Okay, to clear a few things up....

[FalcoLombardi]

No. There is no such line dividing good and evil. It's all in the context.

 

For an example, take the Yuuzhan Vong. At first glance, they seem like an evil race of monsters. They invaded the Star Wars galaxy, (it really needs a name by the way) and started a war that would come to kill hundreds of trillions of people. They maim and torture on a daily basis, seemingly for fun.

 

But then you learn more about them. They invaded the galaxy because there is literally no where else for them to go. They started the war because, to them, it was just the natural way to move in. Their society is entirely based around pain because that's simply the way they developed as a culture.

 

The context of their actions is based around an entirely different morallity from what we have. That's not evil. It's just different.

 

Sorry, if you torture on daily basis for fun. Enjoy people in pain, and love starting wars to move in instead of just integrating yourselves peacefully. You're pretty evil. Killing hundreds of trillions for no reason? Can you even fathom how much 1 trillion is, much less hundreds of them?

[JacenHallis]

There is no Light or Dark. There is only the White Current.

[Chirru]

Sorry, if you torture on daily basis for fun. Enjoy people in pain, and love starting wars to move in instead of just integrating yourselves peacefully. You're pretty evil. Killing hundreds of trillions for no reason? Can you even fathom how much 1 trillion is, much less hundreds of them?

 

Hmm...Hm... scratch head... scratch nose.... hmm

 

Yea... pretty evil. I agree.

 

Are inanimate things (rocks, trees and such) evil? I would say no. Even if they kill me...they are not evil. It was just an accident.

Are animals (of any kind) evil? ...scratch head.... sure, animals can move and have limited brain functions. But really, me thinks... animals are mostly just biological machines. Therefore I would say...who would blame the Car for killing its occupant. Something without a free will, without the ability to exercise free will, simply is beyond good and evil...in my opinion. Therefore I would say that Animals are also beyond good and evil.

 

However, every creature with a brain producing free will has a choice. If the choice is to destroy, then this is a free will choice. Me thinks that throughout the Universe the free will choice to destroy, rather then to build up, is generally called Evil by most intelligences.

Should there be truly free will intelligences who see destroying as a way of life, then ...what would one call them else but Evil? A Cancer? A Blemish? A Blight? It seems to me that Good and Evil are concepts inherent to the Universe, and not just something that someone cooked up in a dream.

 

Therefore, Good and Evil are not individual (subjective) concepts. Good and Evil somehow relate to the universal concept of building up, or destroying.

 

The force, unless it is intelligent, can not be good, nor is it evil. The force just - IS -. However, an intelligent free will being using the Force can act in a good way (building up) or in an evil way (destroying).

To say that someone uses the good, or evil, side of the Force (in my opinion) makes the Force an intelligent being. That also would lay the blame for good and evil upon this intelligent Force, instead putting the blame where it belongs...with the individual, or a group of individuals

 

So..what is this all about?

 

Sith are not inherent evil just because they are Sith, nor are Jedi inherent good just because they are Jedi. Sith are individuals, or groups of individuals, who have decided to use the force for destruction. and Jedi are just the counter to this. However, in all of this it comes down to an individual Free Will Choice of how to use the Force (power) one has been given.

 

I see the above principles reflected throughout the Star Wars Universe. After all, Luke had to make an individual choice, and so did his father. Obi-wan certainly is wrong. It never depends on a certain point of View...it always depends on a personal choice.

 

Woe to those who call Evil, good.

Woe to those who call a Lie, the truth.

their destruction is assured ...by the Universal Intelligence.

 

Even fictitious events follow this rule...in my opinion.

