On this "Sith are not evil" thing

[Heal-To-Full]

A Banana Republic is a corrupt government put in place to supply cheap goods to a more powerful nation, literally, in our history the term describes a crony government supported by the USA in exchange for cheap Bananas (read up on it if you don't believe me).

So who is the more powerful government that you believe the Republic is selling cheap goods to? In exchange for tacit support of course.

Imprecise phrasing. What the Republic is doing to those who join it, voluntarily or not, is turn them into banana republics, except the bananas they supply is cannon fodder for Imperial questers to fill up the bonus on their dailies.

 

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you think the Republic is a nice and peaceful coalition, do the Smuggler or Trooper story on Ord Mantell, where you are literally stomping the locals into the ground. Where the republic government won't even let children evacuate, and it's not an act of a single corrupt individual, it's an act supported and endorsed by the entire system.

 

For contrast, look at the Chiss Ascendancy. This is what happens to those who join the Empire voluntarily: they enjoy freedom, independence and respect, as long as they broadly support the Empire's interests.

 

 

The Republic is peppered with corruption and incompetence, but these are a minority, and they are held in check by the laws and honest people who enforce them. The Empire is a seathing stew of corruption and decadence, were Evil people rise to the top uniformly, and don't have to pretend to be nice, were overly good behaviour is likely to get you arrested and interogated, and nice people get enslaved nearly every time.

Believe it or not, but it's actually illegal for the Sith to kill other Sith, except for a crime.

Decadence? Look at Coruscant and you'll see decadence. Opulent government halls decorated with gold everywhere, all in the middle of a war that their nation is losing. Contrast Dromund Kaas - subdued, functional, spartan. The Sith path is a pursuit of power, not material wealth.

 

And yes, the Sith don't have to pretend to be nice. How is that a bad thing? Every world leader, including the very worst, did very well with this pretense. With the Sith, you know where you stand. And they are in continuous competition, which weeds out the weak and lets the strong become stronger. The Empire promotes a pursuit of strength, talent, personal ability; not a contest of who wears the "nice guy mask" better.

 

As for enslavement, I think we've covered it with the Chiss Ascendancy. People who deserve freedom get it in the Empire. Or are you worrying about alien slaves like the Evocii? This is the fate of those species which, put simply, just don't have anything to bring to the table; of the evolutionary mistakes that aren't long for this world, not as independents anyway. In the long run, it will be better for everyone if the best resources go to those best capable of using them.

 

 

Once the war between the Republic and the Empire is over, the Republic would turn even more corrupt, in an all-reaching, all-pervasive, totalitarian government. The Republic's and the Jedi's sin is their infinite arrogance: in their mind, there is no freedom of choice, there is only their way. They would go on conquering more worlds, labeling seducing their governments with bribery and violently eliminating the rest.

 

The Empire, strange as it sounds, is home to more freedom, because of its hands-off approach and results-oriented attitude. The barely-existing Emperor's plan will take forever to never come to fruition anyway, and all the while the people will be to enjoy a society offering unrivaled upwards mobility, purity and meritocracy.

[AlexDougherty]

Imprecise phrasing. What the Republic is doing to those who join it, voluntarily or not, is turn them into banana republics, except the bananas they supply is cannon fodder for Imperial questers to fill up the bonus on their dailies.

Ok, fair enough, not sure I entirely agree, but you have the basis of a point here.

 

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you think the Republic is a nice and peaceful coalition, do the Smuggler or Trooper story on Ord Mantell, where you are literally stomping the locals into the ground. Where the republic government won't even let children evacuate, and it's not an act of a single corrupt individual, it's an act supported and endorsed by the entire system.

 

For contrast, look at the Chiss Ascendancy. This is what happens to those who join the Empire voluntarily: they enjoy freedom, independence and respect, as long as they broadly support the Empire's interests.

 

Yes, I have done the trooper and chapter one of the smuggler story, I do think that going to war with people just because they want to leave your alliance (which is what the republic is really, planets allied for selfdefense and mutual interest) is stupid. That said a number of the seperatists are criminals, they kidnap children and brainwash them into fighting for them, so it's not a simple issue.

 

And Yes, the Chiss are given a great degree of freedom, but look at the twileks, most of the Zabrak, the Tautolan, and many more, enslaved for just being the wrong species. The Sith allow a few "free" allies because they fight better that way, and provided they do what they are told they stay free. But given that one of the main threads is that Imperial can and does snatch people off the street to determine their loyalties, it's a shallow freedom laced with fear.

 

Believe it or not, but it's actually illegal for the Sith to kill other Sith, except for a crime.

Decadence? Look at Coruscant and you'll see decadence. Opulent government halls decorated with gold everywhere, all in the middle of a war that their nation is losing. Contrast Dromund Kaas - subdued, functional, spartan. The Sith path is a pursuit of power, not material wealth.

 

And yet so many Sith murder other Sith with regularity, and you have a side quest were a group of Sith start hunting commoners for fun, they are so sure of their entitlement they consider Non-Sith barely above wild animals. And I think you miss the point on the decadence, yes the Republic has grand state buildings, but anybody can enter these, while the Sith have lavish estates, slaves, drugs, arena's were fights to the death occur, opulant feast, vast armies, and much much more. A successful Sith has his every whim catered for, they indulge in any vice they like, and answer to nobody.

 

And yes, the Sith don't have to pretend to be nice. How is that a bad thing? Every world leader, including the very worst, did very well with this pretense. With the Sith, you know where you stand. And they are in continuous competition, which weeds out the weak and lets the strong become stronger. The Empire promotes a pursuit of strength, talent, personal ability; not a contest of who wears the "nice guy mask" better.

 

Pretending to be nice places limits on you, you can't very well say you're wholesome and virtuous then bathe in your enemies blood, well you can, but people will laugh at you. And the worst atrocities are committed when the leaders stop pretending, just look at Syria, oh they mouth the denials, but they are not trying to convince anyone, which is why they are openly using chemical weapons.

As for enslavement, I think we've covered it with the Chiss Ascendancy. People who deserve freedom get it in the Empire. Or are you worrying about alien slaves like the Evocii? This is the fate of those species which, put simply, just don't have anything to bring to the table; of the evolutionary mistakes that aren't long for this world, not as independents anyway. In the long run, it will be better for everyone if the best resources go to those best capable of using them.

Don't dismiss the Evocii, yes they die out, but if you do the mission to save them you notice that they are a tough clever if niave species. But the point is that Sith are trying to eliminate all non-human non-sith species, thats what the idiot in charge admits, the Sith are always planning mass genocide, they'll use a species up, then wipe it out, Chiss included, if they get the chance. This is a recurring theme with the Sith.

 

Once the war between the Republic and the Empire is over, the Republic would turn even more corrupt, in an all-reaching, all-pervasive, totalitarian government. The Republic's and the Jedi's sin is their infinite arrogance: in their mind, there is no freedom of choice, there is only their way. They would go on conquering more worlds, labeling seducing their governments with bribery and violently eliminating the rest.

