't want to argue Scourge. That's its own can of worms. I won't say he's "good" but he is certainly more grey than evil.

[BigBashkar]

If anyone proves that you CAN be a non-evil Sith it is him. Yes he eventually leaves the Sith, but for his entire adult life as an actual Sith Pureblood he had a different view on things.

 

And I don't want to argue Scourge. That's its own can of worms. I won't say he's "good" but he is certainly more grey than evil.

 

Praven's exact case is listed in my example. He finds his personal code incompatible with the Sith and eventually leaves because of that incompatibility. Being a "good Sith" doesn't work - he proves it by leaving, since he knows it won't work, and his personal honor and his goodness ultimately makes him a Jedi.

 

A "good Sith" would find the Sith code constantly interfering with what they believed was right, and they would eventually leave the Sith - since they were only Sith in name, not in spirit.

[TrollBerzerker]

Praven

 

 

A Sith pureblood, Lord Praven has trained in the ways of the Force since the earliest years of his youth. Fiercely loyal to the Emperor and an ardent believer in the philosophical teachings of the dark side, Praven is surprisingly calm and collected in his speech and actions.

 

He follows a strict code of personal honor, and unlike many other Sith, he eschews random acts of cruelty and sadism. Despite this, he is sworn to destroy the Jedi and considers them his mortal enemies.

 

During the Sacking of Coruscant, Lord Praven killed Master Usma–one of the Jedi’s most famous duelists–in an epic battle. But he spared Usma’s young Padawan, telling her to seek him out once she had finished her training so they could face each other as equals. When she tracked him down years later, he honored his promise, sending her to the same fate as her Master.

 

 

If anyone proves that you CAN be a non-evil Sith it is him. Yes he eventually leaves the Sith, but for his entire adult life as an actual Sith Pureblood he had a different view on things.

 

And I don't want to argue Scourge. That's its own can of worms. I won't say he's "good" but he is certainly more grey than evil.

 

Neither Praven nor Scourge are good. They're still evil, they're just more honorable and merciful than other sith. You're thinking that, if a character is evil, he or she is irredeemably evil and completely unrelatable. This isn't the case.

 

Both of these characters are prime examples of Lawful Evil. They have a strict code that they adhere to, but ultimately they are still evil.

 

Though, Praven does eventually become a jedi, so I'm not sure how relevant he is. He leaves the sith, ergo, he is no longer a sith.

Edited February 7, 2012 by TrollBerzerker

[Marak]

Praven's exact case is listed in my example. He finds his personal code incompatible with the Sith and eventually leaves because of that incompatibility. Being a "good Sith" doesn't work - he proves it by leaving, since he knows it won't work, and his personal honor and his goodness ultimately makes him a Jedi.

 

A "good Sith" would find the Sith code constantly interfering with what they believed was right, and they would eventually leave the Sith - since they were only Sith in name, not in spirit.

 

That is you manipulating the story to your argument.

 

The premise is this:

 

You cannot be a Sith, or dark side practitioner, and still be good or honorable. And you wanted someone who goes against this premise.

 

For his entire life he has been exactly that. A dark force using Sith, pureblood no less, with a code of honor.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Marak

[JediOwner]

It's really not, that's the point. The sith are evil, there's never been any attempt to make this ambiguous. When it comes to true sith, it's varying degrees of evil.

 

 

Unfortunately there is no objective arbiter of good and evil in the universe. Societies determine which actions are "good" and which are evil. All human societies throughout history have worked this way, and not all of them have drawn the line at the same point.

 

This is one of the things that irks me about *our* society. We pass judgment on each other like a street vendor handing out dogs at a football stadium. I'm not saying ****, murder and kidnapping are good, I'm saying that as scary as those things are, it's even scarier to pretend that they're objectively evil.

 

Societies that are intransigent about what they believe to be right are doomed to failure, because they will never be able to find middle ground and move forward. Look at Democrats and Republicans today, so determined to win the White House, and for what? Neither side makes any progress because they never quite seem to grasp the fact that Americans don't want either one of them to be completely in charge. They *must* know this, but neither side can stop calling the other evil.

 

Another example: The United States was founded with the institution of slavery intact. Awful? Absolutely. But without that compromise the country doesn't get formed at all. The United States is *better* because of its flaws. Without them its nothing but a bunch of holier-than-thou intellectuals telling other countries what to do. The flaws -- the fact that America is an "experiment" and is always a "work in progress" -- are why we're still here. It's when we forget that we're the land of compromise and slow-progress-over-time that we run into trouble.

 

The Jedi have the same problem -- they are judgmental in the extreme. Everything is decided, and fits neatly into the categories of "good" or "evil". You touch "evil", you're lost. End of story.

 

That's why Yoda *failed*. Blinded by ideology, he ended up losing everything. The Temple. The Order. The order's future (younglings). The very Republic itself. Everything. For all his brilliance and power, he *never even saw it coming*.

 

I digress, but the point is that they failed when they declared the Sith objectively (implying unredeemably) evil. From that point forward, the Republic was doomed.