[grandmthethird]

evil is not a point of view, somethings are evil, somethings are not

 

oxford have gone to the trouble of clearly stating what evil is

 

evil

 

Pronunciation: /ˈiːv(ə)l, -vɪl/

adjective

1profoundly immoral and wicked:

his evil deeds

no man is so evil as to be beyond redemption

(of a force or spirit) embodying or associated with the forces of the devil:

we were driven out of the house by an evil spirit

harmful or tending to harm:

the evil effects of high taxes

2(of a smell or sight) extremely unpleasant:

a bathroom with an ineradicably evil smell

 

so there you go, ppl that say "in my opinion that is not evil" or "what some ppl consider evil, others might not" just don't understand what the word evil means.

 

the whole, there has to be evil to be balance argument, well i'm kinda on the fence on that one. i'm not convinced but i don't dismiss it. but what i am sure of is. the darkside is the evil side of the force, its ultimate goal is to destroy everything. this seems evil to me. and any1 that uses the darkside is accessing evil powers, therefore doing evil things. hence the sith are evil. dark/fallen jedi are evil. (hmm that sounds like i'm dealing in absolutes,,, shh dont' tell obi-wan)

 

but refer back to oxford

 

no man is so evil as to be beyond redemption

[Velaran]

Sorry, if you torture on daily basis for fun. Enjoy people in pain, and love starting wars to move in instead of just integrating yourselves peacefully. You're pretty evil. Killing hundreds of trillions for no reason? Can you even fathom how much 1 trillion is, much less hundreds of them?

 

A. Difference moral compass. You can't judge them based on the moral code you follow, because it simply doesn't connect in that way.

 

B. Yes. I can. For example:

 

The was was four years long, and it caused the deaths of 365 trillion people (the bulk of whom were presumably civilians), or 250 billion A DAY.

 

Put another way, given the roughly 1 million inhabited worlds in the Star Wars Galaxy, that means each and every inhabited world lost an average of 365 million inhabitants (or 6 World War II's, simultaneously, over 4 years). That means every time at the end of a chapter or scene, which usually marks the passage of a day or even a few hours, countless billions more are already dead.

 

Every conversation dithering about morality and using superweapons against the Vong? Hundreds of millions died during the course of the dialog. That's aweful, yes, but it doesn't make the Vong evil, because they just don't respect life the way humans do, or see a need to respect it. It's just how they live as a culture.

 

oxford have gone to the trouble of clearly stating what evil is

 

evil

 

Pronunciation: /ˈiːv(ə)l, -vɪl/

adjective

1profoundly immoral and wicked:

his evil deeds

no man is so evil as to be beyond redemption

(of a force or spirit) embodying or associated with the forces of the devil:

we were driven out of the house by an evil spirit

harmful or tending to harm:

the evil effects of high taxes

2(of a smell or sight) extremely unpleasant:

a bathroom with an ineradicably evil smell

 

so there you go, ppl that say "in my opinion that is not evil" or "what some ppl consider evil, others might not" just don't understand what the word evil means.

 

Oxford defines immoral as "Not conforming to the accepted standards of morality."

 

It defines wicked as "Evil or morally wrong."

 

It defines morality as "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour."

 

Who decides where that morality is centered? Oxford? I'd think not.

 

The Vong have a morality centered in an entirely different and alien way from what we, as humans, cling to. It's simply not fair to judge them based on what we see in ourselves. Think, say, the Formics from Enders Game, and you'll see what I mean.

 

The Sith are similar, albeit for a different reason. They're not necessitated to be evil, but the orthodox (and majority) view of their religion forces them to act in a way that seems very evil to our view. This is similar to, say, (and I really didn't want to bring real life into this) Muslim fundamentalists. No, not extremists, fundamentalists. Today, they seem pretty evil from a westem perspective, (our morality based almost entirely around Christian teachings) but to them it's just the way life is. They had much the same idea of us (for a given value of "us" based on where you live) back in the middle ages when we were bashing each other's brains in because we couldn't decide which view of Christianity was the right one.

 

To sum up, Palpatine in EPIII wasn't lying when he said good was a point of view.

 

Because it is.