Yes, the Republic does become more corrupt, sadly, but the Empire can't become any more corrupt, they are just holding on as a society, any more corruption and they'll wipe themselves out over imagined insults and ambition, which would end the arguement.

The Empire, strange as it sounds, is home to more freedom, because of its hands-off approach and results-oriented attitude. The barely-existing Emperor's plan will take forever to never come to fruition anyway, and all the while the people will be to enjoy a society offering unrivaled upwards mobility, purity and meritocracy.

The Empire only seems good because you've decided the Republic is a write off, but the reason you've written off the Republic should also force you to write off the Empire, its a thousand times worse than the Republic will become (apart from under the influence of the Sith Lord Darth Sidious).

[Heal-To-Full]

Yes, I have done the trooper and chapter one of the smuggler story, I do think that going to war with people just because they want to leave your alliance (which is what the republic is really, planets allied for selfdefense and mutual interest) is stupid. That said a number of the seperatists are criminals, they kidnap children and brainwash them into fighting for them, so it's not a simple issue.

All separatist and revolutionary movements are made up in large part out of criminals, in the real world or in Star Wars. These things just go hand in hand: rising against your government is a crime in itself, and it's done by people who don't like to live by the rules, people with the will to commit violence, the "wolves" if you will.

 

That's just the nature of rebellion, there are no white and fluffy revolutions, but that doesn't shift the blame. Of course, the Empire has its rebellions, but at least theirs were acquired in straightforward conquest.

 

 

And Yes, the Chiss are given a great degree of freedom, but look at the twileks, most of the Zabrak, the Tautolan, and many more, enslaved for just being the wrong species. The Sith allow a few "free" allies because they fight better that way, and provided they do what they are told they stay free.

This is how the Sith define the greater good. The strong must survive; the weak must free the way for them.

 

You can rise from a lowly Zabrak slave to a member of the Dark Council, all you need is to personal strength in the Force. But if your species as a whole does not possess such strength, neither in its average member, not in strength as a culture and as a nation, then it will not rise within the Empire.

 

 

And yet so many Sith murder other Sith with regularity, and you have a side quest were a group of Sith start hunting commoners for fun, they are so sure of their entitlement they consider Non-Sith barely above wild animals.

They do, but you'll notice that this group of Sith is essentially criminals, and you have the option to end them. But what about our favorite Hero of Tython, who has the option to essentially sentence to death a village on said Tython? Far from all Jedi are good. I remember on Coruscant, in response to my death threat, a character responding - "Oh. You're that kind of Jedi." and caving in.

 

So even an "evil" Jedi is very far from being alone in his order; and these being the people the Republic holds up as saints, it's no surprise its average morals leave much to be desired. The Imperials don't hold up the Sith as saints, they see them for what they are, the ruling class, though a meritocratic one.

 

 

Don't dismiss the Evocii, yes they die out, but if you do the mission to save them you notice that they are a tough clever if niave species.

But are they better than other species?

 

This is the question that has to be asked and answered. Continuous refinement and pursuit of perfection is the implicit goal of evolution, and thus life itself. Is it better to have a million more Evocii or a million more Chiss?

A thousand years down the line, the numbers will balance out, you'll have the same number of sentients either way, the only question will be who makes up these sentients. And you want it to be the best that evolution has to offer.

 

The Sith aren't racist at all in the conventional sense, they have accepted humans as, by and large, equals. Equally eligible to rise through their own strength, of course; there is no entitlement in the Sith world. The same is, practically speaking, going to happen to the Chiss; next in line are perhaps the Voss. Societies that are strong on their own have a place in the Empire as they are.

 

 

 

Yes, the Republic does become more corrupt, sadly, but the Empire can't become any more corrupt, they are just holding on as a society, any more corruption and they'll wipe themselves out over imagined insults and ambition, which would end the arguement.

A bit of a contradiction; either it's possible to be more corrupt or it's not.

That said, I have to disagree with this assessment. A lot of what you perceive as corruption is actually the engine that powers the Empire. There is no widespread corruption among its non-sensitive, ordinary ranks. And among the Sith, competing with one another, including waging wars on one another, is how they remove the weakness; although non-sensitives caught up in this is an unfortunate side effect.

 

And yes, it's true that if the Sith just stopped their infighting and scheming for a year, they would've crushed the Republic with ease (though who knows how strong could the Republic be if its politicians could do the same?)

But it's also true that without the Sith Code and the Sith way, there would be no Empire and no Sith People. They Jedi would've completed their eradication, and what few survived would've degraded into a red version of the Evocii.

 

The Empire wasn't built yesterday and it's not dying tomorrow. What continuous internal struggle you see in it is what has built the Empire and what keeps powering it, not a sign of the end.

 

 

but the reason you've written off the Republic should also force you to write off the Empire, its a thousand times worse than the Republic will become

If we look at the distant future, it's bleak for both. The Republic will, through its own incompetence and perfect corruption of its every political element, appoint a Sith Lord as a leader and turn itself into an empire far more violent and destructive than the Second Sith Empire in TOR era, and an utterly pointless one, that will not even restore the Sith people.

 

For the Empire, the debate is somewhat existential, but it's certainly not going to be as bad as the Galactic Empire. If against all odds Vitiate succeeds, let's remember "there is no death, only the Force" - it is a constant, always restoring its own balance. The only balancing act to destroying the Universe is a new Creation, and it's likely to be an improvement on the Sith-Jedi world. If we follow the game's storyline where Vitiate is out, the Empire continues building up as a strong confederation built on internal competition.

Edited August 16, 2013 by B-Dick

[AlexDougherty]

All separatist and revolutionary movements are made up in large part out of criminals, in the real world or in Star Wars. These things just go hand in hand: rising against your government is a crime in itself, and it's done by people who don't like to live by the rules, people with the will to commit violence, the "wolves" if you will.

 

That's just the nature of rebellion, there are no white and fluffy revolutions, but that doesn't shift the blame. Of course, the Empire has its rebellions, but at least theirs were acquired in straightforward conquest.

 

I understand this, but it's a matter of degree, which does mean that the Republic has some basis for fighting the Seperatists, on the grounds that these are people who are abusing their supporters rather than people who want out.

 

This is how the Sith define the greater good. The strong must survive; the weak must free the way for them.

 

You can rise from a lowly Zabrak slave to a member of the Dark Council, all you need is to personal strength in the Force. But if your species as a whole does not possess such strength, neither in its average member, not in strength as a culture and as a nation, then it will not rise within the Empire.

 

Not the Dark Council, Canon-wise all the Dark Council are either Humans or Sith Purebloods, A Zabrak could theoretically earn the rank of Darth or Lord, but very few ever do, not because they are weak, but because the Human and PureBlood Sith cut them down. While they mouth a might makes right credo they actually are Racist (or Speciest) and hypocrites.

