The Dark Side of...compassion?

[Trimaxion]

Lust and desire might be one off. Not so sure about hate and love. Those tend to feedback on themselves over time. Cumulative anger fear pain hate and love I could see all potentially leading to crazy times.

I mean love with multiple people.

 

Love like anikin experienced will obviously be cumulative because he half gave into it from the start hanging around with padme. Had he cut himself off from her and met another girl he loved I'd argue that would be easier to suppress the second time, and so on and so forth.

 

As with pain, if it is cumulative, actually getting worse then yes, but the second time you get an injury seldom feels as bad as the first if you've healed in between. And you certainly get less afraid of the same experience if you face it down each time as long as you can return to neutral state in between.

 

Of course it all has to be ruthlessly suppressed, it falls apart if you indulge it from the start. I think that's where anikin failed, he indulged his feelings not suppressing them but not initially letting them surface, it's that bubbling away that I personally feel makes it seem that suppressed emotions build, they aren't truly suppressed and removed, just held in check.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Trimaxion

[Trimaxion]

 

This has been fun. I learned something.

 

Well you certainly sent me to the dictionary with alexithymia and that doesn't happen a lot.

[MalthazarCeres]

any emotion can lead to the dark side...

if you're a "really good" person, you'll HATE to see any people suffering, you'll do ANYTHING to make things right.

good or evil, both led you to the dark side, jedi are "neutral".

see anakin when mace windu tried to kill sidious... jedi don't kill, but mace windu wanted him dead because "he was too dangerous". yes, he was dangerous, but wanted to make this kind of justice easily lead you to the dark side, and anakim to save 1 life, caused to loss of another...

jedi want the balance of the force, but where is the balance when you're good? that's why "there is no emotion" for the jedi. neutral > light or dark.

see revan in mandalorian wars, he wanted to do some good, but this caused his fall...

[Spetulhu]

Suppressing emotions isn't good for everyone either. Just have a read of all the catholic church sex scandals for a horrifying example. Priests are supposed to be celibate but some break their wows in the worst possible way by abusing children they're supposed to take care of. Ofc, one could wonder if not some of those joined as an excuse to be around children. But surely not all of them?

[AlexDougherty]

I think you're wrong.

 

Compassion could consume someone, in fact it literally means "to suffer with", Intense compassion for another (perhaps one you love) could lead you to the dark side to alleviate their suffering.

 

Of course I could be wrong.

 

Well to me Compassion means to feel sad for someone, which could be construed as suffer with.

 

But to me you are blending compassion with other emotions, in this case love, it's the love that will consume you rather than the compassion. But others might argue it's the combination of love and compassion.

 

I guess this one is more a matter of opinion than anything else.

[AlexDougherty]

Maybe the jedi order should teach forgiveness and control instead of suppression?

Suppressing emotions isn't good for everyone either.

 

I agree, supressing emotion isn't healthy, learning control is much healthier, and would help with so many issues that arise with Jedi & Sith. At the end of the day discipline works much better than just masking the problem.

[AlrikFassbauer]

I'm quoting myself here :

 

In my opinion, Anakin Skywalker failed because of too much attachment, not because of the love he felt - but the official view is that he failed because of the love he felt. RL people don't seem to be able to distinguish between both.

 

Usual "Jedi Lore" puts them into a state of celibacy. I don't think that this is a good idea, because celibacy imho just isn't the answer to the "attachment problem" of Anakin Skywalker. And it's too much RL for my taste, too.

 

As fan fiction, I wrote a short story about a female Jedi and a man falling in love with one another - and they are both fully aware of the "attachment problem".

 

My personal view is a bit more "meta" than that : In my personal philosophy of the Force, the Light Side of the force is pure love,

meanwhile tha Dark Side of the force is pure hate.

 

Meaning that people falling in love with one another would be an expression of the Light Side, imho.

 

And from this point of view, I just cannot understand Quests like this one [on Tython] in SWTOR.

 

(And from this point the evilness of The Emperor comes even more obvious, since he managed to twist and to mis-direct Anakin's force to into an entirely different direction ...)

 

It isn't so much that, it is more the consequences of them. Take for example Love, Anakin was willing to do anything for Padme, anything to save her because he loved her. That in turn became a lust for power, where by the end Anakin was consumed by the darkside. Or take another example, Qui-Gon had a love involvement with Tahl, and thus when she died he fell into a depression and his emotions for revenge surfaced thus he nearly went over to the darkside.