[_JediKnight]

Arguing about what the Vong did, or whether Sith or jedi are good or evil based on our real life world is pointless and it seems like that's what is going on here to some extent. Morality or good vs. evil is dictated by the creator, in our world it was God, in the SW universe it was George Lucas.

 

If something like what the Vong did happened in our world it would undeniably be considered morally wrong and evil because we have a standard set in stone (literally, haha...ok the ten commandments joke is not that funny).

 

It's also not really accurate to just say it's all about one's viewpoint either. A whole culture/group of people may be living a certain way and it may seem normal to them but that doesn't automatically make what they are doing correct. If we all of a sudden discovered an entire nation of cannibalistic people in our world who constantly back-stabbed each other and tortured and killed children, it may be a part of normal life for them but that doesn't make what they are doing any less wrong or morally evil. For the Vong culture, just because it is how they've always remembered living doesn't automatically mean they are not evil, it just comes down to my point in the next paragraph.

 

For the answer to all this we need to look to GL for that standard, what does he say to be good and what does he say to be evil, or does he say it's all relative and there is no good or evil. The Jedi, Sith, Vong can't be measured by our real world standards because they don't exist here, they exist in a galaxy completely created and controlled by GL. Nobody can win a debate here by presenting viewpoints based on real world morality when the universe in question runs by different rules by a different creator.

[ACLucius]

Arguing about what the Vong did, or whether Sith or jedi are good or evil based on our real life world is pointless and it seems like that's what is going on here to some extent. Morality or good vs. evil is dictated by the creator, in our world it was God, in the SW universe it was George Lucas.

 

If something like what the Vong did happened in our world it would undeniably be considered morally wrong and evil because we have a standard set in stone (literally, haha...ok the ten commandments joke is not that funny).

 

It's also not really accurate to just say it's all about one's viewpoint either. A whole culture/group of people may be living a certain way and it may seem normal to them but that doesn't automatically make what they are doing correct. If we all of a sudden discovered an entire nation of cannibalistic people in our world who constantly back-stabbed each other and tortured and killed children, it may be a part of normal life for them but that doesn't make what they are doing any less wrong or morally evil. For the Vong culture, just because it is how they've always remembered living doesn't automatically mean they are not evil, it just comes down to my point in the next paragraph.

 

For the answer to all this we need to look to GL for that standard, what does he say to be good and what does he say to be evil, or does he say it's all relative and there is no good or evil. The Jedi, Sith, Vong can't be measured by our real world standards because they don't exist here, they exist in a galaxy completely created and controlled by GL. Nobody can win a debate here by presenting viewpoints based on real world morality when the universe in question runs by different rules by a different creator.

 

In order to define what is good and evil, one must first know what is moral and immoral. If Lucas knows the absolutes, then he can define what is good or evil. If he does not (which none of us do...yet), then he can only state that they are good or evil in his view. If it is only in his view, then it remains relative and therefore each person gets to define what they will as good and evil.

 

As it is, George Lucas can only tell us what is good or evil within his universe. This discussion does not limit itself to his universe though, but rather it moves into our own universe and its concepts of morality. We can measure them by our standards because in order to say we can't, you have to prove they don't exist in the first place, which requires disproving the multiverse theory, or at the very least, proving that there are a limited number of universes and one which is exactly like the Star Wars universe does not exist within reality. I'm quite certain none of us can prove or disprove any of this, so it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the nature of good and evil within the Star Wars universe in comparison to our own.

[Wolventhorne]

I can't tell if Lucas is an idiot for not being able to keep his own story strait, or a complete genius for making the lore ambigious enough to keep the debates as alive and fervent as any debate regarding religion.

[grandmthethird]

I can't tell if Lucas is an idiot for not being able to keep his own story strait, or a complete genius for making the lore ambigious enough to keep the debates as alive and fervent as any debate regarding religion.

 

I completely agree

[Aurbere]

Let's take a minute to look at this with logic. The Force itself is pure Light. The Jedi and most do-gooders say 'May the Force be with you' but the Sith say 'The Dark Side is with you' because the Dark Side is a separate entity from the Natural Force.