 

They do, but you'll notice that this group of Sith is essentially criminals, and you have the option to end them. But what about our favorite Hero of Tython, who has the option to essentially sentence to death a village on said Tython? Far from all Jedi are good. I remember on Coruscant, in response to my death threat, a character responding - "Oh. You're that kind of Jedi." and caving in.

 

So even an "evil" Jedi is very far from being alone in his order; and these being the people the Republic holds up as saints, it's no surprise its average morals leave much to be desired. The Imperials don't hold up the Sith as saints, they see them for what they are, the ruling class, though a meritocratic one.

 

That is more game mechanic than representative of the Jedi, people want to be able to play dark Jedi, and the game has to reflect those options, Canon-wise a Jedi that behaved like that would be sanctioned if not expelled from the order. When my Sith Marrauder exposed the Sith hunting people it was because they were careless rather than it being illegal (or at least that's the way the convo went), which feels more like what would happened.

 

The thing about the Republic holding up the Jedi as saints, it's generally justified, the majority of Jedi actually try to fulfil the image, they might fail but they do try. The only Sith canon-wise who lean toward the light are the Revanites, some of which are darkside aligned, and a dead Sith lord in the Dark Temple, all the rest are out and out evil

 

But are they better than other species?

 

This is the question that has to be asked and answered. Continuous refinement and pursuit of perfection is the implicit goal of evolution, and thus life itself. Is it better to have a million more Evocii or a million more Chiss?

 

Better than some who survive, if they hadn't been found by the Hutts at that point in their history they might still be around. This is the thing about survival, sometimes the key factor is luck, or timing, rather than the actual qualities of the species.

 

The Sith aren't racist at all in the conventional sense, they have accepted humans as, by and large, equals. Equally eligible to rise through their own strength, of course; there is no entitlement in the Sith world. The same is, practically speaking, going to happen to the Chiss; next in line are perhaps the Voss. Societies that are strong on their own have a place in the Empire as they are.

 

Hmm, not quite, Sith claim they aren't really racist, but they are, they accept Humans because they have interbred with them so much that they are essentially a sub-species of Human rather than a seperate species. They would never accept Chiss to the same degree, as servants with the occassional Chiss being given the opportunity to become Sith, then killed before they reach the trials, which is what happens to most Aliens training to be Sith (much more so than Humans and Purebloods)

 

A bit of a contradiction; either it's possible to be more corrupt or it's not.

That said, I have to disagree with this assessment. A lot of what you perceive as corruption is actually the engine that powers the Empire. There is no widespread corruption among its non-sensitive, ordinary ranks. And among the Sith, competing with one another, including waging wars on one another, is how they remove the weakness; although non-sensitives caught up in this is an unfortunate side effect.

 

There is as much ambition in the ordinary ranks as among the Sith, and they break the rules just as much to achieve it. Quinn (SW comp) was prevented from being promoted because of infighting among non Sith, several Imperial officers are found looking to discredit or kill rivals/superiors, on Dromund Kaas you hear conversations were people are trying to frame rivals, or defending themselves from such a possibility. No there is as much chaos among the lower orders as above.

 

And yes, it's true that if the Sith just stopped their infighting and scheming for a year, they would've crushed the Republic with ease (though who knows how strong could the Republic be if its politicians could do the same?) But it's also true that without the Sith Code and the Sith way, there would be no Empire and no Sith People. The Jedi would've completed their eradication, and what few survived would've degraded into a red version of the Evocii.

 

True, the Jedi started the war between them and the Sith, but the Jedi have evolved since then, the Sith ironically haven't. They might have a code loosely based on Evolution, but they haven't evolved it, and it causes a portion of their strength to be wasted each generation (when strong Sith die without producing children due to internal strife)

The Empire wasn't built yesterday and it's not dying tomorrow. What continuous internal struggle you see in it is what has built the Empire and what keeps powering it, not a sign of the end.

 

And it's what is destroying it as well.

 

If we look at the distant future, it's bleak for both. The Republic will, through its own incompetence and perfect corruption of its every political element, appoint a Sith Lord as a leader and turn itself into an empire far more violent and destructive than the Second Sith Empire in TOR era, and an utterly pointless one, that will not even restore the Sith people.

 

Incompetence and corruption mostly caused by said Sith Lord who used a potent combination of politics, subterfuge and darkside rituals. The philosophies that people tend to dislike about Palpatine's Empire were born in this Sith Empire, and are a sign of what is wrong.

 

For the Empire, the debate is somewhat existential, but it's certainly not going to be as bad as the Galactic Empire. If against all odds Vitiate succeeds, let's remember "there is no death, only the Force" - it is a constant, always restoring its own balance. The only balancing act to destroying the Universe is a new Creation, and it's likely to be an improvement on the Sith-Jedi world. If we follow the game's storyline where Vitiate is out, the Empire continues building up as a strong confederation built on internal competition.

 

If Vitiates destruction of the galaxy creates a new galaxy (Big if here), it still won't be the same, life if it develops will take Billions of years to develop, all the while influenced by a darkside entity, imagine the process that produced Krath hounds but on a sentient species, not a nice image.

 

The thing people forget about evolution through strife, is that it takes it's toll on the species going through the process, yes, it makes the species strong in certain ways, but it diminishes genetic diversity, and when the species/culture is constantly fighting it eventually dies out, because it stagnates. True evolution requires periods of evolving and periods of stabilisation, something the Sith haven't figured out, and sadly never will.

[smartalectwo]

If we look at the distant future, it's bleak for both. The Republic will, through its own incompetence and perfect corruption of its every political element, appoint a Sith Lord as a leader and turn itself into an empire far more violent and destructive than the Second Sith Empire in TOR era, and an utterly pointless one, that will not even restore the Sith people.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. 'Republic' is an ideal. A belief that all the inhabitants of the galaxy can eventually find a way to co-exist and aid one another. Versions of the Galactic Republic rise and fall, but they always come back to that central idea. Even during the rise of the Empire, the formative leaders of the Rebel Alliance were Senators doing what Senators are intended to do, which is to represent the wishes of their people on the galactic stage. That shows that not everything was corrupt. And considering they prevailed in the end, I'm not so sure about the Republic's bleak future. It always comes back, more or less as it was, in time.

 

As for the Empires, every Sith Empire that rises is different, because it's always based on one individual's image of an Empire, and that's why they tend to be so fragile and short-lived by comparison. Only Vitiate's achievement in remaining alive for 1000 years, putting the brakes on the idea of advancement to the top, has managed to stabilise this Sith Empire for so long.

[Laris_Rai]

But did they ask any questions? Is this morally right? Should we even ask the clones if they want to do this? Hell they don't even PAY the clones. They just order them into battle like disposable units. Hell even Obi-wan did. They didn't enslave them, the republic did, but they sure as hell aided and abetted them.

 

Why? Because at that time they had a knife to their throats and suddenly the ends justified the means. No, the Jedi are just as much as fault for using them, as Sideous did for creating them and using them in a situation to get rid of the Jedi.