 

That's imho wrong.

 

Because in my opinion Anakin's problem was that he was too much attached to Padme - not his love as such.

 

One can love a person but become totally unattached - I'm experiencing this with my "Soul Sister". It's an very unusual kind of love, one that is very different from "normal" love.

 

People don't seem to distinguish between "love" and "attachment", and that's a problem, imho, in understanding Jedi lore.

 

In Spirituality, there's the learning of "letting go". And that's what Anakin clearly didn't do.

 

Because not being able to let go results in angst, in anger, in attachedness, eventually resulting in dark feelings - and in Star Wars, into the Dark Side.

 

Anakin was finally able to let himself go - let his atachedness to Life as such go - and was thus able to throw the Emperor away - he did is, because he let it go - and because he still loved Padme in the incarnation of his son.

 

Love did make him become free again, not hate.

Edited May 17, 2013 by AlrikFassbauer

[Trimaxion]

But to me you are blending compassion with other emotions, in this case love, it's the love that will consume you rather than the compassion. But others might argue it's the combination of love and compassion.

.

 

I guess that's what I am saying really, it's the path to the dark side, just a step on the way.

 

Of course I'm not sure you could have love without compassion, not in the way the term is usually used but it's both together that could lead to the dark side if things go wrong.

[Bytemite]

I think technically "to suffer with" is exactly the etymology of compassion. "The passion" of someone could mean strong emotions, but in the biblical sense it means a period of trial and torment. So you get con + passion, where latin con is "with".

 

Of course nowadays we more read that as pity, "to be sad for".

 

Unfortunately even though compassion has its risks, kinda hard to be a good person without it. My best guess is that the jedi encourage their students to help others because they decided that not helping actually resulted in more of a risk of the dark side.

 

But that doesn't mean the risks are nonexistent.

 

On the flip side... there was a conversation on korriban you could have in the original kotor that illustrates the dark side risk of "no compassion". A jedi had fallen to the dark side because they believed doing so was the only way to be strong enough to save some slaves. But to complete the journey to the dark side they said that the only thing preventing them from obtaining true dark side power was actually compassion. Compassion was holding them back from the potential power and violence they could unleash. Your character then could then point out that if they lost their compassion, they wouldn't care about the slaves anymore. The observation unsettles the acolyte, and they start to rethink their decisions.

 

So there's really two sides to this, and eschewing compassion completely is actually very dangerous in terms of falling to the dark side.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Bytemite

[Wolfninjajedi]

I'm quoting myself here :

 

 

 

 

 

That's imho wrong.

 

Because in my opinion Anakin's problem was that he was too much attached to Padme - not his love as such.

 

One can love a person but become totally unattached - I'm experiencing this with my "Soul Sister". It's an very unusual kind of love, one that is very different from "normal" love.

 

People don't seem to distinguish between "love" and "attachment", and that's a problem, imho, in understanding Jedi lore.

 

In Spirituality, there's the learning of "letting go". And that's what Anakin clearly didn't do.

 

Because not being able to let go results in angst, in anger, in attachedness, eventually resulting in dark feelings - and in Star Wars, into the Dark Side.

 

Anakin was finally able to let himself go - let his atachedness to Life as such go - and was thus able to throw the Emperor away - he did is, because he let it go - and because he still loved Padme in the incarnation of his son.

 

Love did make him become free again, not hate.

 

Don't understand why you quoted yourself...but no its not really wrong, the love and the attachment is the same thing. Anakin's love for Padme was the attachment...thus that attachment went from love to a lust for power and thus he fell, and yes it can work both ways.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Wolfninjajedi

[maxetius]

Only if you have a connection to the force. Otherwise you can pretty much do whatever the damn hell you want.

[AlexDougherty]

Don't understand why you quoted yourself...but no its not really wrong, the love and the attachment is the same thing. Anakin's love for Padme was the attachment...thus that attachment went from love to a lust for power and thus he fell, and yes it can work both ways.

 

Actually I get what he is trying to say, he is saying that you can love someone without allowing that love to override your sense of perspective. You can love someone extremely deeply, and still not loose yourself in them. He's right about that, but it is very difficult, control yourself too much and the love itself dies, control yourself too little and you become too deeply attached.