 

You talk about Mortis and Balance, yet you seem to fail to remember that the Son, or the Dark Side, sought to destroy the Sith and the Jedi and take over the galaxy. The Son became powerful enough to set forth a series of events that caused the Daughter(Light Side) and the Father(Balance) to perish. Although the Son was defeated, this instance tells us that if Dark and Light so-exist together, the Dark will attempt to destroy the Light.

 

On the topic of Nihilus, Vitiate and Sidious, we see that each of these Sith Lords sought some measure of destruction. Nihilus used his power to destroy billions of lives to satisfy his never-ending hunger. Vitiate planned on destroying the galaxy and absorbing the life-essence of each individual to increase his power. Not only would he have destroyed the galaxy, but he would have prevented any chance of the Light being restored. Sidious is the only successful Sith Lord out of the bunch. He was able to successfully accomplish his goal, if only for a limited time. He conquered the galaxy and nearly extinguished all Light in the galaxy.

 

What do these three Sith Lords have in common? What is the common denominator? They all served the Dark Side. The natural instinct of the Dark Side and those who follow it is destruction. Whether you have good intentions or not, joining the dark side always ends badly. I can name a few instances where Jedi attempted to use the Dark Side and they were lost, or nearly lost to it. Luke when he tried to infiltrate reborn Palpatines ranks, although this one ended well. Jacen Solo, when he had good intentions to use his power to save loved ones. That's off the top of my head.

 

If you put together all of the facts, you can see that, not only is the Dark Side an unnatural aspect of the Force but it also seeks to destroy the Force itself and replace Light with Darkness. You can use the quotes of a man who seems to constantly contradict himself, but I use facts. If you could provide a date as to when he said the Dark and Light must be balanced, but also provide a date as to when he said the Dark Side is unnatural(if he did say that), because whichever came last is your answer.

[Velaran]

Let's take a minute to look at this with logic. The Force itself is pure Light. The Jedi and most do-gooders say 'May the Force be with you' but the Sith say 'The Dark Side is with you' because the Dark Side is a separate entity from the Natural Force.

 

You talk about Mortis and Balance, yet you seem to fail to remember that the Son, or the Dark Side, sought to destroy the Sith and the Jedi and take over the galaxy. The Son became powerful enough to set forth a series of events that caused the Daughter(Light Side) and the Father(Balance) to perish. Although the Son was defeated, this instance tells us that if Dark and Light so-exist together, the Dark will attempt to destroy the Light.

 

On the topic of Nihilus, Vitiate and Sidious, we see that each of these Sith Lords sought some measure of destruction. Nihilus used his power to destroy billions of lives to satisfy his never-ending hunger. Vitiate planned on destroying the galaxy and absorbing the life-essence of each individual to increase his power. Not only would he have destroyed the galaxy, but he would have prevented any chance of the Light being restored. Sidious is the only successful Sith Lord out of the bunch. He was able to successfully accomplish his goal, if only for a limited time. He conquered the galaxy and nearly extinguished all Light in the galaxy.

 

What do these three Sith Lords have in common? What is the common denominator? They all served the Dark Side. The natural instinct of the Dark Side and those who follow it is destruction. Whether you have good intentions or not, joining the dark side always ends badly. I can name a few instances where Jedi attempted to use the Dark Side and they were lost, or nearly lost to it. Luke when he tried to infiltrate reborn Palpatines ranks, although this one ended well. Jacen Solo, when he had good intentions to use his power to save loved ones. That's off the top of my head.

 

If you put together all of the facts, you can see that, not only is the Dark Side an unnatural aspect of the Force but it also seeks to destroy the Force itself and replace Light with Darkness. You can use the quotes of a man who seems to constantly contradict himself, but I use facts. If you could provide a date as to when he said the Dark and Light must be balanced, but also provide a date as to when he said the Dark Side is unnatural(if he did say that), because whichever came last is your answer.