 

You can treat a slave well, but guess what they are still SLAVES. That's what the clone army was: SLAVES. They didn't have ends to their enlistment. They were not paid, not volunteered for it. Basically grown out of a vat, thrown into a group, trained to fight, then thrown into a war.

 

That my friend is indentured servitude IE slavery.

 

You said it yourself, the Jedi had a knife to their throats as much as anyone else. In general the Jedi Order was NOT happy about the clone army and some Jedi even quite the Order in protest of the Jedi agreeing to be generals. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Right_of_Denial

 

Bascially, the Order saw the was as a temp situation and that once the Republic wasn't in danger of being destroyed they could work the civil rights issues out with the Senate.

[smartalectwo]

The Jedi have clear views on slavery, but they don't try and insist that their way is right. They tolerate slavery when it's legal - because for the Jedi to fight someone on purely moral grounds with no legal authority to do so would cause more problems than it solves. They're not the intergalactic police. That's why they haven't ripped the Hutt Cartel a new one, that's why slavery is still legal on Ryloth (the twi'lek homeworld), and it's why they didn't oppose the clone army - the Republic had ratified it.

 

But the second the Senate rules something is illegal and moves against it, the Jedi are there, man, and likely happy to help enforce it.

[AlexDougherty]

The Jedi have clear views on slavery, but they don't try and insist that their way is right. They tolerate slavery when it's legal - because for the Jedi to fight someone on purely moral grounds with no legal authority to do so would cause more problems than it solves. They're not the intergalactic police. That's why they haven't ripped the Hutt Cartel a new one, that's why slavery is still legal on Ryloth (the twi'lek homeworld), and it's why they didn't oppose the clone army - the Republic had ratified it.

 

But the second the Senate rules something is illegal and moves against it, the Jedi are there, man, and likely happy to help enforce it.

 

That's the problem with the Jedi, I'm not saying that they should just break the law if their morals say so, but on the other hand tolerating slavery is unacceptable. They should try to put pressure on civilisations to emancipate their slaves, and when it is clearly not working do something. Peace at any cost is not true peace.

 

But this is really a side note, it doesn't matter how much the Jedi fail to live up their own standards, this doesn't make the Sith any less evil (what this thread is about).

[Euphrosyne]

While I agree that the public is generally badly informed about History, I feel academia is frequently also off key. I truth virtually all societies at this time were by modern standards barbaric, very few cultures practiced anything like what we would consider benign moral behaviour outside of their immediate families. The cultures in Europe are quite conclusively documented, but what evidence exists for the rest of the world paints just as bleak a picture.

 

World-wide humans were butchering each other, wiping out entire civilisations, sacrificing each other, enslaving each other, mutilating each other, abusing each other, and stealing from each other (possessions, people and land). More over there was little variation in the degree of these actions, usually any difference was due to better weaponary being possessed by one side (or ocassionaly several sides).

 

So while I can't refute that ancient Europe was a brutal place, I don't think the rest of the world was any nicer either.

Sure, I wasn't meaning to say that the societies of the classical Americas, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific were in any way less barbaric than classical Europe. I was mostly limiting myself to Rome and its neighbors because that's who the person I quoted was talking about, and because that's what I know the most about. (Chinese history doesn't get interesting until the sixteenth century anyway. )

[Vecke]

The republic fell and Palpatine took over because it was corrupt.

 

The Republic was overthrown because corruption from within was not something the Jedi were equipped to handle. And the Sith were able to use that to overthrow the government.

 

The only reason the Sith took over was because they were able to maneuver in a corrupt system in ways the Jedi simply couldn't.

 

I think that alone shows the Sith were evil and the Jedi weren't.

 

The Jedi were naive and foolish, but not evil.

 

If the Republic (and the Jedi) were evil, the corruption wouldn't have been a disease to the Republic. It would have been an intended part of the system.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Vecke

[Timarick]

That's still better than what the Jedi are trying to do - put the whole galaxy under the foot of a banana Republic ruled by corruption and incompetence.

 

What is worse - one egotistical and apathetical bastard or thousands of them?

 

Someone already shot you in the face on this forum for the "Banana Republic" comment, but I am going to call it as it is:

 

The Jedi are GUARDIANS, not CONQUEORERS. That would be the Sith, number 1.

 

Number 2, the Jedi DEFEND the Republic, but do not rule it. Membership in the Republic is strictly voluntary and one can always leave it at any time as well. Simply put, the Jedi are glorified border patrol. They spend more time defending the innocent and helpless than actually fighting the Sith, whilst the Sith spend more time killing each other than the Jedi! If I had a week I couldn't explain how many ways this is an inherent FAIL in Sith politics, hierarchy, power, and belief, but it really shows just how those controlled by emotion, ANY emotion, especially the two most extreme, rather than keeping one balanced in perspective, while not ALWAYS bad, has tendencies TOWARDS being so. Heck even Green Lantern covers this and while there are exceptions in each Corps (Atrocitus, Carol Ferris, Arkillo, etc etc), by and large, those controlled by Rage, Avarice, Fear, or even Hope, Compassion, and Love, are by and large subject TO their own emotion and thus stop at nothing to inflict it, even if it conflicts with the general collective. Even the Blue Lanterns will stand against Green if they get in the way of "Hope for all!!" and all that jazz.

 

Jedi are not without emotion, but they use logic and common sense (most of the time) to act dispassionately, and any martial artist will tell you, a better fighter is one who can channel his emotion without becoming a slave to them (oh yes, Sith are slaves to their emotions, slaves to their Master's will, slaves to their own dogma, slaves to their fears and anxieties, slaves to their own power, and ultimately slaves to the society they have to labour to keep strong.)

[Thylbanus]

I'd love to challenge any viewpoint.

 

I think you might be mixing the Sith culture, with the Sith philosophy. I think that the "misunderstood" attribution is intended for the philosophy. The basis is for this is, of course, the Sith Code:

 

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.

Through passion, I gain strength.

Through strength, I gain power.

Through power, I gain victory.

Through victory, my chains are broken.

The Force shall free me.

 

The first line need a WHOLE lot of explanation. Peace is a lie, there is only passion. This is counter to the Jedi code, There is no emotion, there is peace. The implication that peace is a passive, and by extension stagnating. This is one of the basis for many sci-fi conflict between good and evil, the concepts of conflict vs. peace. Each is viable and valuable. To attribute good or evil to the idea of conflict or peace is quite impossible. Each taken to extreme is evil, it's the moderation of such that muddies the waters. Any historian will admit that our largest, most valuable, important, and/or impactful advancements as humans come from adversity and conflict.

 

The next line, Through passion, I gain strength. Personal advancement. Using one's passions to drive oneself to extremes; to push beyond the next guy to be better. The dichotomy here is the use or abstention of powerful emotion. The question is, what defines strength? The one who masters something or the one who lives without it? When I quit smoking, I bought a pack of cigarettes and put them on my dresser, facing my door. I was forced to look at it every time I walked in my room. If I cannot resist it when no one is looking, I really didn't quit. Not evil, in my book.