 

 

Some sith are honorable, preferring a clean fight and to give their opponents a chance to fight, but ultimately they seek to conquer and gain power. Some sith are destructive, deceitful, dishonorable and malicious. But no matter what, a sith can't ever truly be good, it would require them to abandon everything that the sith stand for.

 

By your definition of "good" that's true.

 

I think of the Sith as like the various fascist/racist/nationalist movements in the 1930s, as contrasted with, say, a stereotypical Bond villain. The Bond villain thinks they're selecting the lesser of two evils, and are therefore good. The fascist, on the other hand, defines good as "we win".

 

To both the Sith and the fascist, that's how thing are *anyway*. Everyone else is just lying about it. The Jedi aren't "good", they just hide behind a *mask* of good. Behind it they're hypocrits.

 

Don't get me wrong, you couldn't pay me to live in the Empire. But IMO calling it objectively evil is a mistake, because it weakens our ability to identify and combat it in the future.

 

My two bits anyway. It's a good debate -- certainly food for thought. Nice thread.

[TrollBerzerker]

That is you manipulating the story to your argument.

 

The premise is this:

 

You cannot be a Sith, or dark side practitioner, and still be good or honorable. And you wanted someone who goes against this premise.

 

For his entire life he has been exactly that. A dark force using Sith, pureblood no less, with a code of honor.

 

You can be honorable, but not good. A code of honor doesn't necessarily mean you're good, it just means you have standards.

 

Not gonna bother to quote JediOwner's post, or read it the whole way through. The first sentence told me everything I need to know.

 

Star Wars has a clearly defined good and evil. Period, the end. There's no ambiguity to it. Stop bringing the real world into this, it doesn't apply.

Edited February 7, 2012 by TrollBerzerker

[BigBashkar]

That is you manipulating the story to your argument.

 

The premise is this:

 

You cannot be a Sith, or dark side practitioner, and still be good or honorable. And you wanted someone who goes against this premise.

 

For his entire life he has been exactly that. A dark force using Sith, pureblood no less, with a code of honor.

 

And where did that get him?

 

He ends up a Jedi. So, let me get this straight, if you are a good and honorable Sith.. you end up a Jedi.

 

So, yes, you could be an honorable, good, non-dark side using Sith.. but you would run into contradictions and likely leave the Sith since you don't fit the Sith code at all.

 

You do see how Lord Praven hurts your argument, correct? He proves that you can't be honorable and good and remain a Sith - you end up leaving.

[Marak]

You can be honorable, but not good. A code of honor doesn't necessarily mean you're good, it just means you have standards.

 

 

Well what is Praven then? Since he is now a Jedi.

 

Is he masquerading as a good guy? No. He was always a good guy. He just decided to switch loyalties.

[Marak]

And where did that get him?

 

He ends up a Jedi. So, let me get this straight, if you are a good and honorable Sith.. you end up a Jedi.

 

So, yes, you could be an honorable, good, non-dark side using Sith.. but you would run into contradictions and likely leave the Sith since you don't fit the Sith code at all.

 

You do see how Lord Praven hurts your argument, correct? He proves that you can't be honorable and good and remain a Sith - you end up leaving.

 

It does NOT hurt my argument.

 

Praven was exactly what my character is and for decades, if not longer. I'm not exactly sure how old he is. He was a GOOD SITH for DECADES before being bested by a Jedi in a duel and being convinced to switch sides.

 

His very existence means that I, and others like me, can too be GOOD SITH

[TrollBerzerker]

Well what is Praven then? Since he is now a Jedi.

 

Is he masquerading as a good guy? No. He was always a good guy. He just decided to switch loyalties.

 

You are contradicting your own logic. Do you understand this?

 

You're saying sith can be good. Praven switched sides. He is no longer a sith, because he does not believe in their ways. Praven became a jedi, and thus he is a redeemed sith.

 

I never, ever said a sith couldn't be redeemed. I said a sith could not be good and remain a sith.

Edited February 7, 2012 by TrollBerzerker

[BigBashkar]

It does NOT hurt my argument.

 

Praven was exactly what my character is and for decades, if not longer. I'm not exactly sure how old he is. He was a GOOD SITH for DECADES before being bested by a Jedi in a duel and being convinced to switch sides.

 

His very existence means that I, and others like me, can too be GOOD SITH

 

Why would he leave, unless the Sith Code isn't compatible with being good and honorable?

 

So you admit your character, if given the choice between Sith and Jedi, would join the Jedi, yes?

[GoggleBoi]

 

That's why Yoda *failed*. Blinded by ideology, he ended up losing everything. The Temple. The Order. The order's future (younglings). The very Republic itself. Everything. For all his brilliance and power, he *never even saw it coming*.

 

Holy crap, I'd never thought of it like that... It makes so much sense now 0.0

 

Thanks for that.

[JediOwner]

Holy crap, I'd never thought of it like that... It makes so much sense now 0.0

 

Thanks for that.

 

Welcome.

 

TrollBerzerker, I'm not bringing the real world into it, I'm just attempting analogies based on familiar examples -- you're absolutely right that it's not the real world. I'd be grateful for a full read of my last post. I'm not attacking you like some folks around here. On the contrary, I think it's a fascinating discussion.