 

1. They say that specifically to distance themselves from the Jedi.

 

2. A. The Son never intended to kill the Daughter. He simply wanted freedom from Mortis, after who knows how many thousands of years of being locked up. The Daughter died because of her altruism, when she threw herself between the Son and the Father.

 

B. I feel the need to ask again: If the Light is the true natural aspect of the Force, then why was the Daughter on Mortis? In fact, because there was a weapon capable of killing any of the three Celestials, why didn't the Father or the Daughter just kill the Son then? According to you, either option is clearly better then what they had been doing for untold millennium.

 

3. A. I never said either Side didn't seek conflict with the other. In FoTJ, Ben Skywalker has a converstation with Vestara Khai, in which she accuses the Jedi of seeking genocide on the Sith. Ben starts to argue about how the Jedi's goal isn't genocide, just… to destroy the Sith. He wisely shuts up upon realizing how stupid that sounds.

 

B. Which is why Vititate, Nihilus, and Sidious were all killed. Also, note Darth Ruin. He ruled the galaxy for quite some time, and he apparently didn't destroy the galaxy.

 

4. A. I never said the goal of the Dark Side wasn't destruction and chaos. I clearly stated so on the first page, and in a few posts afterwards.

 

B. Which is why there was a prophecy for someone to kill Sidious and destroy his Order. The same goes for Vititate.

 

C. On the topic of Jacen, his turn was a retcon. The original intent for his situation was to discover there was no Sides to the Force at all, which I personally like more. Also note that at the end, Jacen was pretty much the perfect Sith. He wasn't omnicidal or anything, he simply believed the future of the galaxy was on a different path and he followed the Dark Side. He was assassinated for his trouble.

 

5. A. The Dark Side doesn't seek to "destroy the Force", the Sith seek to destroy the Jedi, and the Jedi seek to destroy the Sith. They pretty much have the same end goal of "wipe out the other side." Note that neither the Son or the Daughter sought to kill each other, and when the Daughter sacrificed herself the Son was horrified. He even mourned at her grave site.

 

B. I did provide dates on his quotes about balance. The dating on his quotes about the Dark Side being unnatural simply don't matter in light of the most recent canon on the matter: Fate of The Jedi, and Mortis. If they both get retconned later, then so be it, but for now they're the final word on this.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Velaran

[Aurbere]

1. They say that specifically to distance themselves from the Jedi.

Is that stated as fact. Both my reasoning and yours on this particular subject is conjecture.

2. A. The Son never intended to kill the Daughter. He simply wanted freedom from Mortis, after who knows how many thousands of years of being locked up. The Daughter died because of her altruism, when she threw herself between the Son and the Father.

True. The Son never did intend on the Daughters death, but whether you have pure intentions or not. Using the Dark Side will end badly and people will die. If he wanted freedom, how come he kept talking about destroying the Jedi?

B. I feel the need to ask again: If the Light is the true natural aspect of the Force, then why was the Daughter on Mortis? In fact, because there was a weapon capable of killing any of the three Celestials, why didn't the Father or the Daughter just kill the Son then? According to you, either option is clearly better then what they had been doing for untold millennium.

Why didn't the Father and Daughter kill the Son? Because it was wrong to do that. Mercy is the reason. And perhaps they sought to turn him. I don't know. It's difficult to know what celestial beings are thinking.

3. A. I never said either Side didn't seek conflict with the other. In FoTJ, Ben Skywalker has a converstation with Vestara Khai, in which she accuses the Jedi of seeking genocide on the Sith. Ben starts to argue about how the Jedi's goal isn't genocide, just… to destroy the Sith. He wisely shuts up upon realizing how stupid that sounds.

While I agree that neither side doesn't seek conflict, the fact remains that Sith are more likely to start conflict than the Jedi. History provides the evidence to that point.