 

Just ignore the bit about his soul sister, either he doesn't quite understand the dynamics there or he's explaining it badly.

[Mekkanon]

Wasnt anakins problem that he Needed Padme to replace the hole of female attention he didnt recieve because he was taken away by his mother so soon.

 

Or basically put, he needs padme, its his reason for living. this is why he would do everything to protect her, because without her he would have nothing.

 

This is not love, this is obsession.

 

Love in itself is not harmfull, its the possible side effects:

Jealousy, rejection, dissapointment and a whole range of other negative emotions all lead to anger.

This is why emotional neutrality and being attached to principles rather then people is what the jedi strive to accomplish.

Killing someone i care about is wrong, not because it hurts me, but because killing innocents is wrong.

 

Sith draw their power from righteous anger, they dont doubt their decisions, they know the are right. This makes them uncorruptable.

Jedi's neutrality on the other hand makes them capable of being corrupted a lot easier.

 

Which leads me to OP's question.

If you take act on behalf of because you feel its right it is still self righteous anger> Dark side

If you feel compassion, but stay absent or act because it the right thing today, without feeling sad or happy about it> Light side.

 

I think the best way to explain this is when watching a nature documentary and you see a lion cub almost being killed by a pack of hyenas

Dark side compassion: You act, and scare/kill the hyena's

Light side compassion: You do not act because its the way of the force.

[zzoorrzz]

spoiler from JK story:

 

 

Just before the end of act 3, you have a choice to go fight emperor right away or go find doc (I think) whos in dangerous first. Its interesting that the first choice is considered dark and the second is light. DOesnt make sense IMO in context of the rest of the game. Because saving doc is clearly acting driven by passion. And going for the emperor is calm decision. And Jedi say "there is no death, only the force", which makes saving doc even more nonsense from Jedi point of view.

 

Edited May 30, 2013 by zzoorrzz

[drug_cartel]

Where so many people miss in their understanding is in the original distinction. The force has a Light and a Dark side, not a "Good" and an "Evil" side. As the films present the Light Side characters as being the protagonists, many fans become confused and instantly relate that the Light Side must also then be the moral or ethical side.

 

The actual distinction between Light Side and Dark Side is about emotions, not morality, as the Jedi have stated over and over again. The two are not connected. There are "good" emotions. There are "bad" emotions. It's never a question of good or bad; just a matter of giving in to emotional response versus controlling/supressing them.

 

In Dungeons & Dragons, they had a system of alignments that afforded componants on a spectrum of Good to Evil, as well as from Lawful to Chaotic. If you are the benevolent King only looking out for the best interests of your people, a Chaotic Good Robin Hood that shows up and acts as though no rules apply to him is the "bad guy" for upsetting what would be otherwise a system beneficial to everyone. But if you are the Chaotic Good Robin Hood, that Lawful Good King is then seen as the "bad guy" for trying to forceably control everyone, even if is ultimately doing good to all people. In that instance, both people are actually good, and their disagreement is one on the issue of authority, not morality. So with the Jedi Code is it a question of Emotions, not Morals.

 

A Jedi who suppresses all his passions so that he can defend every sentient being without bias or prejudice is a "Good Guy."

A Jedi who suppresses all his emotions so that he becomes entirely passive, permitting good people to be victimized all around him without defending them because their wholesale slaughter means nothing ("There is no death; there is only the Force. So what difference does it make if these babies are being murdered?) That guy becomes a "Bad Guy".

Both follow the exact same code and will channel Light Side energy of the Force, but both have entirely differant impact upon the galaxy.

 

The same is true for a Dark Side person who embraces love, defending his family, his home, or even his entire species with a dedication above that of what he feels towards others, when compared to a Dark Side person who embraces hatred and seeks only to cause pain and suffering. Both of them will channel the Dark Energy of the Force. Both will be capable of using Force Lightning. But one will hurt others and the other may help others.

 

For KOTOR fans, Revan showed exactly how one could embrace emotion and channel the Dark Energy of the force, but still be a source of good in the universe. Because Light and Dark is not the same thing as Good and Evil.

 

 

When I roleplay it, I just pretend the Jedi are more like Scientists, requiring imperical evidence and logic, while the Sith are more like a religion, following their hearts to do what they believe is best. People in either side can be good or bad, depending on how they use the power they have, but it's the choices they make and not the energy they channel that determines their morality.