 

Through strength, I gain power. This the goal for both the Sith and Jedi, it's the path that gets them there that is different. Many love to quote, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." I prefer Frank Herbert's response to that, "It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible." It all depends on why you are seeking power in the first place. This is where a practitioner can be defined as good or evil. That's the practitioner, not the philosophy.

 

Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me. Yuthura Ban probably puts this best, "One who has freed themselves of all restrictions as reached perfection... their potential fulfilled." Again, this would be one of those instances that depends more on the individual and their cause for seeking such, that would define good or evil. Again the philosophy itself is not aligned to such, so is not evil.

 

The argument is quite valid that the Sith are not evil, in a VERY existentialist way. The reality is that those who seek power because they are corrupt, find acceptance within the Sith culture easier then acceptance by the Jedi culture. So yes, the Sith culture is evil, the base philosophy is not.

 

I would contend that even a lightsider, with sufficient discipline could become Sith'ari.

 

To a point, has anyone noticed that the OP, Gratulor, hasn't chimed in on this since July 23rd?

[Sarlegant]

. Any historian will admit that our largest, most valuable, important, and/or impactful advancements as humans come from adversity and conflict.

?

 

What exactly are these advancements as humans, that we've gained from war. Fire, the wheel, language, writing, logic, mathematics, science, medicine, steam, cotten gin, mass productiion, electricity, refrigeration, radio, navigation, flight, space flight, none of which war was responsible for.

 

Adversity due to weather, famine, etc may have created the need, but don't confuse adversity with man-made war.

 

Seriously, the only things we've gained during wars was methods to kill faster.

 

It's such bogus history to credit Alexander's Greeks, or Rome's Legions with advancing the human race. Strange we don't think of the Mongrels, or any other Barbarian horde as advancing human kind.

 

Back to the game... what has Sith conquest actually done for the Empire's citizens, if you can even call people in the Empire citizens. I wouldn't call anyone in the Empire free... not a single one of em can chose anything, beyond possibly which branch of the military they'll join before they're enslaved otherwise.

 

Seriously, such a dumb statement... do you advocate World War Three, in order to advance the human race?

Obviously the Sith would.

[AlexDougherty]

What exactly are these advancements as humans, that we've gained from war. Fire, the wheel, language, writing, logic, mathematics, science, medicine, steam, cotten gin, mass productiion, electricity, refrigeration, radio, navigation, flight, space flight, none of which war was responsible for.

 

Adversity due to weather, famine, etc may have created the need, but don't confuse adversity with man-made war.

 

Seriously, the only things we've gained during wars was methods to kill faster.

 

Seriously, such a dumb statement... do you advocate World War Three, in order to advance the human race?

Obviously the Sith would.

 

Most of the complex maths has its roots in calculations deveoped during war.

A lot of Science was developed for war, or as a result of the carnage.

Trauma Surgery was developed for war, as were numerous advances in surgery and medicine.

Metallurgy was essentially invented to create better swords.

Mass Production was first introduced in wartime (not world war though, earlier than that).

Navigation was perfected for war, Ordinance survey maps were war tools as was the sextant.

Radio was refined into usability because of the needs of the military.

Radar was created specifically for the Military, and sonar too.

The Computer was built using logarythms and coding invented during World War Two (Bletchley Park).

The Nuclear bomb created whole branches of science.

Einstein's general theory of Relativity and spoecial theory of Relativity would have been ignored if not for WW2.

Space travel has it's roots in German V2 bombs.

 

Nobody's suggesting that War is anything but a horrific waste of life, but sadly great advances are made because of it, and god forbid we're ever stupid enough to commit WW3, because we wouldn't survive it.

[smartalectwo]

That's the problem with the Jedi, I'm not saying that they should just break the law if their morals say so, but on the other hand tolerating slavery is unacceptable. They should try to put pressure on civilisations to emancipate their slaves, and when it is clearly not working do something. Peace at any cost is not true peace.

 

On the other hand- well, here's the thing. The Jedi do not have any political power. In fact, they turn aside from political power, because they know that if the Jedi Order becomes a political entity, people wouldn't trust them. And that runs counter to their main mission statement: acting as utterly impartial and unjudgemental mediators and peacekeepers.

 

The minute, the second the Jedi turn around and say, "your society is wrong," to anyone, it all goes bad. Not even the Republic want someone like that hanging around, second-guessing them. The Jedi are allied with the Republic because of all the civilisations currently in the galaxy, the Republic is, on balance, probably the best for peace in the galaxy, and the Republic benefits, but that's all it is, an alliance. And if the Republic feels that being tied to the Jedi is inconvenient, they can break it. And if the Republic disassociates itself from the Jedi, that's pretty much it for the Jedi. They're not that numerous, really. They can't defend themselves against the galaxy, alone.

 

Let alone impose their views by themselves. Even the Sith need a whole Empire backing them up to do that.

 

Read up on Master Mozi and the Mohists in ancient China. Him and his small following of specialist siege engineers devoted to maintaining peace are probably the best historical analogue for the Jedi I can find.

Edited August 19, 2013 by smartalectwo

[Vecke]

One question for the "Sith are not evil" folks:

 

How do you define evil?

 

Because it seems to me that most of the "Sith are not evil" arguments are really just "Evil is a point of view" arguments, which is kind of outside the scope of the debate.

 

The question of whether or not the Sith are evil is really predicated on the assumption that they exist in a fictional universe where evil is a real thing.

 

And really, if you accept that evil is a real thing in the Star Wars universe and then step away from the existential arguments, it's hard to deny that the Sith are evil. They were created to be evil. They were designed to be evil. Every aspect of their culture, their appearance, their voices, their dialogue is dripping with the traditional concepts of evil.

 

I'm kind of surprised that this is such a big debate. Recognizing that the Sith are evil is easy. Like I said earlier, you really have to do some mental gymnastics to define them as anything else.

 

The better question to debate, IMO, is this: Are the Jedi good? To be clear, that's not "Are the Jedi evil?" That would lead to another existential debate about the nature of evil.

 

But accepting that Star Wars is a world where good and evil are absolutes, answering the question of whether or not the Jedi are good is a real challenge.

 

Spotting the evil characters in Star Wars is easy. Spotting the good characters... that's the real challenge.

[smartalectwo]

I think the Jedi are canonically not 'good' - they avoid moral judgements whenever possible. From their point of view, they're not anything because good doesn't exist. They just try to aim for the outcome that will promote as much harmony in the galaxy as can be managed given the situation. Their philosophy is all about pragmatism and moral flexibility, tempered by compassion, and avoiding thinking too far ahead. Usually that's stuff people appreciate, like negotiating peace, stopping crime syndicates, etc. Sometimes it's not.

 

The issue is confused because people tend to think of Jedi as good as a result of the myths and stories that have grown up around them, and some of them start to believe the hype.

 

If you define good as what's best for the function of civilised society, then the Jedi are good. If you don't, they'll probably not be in your eyes.