B. Which is why Vititate, Nihilus, and Sidious were all killed. Also, note Darth Ruin. He ruled the galaxy for quite some time, and he apparently didn't destroy the galaxy.

Darth Ruin never ruled the galaxy. He fought a war with the Jedi, but his followers eventually turned on him and killed him. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darth_Ruin

4. A. I never said the goal of the Dark Side wasn't destruction and chaos. I clearly stated so on the first page, and in a few posts afterwards.

That may be true, but you make it sound like you don't think the Dark Side is a bad thing.B. Which is why there was a prophecy for someone to kill Sidious and destroy his Order. The same goes for Vititate.

 

C. On the topic of Jacen, his turn was a retcon. The original intent for his situation was to discover there was no Sides to the Force at all, which I personally like more. Also note that at the end, Jacen was pretty much the perfect Sith. He wasn't omnicidal or anything, he simply believed the future of the galaxy was on a different path and he followed the Dark Side. He was assassinated for his trouble.

The purest of intentions can be turned to evil when the Dark Side is involved. Jacen foolishly believed that he could be a Sith and still do good. He wanted to change the galaxy through a galactic takeover similar to Palpatine. Thankfully, he was defeated before any irrepairable damage could be inflicted.

5. A. The Dark Side doesn't seek to "destroy the Force", the Sith seek to destroy the Jedi, and the Jedi seek to destroy the Sith. They pretty much have the same end goal of "wipe out the other side." Note that neither the Son or the Daughter sought to kill each other, and when the Daughter sacrificed herself the Son was horrified. He even mourned at her grave site.

Yes, the Dark Side does seek to destroy the Force because the Force is the Light Side. The Dark Side is a different entity that, if given the chance, will destroy its lighter side to gain dominance. The Son and Daughter did not intend to kill eachother. The Daughter sought to keep the Son on Mortis and the Son wanted to get off of Mortis. It's clear that the Son's only way off of the planet would be to "remove" the Father and Daughter, but when the time came he he was unable to face the fact that that's what he had to do. That's the reason for his horrification(made that word up:)) at the death of the Daughter.

B. I did provide dates on his quotes about balance. The dating on his quotes about the Dark Side being unnatural simply don't matter in light of the most recent canon on the matter: Fate of The Jedi, and Mortis. If they both get retconned later, then so be it, but for now they're the final word on this.

The most recent canon can be interpretated in multiple ways. And not willing to post the quotes of Lucas saying the Dark Side isn't natural seems to prove my point.

 

Answers are in the quote.

[Aurbere]

Before you respond to my post, let me change tactics. It's clear neither of us are going to change our minds. I've provided facts that support my case, you have provided facts to support your case and that's all we can do. I believe one thing, you believe another. I think we can't really know the truth until George or someone representing Lucasarts says what's what. So let's just leave it at that.

[Velaran]

Answers are in the quote.

 

1. True.

 

2. .... Because he is the Dark Side manifest?

 

3. Still doesn't explain why the Daughter was on Mortis at all. If the Light Side is the true, only Side of the Force, she should have been free. Plain and simple.

 

4. And yet the Sith have never been destroyed. No matter how far the Jedi go to wipe the Sith and Dark Side from the galaxy, they always survive. YMMV, but I see a reason for that.

 

5. I don't think it is, and I'm not really willing to argue that point with you. Neither of us could gain ground, because it's simply a matter of opinion.

 

6. Again, YMMV.

 

7. That's exactly what we're arguing about. You're basing your argument around the assumption that the Dark Side is evil and unnatural because it seeks to destroy the "true" Force, the Light Side, and that the "true" Force is the Light Side because the Dark Side is evil and unnatural and seeks to destroy it. This is circular logic.

 

"Subject A is Assertion 1 because it want's to destroy Subject B, which is Assterion 2, and Subject B is Assertion 2 because Subject A is Assertion 1 because Subject B is Assertion 2...." It just keeps going.