[Bytemite]

The actual distinction between Light Side and Dark Side is about emotions, not morality, as the Jedi have stated over and over again. The two are not connected. There are "good" emotions. There are "bad" emotions. It's never a question of good or bad; just a matter of giving in to emotional response versus controlling/supressing them.

 

In Dungeons & Dragons, they had a system of alignments that afforded componants on a spectrum of Good to Evil, as well as from Lawful to Chaotic. If you are the benevolent King only looking out for the best interests of your people, a Chaotic Good Robin Hood that shows up and acts as though no rules apply to him is the "bad guy" for upsetting what would be otherwise a system beneficial to everyone. But if you are the Chaotic Good Robin Hood, that Lawful Good King is then seen as the "bad guy" for trying to forceably control everyone, even if is ultimately doing good to all people. In that instance, both people are actually good, and their disagreement is one on the issue of authority, not morality. So with the Jedi Code is it a question of Emotions, not Morals.

 

A Jedi who suppresses all his passions so that he can defend every sentient being without bias or prejudice is a "Good Guy."

A Jedi who suppresses all his emotions so that he becomes entirely passive, permitting good people to be victimized all around him without defending them because their wholesale slaughter means nothing ("There is no death; there is only the Force. So what difference does it make if these babies are being murdered?) That guy becomes a "Bad Guy".

Both follow the exact same code and will channel Light Side energy of the Force, but both have entirely differant impact upon the galaxy.

 

The same is true for a Dark Side person who embraces love, defending his family, his home, or even his entire species with a dedication above that of what he feels towards others, when compared to a Dark Side person who embraces hatred and seeks only to cause pain and suffering. Both of them will channel the Dark Energy of the Force. Both will be capable of using Force Lightning. But one will hurt others and the other may help others.

 

There was a thread on here recently where we tried to define our own takes on our player characters in terms of D&D Alignment system instead of light side versus dark side, and much as you said, the alignments of some of my characters tended more towards neutral even though most of them are light side.

 

I think that your take is mostly right, though even though the Sith believe in power coming from emotion, their ideal is actually to direct their emotions towards their goals - so they have some belief in control as well, even though very few Sith actually live up to those ideals. Rather like Jedi rarely live up to complete stoicism.

 

And neither of them like romance.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Bytemite

[cool-dude]

Obi-wan Kenobi said in the movies that feelings/emotions do you credit, but can be made to serve the dark-side. I wouldn't say that feelings/emotions lead you to be evil, but it is the lack of restraint with these feelings, that can lead to destruction.

[Bytemite]

Also, "stretch out with your feelings" was advice offered on accessing the force - and I don't think Jedi are in danger of falling to the dark side just from connecting to the force. So some emotions might be part of the lightside as well.

[Tyrloch]

Obi-wan Kenobi said in the movies that feelings/emotions do you credit, but can be made to serve the dark-side. I wouldn't say that feelings/emotions lead you to be evil, but it is the lack of restraint with these feelings, that can lead to destruction.

 

I like this one.

 

The Sith are an order of Dark Side practitioners, not the entire Dark Side. Jedi the same with the Light Side.

 

The Dark side encourages one to use emotion to empower them. Much like athletes like to get fired up before a big game. Using your emotions and passions can and does give you strength. But, there is a danger of losing control and becoming a puppet of your emotions.

 

The Sith encourage this. Not only use your anger, hate and fear to empower you, but they seem to encourage letting it consume you. Jedi avoid this possible pitfall by avoiding emotion and attachments altogether.

 

Most of my Sith (and some Jedi) characters (I'm an altoholic, so there are quite a few) take a middle road. Emotions are fine, but you control your emotions, they are a tool for you to use. Your emotions don't control you. The moment you become a puppet to your anger and fear, you become like all those idiot Sith you have so little respect for. When you act out (because) of anger, hate or fear, you are lost.

[BradTheImpaler]

Anakin claims that compassion is central to a Jedi's life.

 

Compassion is different from romantic love, and is not so much a raw emotion like love as an unconditional respect for life that, unlike romantic love, does not distinguish and place one life on a pedestal above others, such that the Jedi in question is unable to think clearly in weighing his or her decisions.

 

Even Yuthura Ban said in KOTOR, about her plan for revenge on slavers, that only her compassion stood in her way.

Compassion itself restrains violent impulses.