Edited August 20, 2013 by smartalectwo

[Vecke]

I think the Jedi are canonically not 'good' - they avoid moral judgements whenever possible. From their point of view, they're not anything because good doesn't exist. They just try to aim for the outcome that will promote as much harmony in the galaxy as can be managed given the situation. Their philosophy is all about pragmatism and moral flexibility, tempered by compassion, and avoiding thinking too far ahead. Usually that's stuff people appreciate, like negotiating peace, stopping crime syndicates, etc. Sometimes it's not.

 

The issue is confused because people tend to think of Jedi as good as a result of the myths and stories that have grown up around them, and some of them start to believe the hype.

 

If you define good as what's best for the function of civilised society, then the Jedi are good. If you don't, they'll probably not be in your eyes.

 

I think that's a very good assessment.

 

There's a difference between good and "not evil."

 

The Jedi obviously aren't evil.

 

But I don't think they're good either. They're manipulative, they have no problem lying, they have no problem using the force to basically take over another person's mind, they take children from homes as babies and pull them into the order, and many other things.

 

But they genuinely do it for peace.

 

Honestly, if I'd been in Luke's place, it would have been very difficult to stand against the Emperor. Ben and Yoda lied to Luke, withheld vital information from him, and demanded that he kill his own father, regardless of whether or not he was still good.

 

They made those decisions because they were fighting for the good of the galaxy, but still... that's some harsh stuff.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Vecke

[XantosCledwin]

The Republic is a gigantic political, economic and military alliance. It tries to aim for fair political representation. It doesn't intend to force people to join it; Its military is made up of volunteers... snip...

 

The Galactic Republic is modeled on the Roman Republic which was the direct predecessor to the Roman Empire. The Roman Republic valued democratic representation for all of it's member states. It's military was largely made up of volunteers. And the Roman Republic featured some of the most advanced Diplomatic efforts of its day and age.

 

However, this did not stop Julius Caesar from declaring himself Dictator for Life. Nor did it stop Augustus from establishing a Monarchy that would overturn the Roman Republic in its entirety. Nor did it mean that Slavery was illegal in the Roman Republic. In fact indentured servitude was extremely common in that day and age.

 

In point of fact, the entire Star Wars Universe is largely based upon the life and times of the Greco-Roman and Ancient Celtic Worlds. In fact the entirety of Episodes IV through VI are essentially a retelling of multiple Greek or Welsh Myths all jumbled together. And the concept of the Evil Galactic Empire is largely drawn from a composition of the Babylonian Empire, the Macedonian Empire, the Roman Empire, and NAZI Germany. Each of these empire's controlled large swath's of the world in their prime. But of them, only the Roman Empire controlled the largest percentage of the world at any given time and was unchallenged during it's reign for the longest period of time. In fact by comparison to the Roman Empire which had around 88.0 million people in it at it's peak but which lasted 503 years in the Western part of the world and 1480 years in the eastern part of the world... the 19 years of existence that the Galactic Empire had seem almost insignificant, even if they had several trillion more people in it.

 

Um no, the Lightside has no effect on people, but if you use the Darkside it destroys your ability to judge, it erodes your mental capacities and makes you see plots were there are none, it anhilates your emotional control as well, making you susceptable to irrational mood swings. These affects of the Darkside are shown again and agian in the books, the comics (graphic novels) and even in the films (Anakins inability to control his emotions grows worse, until he starts lashing out at those around him).

 

Even if they start by using positive emotions, it's only a matter of time until they get angry, or fearful, or hate something, or despise someone, and it goes to the Darkside. Also canon wise there is the Force and there is the Darkside of the Force, we call the regular force the Lightside, but the Darkside is canon. Yes it's the emotions inside that start you off, but the darkside corrupts you as time goes on, and is evil in itself.

 

There have been examples of Dark Side users who have not had their ability to love destroyed. Those same people have continued to use the dark side and are capable of not seeing plots at every turn. If you had read the Lost Tribe of the Sith you would have seen multiple examples of loving individuals within a Sith Society. Yes there are just as many examples in that same story of those who are out to scheme and plot, but there are also those who seek to maintain a peaceful coexistence with their fellows and who are not plotting. At least not until someone actively plots against them.

 

It would be very difficult to form a society of multiple Force Sensitive Dark Side Users if everyone in that Society was plotting the death of every single other member of that society. It would be next to impossible to reproduce successfully for a significant period of generations in such a climate. Especially in an environment where you have no means of escaping the planet.

 

The early Roman Republic/Empire was definitely evil even for the time, inflicting a form of mechanical, methodical cruelty never seen before across entire countries, in the name of greed and a national superiority complex. That's not even touching inhumane execution methods, blood sports, the hilariously corrupt political system...

 

I can't think of a clearer example of a 'lawful evil' society in antiquity.

 

We largely have this "Evil" Empire/Republic to thank for the invention of aqueduct-based irrigation, highways, stadium-based entertainment such as those you watch your football and baseball games in, and a large number of other inventions that need not be mentioned here.

 

Just because you find their preferred method of execution and or entertainment to be cruel and unusual doesn't mean that their society as a whole was evil. Their political system wasn't even all that corrupt until the institutionalization of the Roman Imperial Family.

 

As far as inhumane execution methods go, theirs was no more inhumane than the electric chair, or lynching. More painful certainly, but not more inhumane.

 

It’s really very simple, the Sith code teaches you to seek power. So if you believe that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely, then the Sith are trained to be evil.

 

To quote a famous old man: "Remember, with great power. comes great responsibility."

 

I know, it's cliched as hell, and from another universe entirely. But just because the Sith are taught to seek power doesn't mean that they can't use that power responsibly.

 

That is because they are poorly informed or misinformed.

 

There is wide academic agreement that most of the competing societies in the ancient Mediterranean basin were savage and cruel both in banal terms and in terms of the most egregious of their offenses (Romans burying people alive, Qarthadastim sacrificing children, the various Greeks razing towns and putting the populace into slavery, etc.). See e.g. Eckstein (2009) or Ma (2000).

 

Does this wide academic agreement come solely from Scholars who are Semetic-Apologists? Because I can't think of any other reason why any reputable scholar would agree that any society as a whole is both cruel and savage in banal terms or in terms of their most egregious offenses.

 

But then, what most of these Scholars forget to mention is that the Jews weren't innocent bystanders. They committed just as many evil acts as the Romans. Sometimes they committed acts that made the Romans look innocent by comparison. After all, the Jews were the people who went in and slaughtered entire cities, including the women and children and then claimed said cities for themselves, at least when the Greek's razed cities they left survivors.

 

Now the Jedi on the other hand are not all sugar and spice either. However they are not using genocide, slavery, and other such monstrous acts to further the goal of peace. This is why the Republic, and Jedi are not evil, and the Sith, and Empire ARE evil.

 

The Jedi knowingly went along with a plan to invent a device dubbed the Planet Prison. This device essentially transforms the outer atmosphere of any planet it is used on into an Electro-Magnetic Pulse-Shell. This would render anything that has electronics on it that passes through the EMPS (such as a spacecraft) inert and subject to the forces of gravity. Such a device would cause the deaths of all people on-board any ship trying to leave the planet, and all lives of any person caught in the debris field as the ship crash lands.