 

8. I can attest that any quotes about the Dark Side being unnatural almost certainly date to after the quotes I posted. This is also irrelevant, because the most recent canon about this was overseen by Lucas, and are all about the concept of

the Force, explicitly between Light and Dark.

[Velaran]

Before you respond to my post, let me change tactics. It's clear neither of us are going to change our minds. I've provided facts that support my case, you have provided facts to support your case and that's all we can do. I believe one thing, you believe another. I think we can't really know the truth until George or someone representing Lucasarts says what's what. So let's just leave it at that.

 

Erm, sorry. I was a little late in my response, and I was editing when you posted this. But yeah, you're pretty much right.

 

Question: Why was the idea of the Dark Side being natural the only thing we've been talking about in relation to my first post? I figured the concept that the Force could be accessed using positive emotions would be kind of a big thing, but it's just been ignored.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Velaran

[Aurbere]

1. True.

 

2. .... Because he is the Dark Side manifest?

 

3. Still doesn't explain why the Daughter was on Mortis at all. If the Light Side is the true, only Side of the Force, she should have been free. Plain and simple.

 

4. And yet the Sith have never been destroyed. No matter how far the Jedi go to wipe the Sith and Dark Side from the galaxy, they always survive. YMMV, but I see a reason for that.

 

5. I don't think it is, and I'm not really willing to argue that point with you. Neither of us could gain ground, because it's simply a matter of opinion.

 

6. Again, YMMV.

 

7. That's exactly what we're arguing about. You're basing your argument around the assumption that the Dark Side is evil and unnatural because it seeks to destroy the "true" Force, the Light Side, and that the "true" Force is the Light Side because the Dark Side is evil and unnatural and seeks to destroy it. This is circular logic.

 

"Subject A is Assertion 1 because it want's to destroy Subject B, which is Assterion 2, and Subject B is Assertion 2 because Subject A is Assertion 1 because Subject B is Assertion 2...." It just keeps going.

 

8. I can attest that any quotes about the Dark Side being unnatural almost certainly date to after the quotes I posted. This is also irrelevant, because the most recent canon about this was overseen by Lucas, and are all about the concept of

the Force, explicitly between Light and Dark.

 

As I said before, you won't change your mind and I won't change mine. We both have our different views on the truth and it seems that nothing we say will change the others mind. So let's just leave it as is. I'm sure someone will pick up thisconversation, but for now I'll just monitor this thread to see what happens.

[Aurbere]

Erm, sorry. I was a little late in my response, and I was editing when you posted this. But yeah, you're pretty much right.

 

Question: Why was the idea of the Dark Side being natural the only thing we've been talking about in relation to my first post? I figured the concept that the Force could be accessed using positive emotions would be kind of a big thing, but it's just been ignored.

 

And I just posted again whoops:p You are correct in thinking the Dark Side can be accessed through positive emotions, but what I'm saying is that the use of the Dark Side usually ends badly. I think certain emotions can be used, but only in certain situations. The council of the PT era was to restrictive, certain emotions considered dark can be good. In this regard you are correct:)

[Velaran]

And I just posted again whoops:p You are correct in thinking the Dark Side can be accessed through positive emotions, but what I'm saying is that the use of the Dark Side usually ends badly. I think certain emotions can be used, but only in certain situations. The council of the PT era was to restrictive, certain emotions considered dark can be good. In this regard you are correct:)

 

Was it even the Dark Side she was accessing? I'm really not sure. It could go either way, or she could have been tapping into some kind of pseudo-grey area, or the Force really is neutral, or....

 

Ugh. I have a headache.

[Aurbere]

Was it even the Dark Side she was accessing? I'm really not sure. It could go either way, or she could have been tapping into some kind of pseudo-grey area, or the Force really is neutral, or....

 

Ugh. I have a headache.

 

Trying to figure this out is giving me a headache. There is a lot of canon out there that seems to point in all sorts of directions. The main point is that the Force is a living entity that is far to complex to understand. Maybe that's how it's suppose to be.