 

Now, it's true that "Revan and Malak's fall actually began with compassion" for the victims of the Mandalorians. It wasn't compassion itself, though, but a sense of righteous outrage and impatience (passion, not compassion) with the Council that ultimately drove Revan and his followers to join the Republic in the fighting.

 

So, no, compassion is not of the dark side. In fact it's a major factor which separates Jedi from Sith (at least as a general rule).

Edited June 1, 2013 by BradTheImpaler

[Bytemite]

spoiler from JK story:

 

 

Just before the end of act 3, you have a choice to go fight emperor right away or go find doc (I think) whos in dangerous first. Its interesting that the first choice is considered dark and the second is light. DOesnt make sense IMO in context of the rest of the game. Because saving doc is clearly acting driven by passion. And going for the emperor is calm decision. And Jedi say "there is no death, only the force", which makes saving doc even more nonsense from Jedi point of view.

 

Just saw this.

 

It depends on the writer partially. There's a Trooper mission where you have to choose between saving a friend, versus saving the lives of some civilians. And in that case, saving your friend IS a dark side choice.

 

Then in another Trooper scenario, you have to choose between saving a basically nice guy who made a few mistakes is pitted against letting the guy die and chase down someone who could kill a lot more people. Which is light side and which is dark?

 

In terms of the lore I think that what's going on here is that the light side doesn't think in the long term. The light side doesn't think at all. Instead it's a non-sentient galaxy-wide sense of morality that knows what's going to happen in advance.

 

The force knows that the Jedi Knight is going to stop the dark ritual in the end even if they don't rush off immediately. So in this case it's not weighing one life against a whole bunch of other lives, not really - it's weighing the life of a friend against the goal of defeating an enemy.

 

So to the light side, sacrificing someone else to further your goals - even if the goal is saving other people in the long term - is the dark side. Sacrificing other people to solve a problem faster is the easy way, not necessarily the light side. Cynicism instead of idealism. The exception seems to be only if it's self-sacrifice, or if the decision is the only way to make a net positive out of what's already a bad situation.

 

If you could honestly say that you would've gone back to save anyone on your crew because you have a responsibility to them all, even if you didn't like some of them much, then that's light side, even considering the circumstances and the possible dire repercussions of that delay. But if you really only saved them because of your relationship, as in the other Trooper example, then you really did have a conflict of interest in the choice to save them, and that was a dark side choice.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Bytemite

[Trimaxion]

I think there's a fundamental problem with the way light and dark sides are portrayed in the game and the post above illustrates this.

 

Light and dark sides aren't so much about actions, they are about intent and feelings, If you kill without hating (or possibly intent) you can avoid the dark side completely since falling to the dark side is really just the movement to a mental state where your desires justify any action and people don't matter. It's talked about people becoming dark side for good reasons many times (and mirrored in many other literary universes, LotR or Dune spring immediately to mind). People take actions for good reasons which lead them to the dark side because they realise how much the power can help them or their friends but the power corrupts and they wind up becoming "evil", The actions lead to it but the actions themselves aren't necessarily the evil part.

 

The jedi kill hundreds in the clone wars but do so with regret and because it's the only way, it's the love of that power that can corrupt and cause you to seek that easy path quicker and quicker and eventually all you have is a hammer and everyone looks like a nail.

[Bytemite]

Maybe. It's hard to say exactly what is intended. Yoda says that the light side is when a Jedi is clam and at peace, and for certain characters could make some very calculated, immoral actions while at peace. Yet it's hard to imagine some actions being light side (like sacrificing other people), just as it's hard to imagine some actions normally considered light side as dark side. Protecting and helping strangers is considered light side, I could see taking too much pride in that as dark side, bur the impulse itself seems light side. Edited June 4, 2013 by Bytemite

[Trimaxion]

Only if you insist on pigeonholing everything into alight or dark, some actions MUST be neutral (getting breakfast for instance, as long as its not eating babies) so there's no reason why many of those actions couldn't also, I still think the light/dark is in the mind of the force wielder and it's about how their psyche twists so some people could do evil actions but remain light orientated whilst others could work for good yet fall to the dark side.

[Bytemite]

Pigeonhole...? I mentioned all of two things, which each happen to define the sentiments of two orders that theoretically represent one side or the other ( with some obvious exceptions). Edited June 3, 2013 by Bytemite