 

Essentially what this becomes is a device that would ensure the starvation of a planet, and the slow and painful deaths of all people on the planet. Unless said planet is completely self-sufficient that planet would likely die within a few standard years. If used on a planet such as Nar Shaddaa or Coruscant, the planet would be dead within a few days.

 

Though the Empire tried to steel this weapon, it was not the Empire who first envisioned such a weapon. That honor goes to the Republic. The fact that the Republic had the gall to invent a weapon capable of causing planet-wide genocide millenia before the Death Star was even conceived of, says a lot about who the real evil in the Star Wars Galaxy actually is.

 

False dichotomy. If you think that the Sith Order and that the Imperial military and bureaucracy aren't corrupt and incompetent, you've got another thing coming.

 

At least the Sith Government actually can make progress and decisions. The Galactic Republic Senate is so mired in controversy that it takes decades to actually decide on something relevant to anything.

 

I've never seen a good person cackle with delight as he kills another person with lightning shooting from his fingertips.

 

I could accept killing an enemy that has to die. A good person might have to do that.

 

And shooting lightning from your fingertips... I suppose that doesn't automatically qualify you as evil.

 

But the cackling with delight part... it takes some pretty extensive mental gymnastics to rationalize that one.

 

While it may not be cackling with delight... I would kindly like to point you in the direction of Vegeta who takes pleasure in killing things (brutally), but who by most people's standards is one of the good guys of Dragon Ball Z...

 

And Yes, the Chiss are given a great degree of freedom, but look at the twileks, most of the Zabrak, the Tautolan, and many more, enslaved for just being the wrong species.

 

I am assuming you mean the "Nautolan" species in your list. That said, it is far more common to see all three of those species you listed being enslaved by the Exchange, the Hutts, or the Black Sun, than it ever is to see them being enslaved by the Empire. And none of those three groups is associated with the Empire under normal circumstances. In point of fact the Hutts would be very happy if the Sith an the Jedi exterminated one another.

 

That said, Slavery is actually a part of the culture of Ryloth (homeworld of the Twi'lek's) where it is the main form of currency. Which is why there are so many female Twi'lek slaves in the galaxy. So by using the Twi'lek's in any example condemning slavery you are kind of hurting your own argument. It would be just as bad trying to use the Orion Slave Girls from Star Trek in an attempt to condemn slavery seeing as how the Orion Women enslave themselves on purpose.

 

This is the question that has to be asked and answered. Continuous refinement and pursuit of perfection is the implicit goal of evolution, and thus life itself. Is it better to have a million more Evocii or a million more Chiss?

 

That is not the implicit goal of evolution. Evolution can have no implicit goal as it is not self-aware. Rather that is the stated goal of Eugenics, of which the NAZI's were a very staunch supporter of. Though despite what some people think, other countries (including the United States) had Eugenics Programs as well.

 

Not the Dark Council, Canon-wise all the Dark Council are either Humans or Sith Purebloods, A Zabrak could theoretically earn the rank of Darth or Lord, but very few ever do, not because they are weak, but because the Human and PureBlood Sith cut them down. While they mouth a might makes right credo they actually are Racist (or Speciest) and hypocrites.

 

Canonically, Darth Nox (The Sith Inquisitor) ascends to a Dark Council seat. As such, whatever race the Inquisitor in question happens to be, is technically part of the Dark Council as far as the Canon of the story is concerned.

 

Number 2, the Jedi DEFEND the Republic, but do not rule it. Membership in the Republic is strictly voluntary and one can always leave it at any time as well.

 

Then explain the events unfolding on Ord Mantell during the Smuggler and Trooper Storyline... not to mention the 4 year period beginning in 22 BBY and ending in 19 BBY known as the Clone Wars, where in the Galactic Republic used an army of indentured slaves (Clone Soldiers) to fight a war against Separatists. If planets that are part of the Republic are free to leave the Republic at any time, for any reason whatsoever, then why did Episodes II, and III happen, and why did the TV series known as The Clone Wars need to be made?

Edited August 20, 2013 by XantosCledwin

[Vecke]

not to mention the 3 year period beginning in 22 BBY and ending in 19 BBY known as the Clone Wars, where in the Galactic Republic used an army of indentured slaves (Clone Soldiers) to fight a war against Separatists. If planets that are part of the Republic are free to leave the Republic at any time, for any reason whatsoever, then why did Episodes II, and III happen, and why did the TV series known as The Clone Wars need to be made?

 

While that shows the weakness of the Republic, it's actually an argument against your point. Episodes II and III happened because a Sith Lord orchestrated the construction of that slave army, then took over the Republic, gained emergency powers, and commissioned the army.

 

Sure, the Republic didn't stand against him, but it only happened because a Sith Lord made it happen.

 

This wasn't a Republic action. It was a Sith action. Palpatine orchestrated all of this. It was not going to happen until Palpatine manipulated them into giving him complete control.

 

There were thousands (2000, I think) of Senators who signed a petition to stop the war and move to diplomacy. The result was Palpatine declaring them enemies of the state. Those Senators were the founders of the rebel alliance.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Vecke

[XantosCledwin]

While that shows the weakness of the Republic, it's actually an argument against your point. Episodes II and III happened because a Sith Lord orchestrated the construction of that slave army, then took over the Republic, gained emergency powers, and commissioned the army.

 

Sure, the Republic didn't stand against him, but it only happened because a Sith Lord made it happen.

 

This wasn't a Republic action. It was a Sith action. Palpatine orchestrated all of this. It was not going to happen until Palpatine manipulated them into giving him complete control.

 

eh... no.... my point in stating that was this:

 

If it is stated in the Constitution of the Galactic Republic (or a similar founding document), that a planet (or planets) is allowed to leave the Galactic Republic for any reason whatsoever. Then the entirety of the Clone Wars should never have happened, because the Galactic Republic had no valid reason to go to war with the Seperatists.

 

If however the Constitution of the Galactic Republic actually says something like this:

 

"You are free to join the Galactic Republic of your own free will, and gain all the benefits there of. But should you try to leave for any reason whatsoever, the Galactic Republic reserves the right to execute full military control over your planet."

 

then the Clone Wars were justified, but only because the planets that joined the Galactic Republic did so on the assumption that it would be in their best interest to join, without thinking that at some point in the future they may not want to remain part of the Galactic Republic.

 

Also, if the latter statement is true, then the Galactic Republic ceases to be a Democracy, and becomes a hybrid Dictatorship/Democracy, much like the Roman Empire was while Julius Caesar was in charge.

 

And hand-waving it to say that Palpatine orchestrated the whole thing, is kind of silly. Either the laws allowing Palpatine to manipulate the events in such a way already existed, or he had to get them passed prior to episode I. Either way, there is no way that it could have gone down like the following:

 

Palpatine: "Hey Senator of the Trade Federation, I want you to blockade Naboo."

TF: "Yeah okay."

 

1 year later

TF: "Hey Palps, that didn't go so well."

Palps: "Okay, well now you and Doku are going to rebel from the Republic."

TF: "Yeah okay."

Doku: "Yeah, sure."

 

In Senate Room:

Palps: "Senators I regret to inform you that several of our delegation have rebelled against us. We must take up arms and force them to submit."

Senators: "Here Here. Let us take it to those rebellious scum. By the way, do we have an army?"

 

There had to be some sort of law relating to the issue of what would happen if a planet separated from the Galactic Republic pre-existing in order for Palpatine to do any of the stuff that he did in the movies.

[smartalectwo]

The Galactic Republic is modeled on the Roman Republic which was the direct predecessor to the Roman Empire. The Roman Republic valued democratic representation for all of it's member states. It's military was largely made up of volunteers. And the Roman Republic featured some of the most advanced Diplomatic efforts of its day and age.

 

This is absolutely not true. The Roman Republic did not have democratic representation. The Senate was made of Romans, and they ruled Rome and Rome's territories. The Senate had no representation of these territories; it was made of of elected Roman officials and aristocrats, and Rome's view towards their conquered territories was that of a resource to exploit. Service in the Roman military during the majority of the Republic era was a matter of public duty for being a Roman citizen, not voluntary. Rome's diplomacy during the Republic era was mostly pre-emptive military action against powers they believed had the potential to be a threat.

 

The only time the Senate even looked as if it might have some sort of representation for their conquered territory was during Julius Caesar's reign, and the Senate resisted it.

 

If there is anything in our world's history that resembles the Galactic Republic, then it's likely either the United States of America, or the United Nations.

 

Then explain the events unfolding on Ord Mantell during the Smuggler and Trooper Storyline... not to mention the 4 year period beginning in 22 BBY and ending in 19 BBY known as the Clone Wars, where in the Galactic Republic used an army of indentured slaves (Clone Soldiers) to fight a war against Separatists. If planets that are part of the Republic are free to leave the Republic at any time, for any reason whatsoever, then why did Episodes II, and III happen, and why did the TV series known as The Clone Wars need to be made?

 

The seperatists on Ord Mantell are fighting against Ord Mantell's pro-Republic legitmate government. Ord Mantell's governing body requested the help of the Republic in putting down this rebellion, which (as it turns out) is backed by the Empire.

 

A more obvious example of legitimate secession from the Republic during this time period would be Alderaan.

 

The issue surrounding the Confederacy of Independent Systems in Episodes 2 and 3 did not come about because the various powers and planets in the CIS seceded - it came about because of the CIS's stated intention to form a seperate government and topple the Galactic Republic, and their buildup of military forces. And Palpatine and the Senate STILL tried diplomacy first, even if it was a sham.

Edited August 20, 2013 by smartalectwo

[XantosCledwin]

This is absolutely not true. The Roman Republic did not have democratic representation. The Senate was made of Romans, and they ruled Rome and Rome's territories. The Senate had no representation of these territories; it was made of of elected Roman officials and aristocrats. Service in the Roman military during the Republic era was a matter of public duty for being a Roman citizen, not voluntary. Rome's diplomacy during the Republic era was mostly pre-emptive military action against powers they believed had the potential to be a threat.

 

If there is anything in our world's history that resembles the Galactic Republic, then it's likely either the United States of America, or the United Nations.

 

Actually, that depends. If we are talking about the Roman Senate, you are correct, they are not a democratic body. Especially since their decree's do not hold any legal power whatsoever.

 

That said the Curia, Tribes, and Centuries were the actual legislative branches of the Roman Government during the Republic era. And all three of them were in fact true Democracies. In fact these Assemblies were far more direct forms of Democracy than any form of Democracy that exists in the modern world.

 

So yes, you are right, the Roman Senate was not a democratic body. But you are wrong in saying that the Roman Republic did not have a democratic body. Especially since the Assemblies were the organization within Rome that actually wrote all the laws (right up until the institutionalization of the Imperial Family).

 

The seperatists on Ord Mantell are fighting against Ord Mantell's pro-Republic legitmate government. Ord Mantell's governing body requested the help of the Republic in putting down this rebellion, which (as it turns out) is backed by the Empire.

 

A more obvious example of legitimate secession from the Republic during this time period would be Alderaan.

 

The issue surrounding the Confederacy of Independent Systems in Episodes 2 and 3 did not come about because the various powers and planets in the CIS seceded - it came about because of the CIS's stated intention to form a seperate government and topple the Galactic Republic, and their buildup of military forces. And Palpatine and the Senate STILL tried diplomacy first, even if it was a sham.

 

Only House Thul is trying to get Alderan to secede from the Republic. As far as the rest of Alderan is concerned they are in the middle of a Civil War.

 

As far as Ord Mantel is concerned you may be correct.

 

The CIS's intentions were not stated in the manner you suggest, because if they were, then diplomacy would not have been necessary. They would have gone straight to open warfare right off the bat. Additionally I recall one episode of The Clone Wars where Padme goes to a CIS planet and speaks to a CIS Senator, the planet she goes to is not overtly warlike and evil (Aside from a contingent of battle droid security).

 

Look, you can say all you want about "This society is obviously evil because it does such and such evil thing." but unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that each and every citizen within that society is in fact evil, then all you are engaging in is a gross over generalization, and that is in and of itself a logical fallacy. I don't care what the canon of Star Wars says about the Sith power structure, but there has to be good Sith out there to contrast with the bad Sith. Otherwise their society would have gone extinct almost the moment it was created. You cannot have a society whose entire existence hinges upon murder, deception, and seeking power for powers sake, lest that society will kill itself within a single generation.

Edited August 20, 2013 by XantosCledwin

[Vecke]

eh... no.... my point in stating that was this:

 

If it is stated in the Constitution of the Galactic Republic (or a similar founding document), that a planet (or planets) is allowed to leave the Galactic Republic for any reason whatsoever. Then the entirety of the Clone Wars should never have happened, because the Galactic Republic had no valid reason to go to war with the Seperatists.

 

If however the Constitution of the Galactic Republic actually says something like this:

 

"You are free to join the Galactic Republic of your own free will, and gain all the benefits there of. But should you try to leave for any reason whatsoever, the Galactic Republic reserves the right to execute full military control over your planet."

 

then the Clone Wars were justified, but only because the planets that joined the Galactic Republic did so on the assumption that it would be in their best interest to join, without thinking that at some point in the future they may not want to remain part of the Galactic Republic.

 

Also, if the latter statement is true, then the Galactic Republic ceases to be a Democracy, and becomes a hybrid Dictatorship/Democracy, much like the Roman Empire was while Julius Caesar was in charge.

 

And hand-waving it to say that Palpatine orchestrated the whole thing, is kind of silly. Either the laws allowing Palpatine to manipulate the events in such a way already existed, or he had to get them passed prior to episode I. Either way, there is no way that it could have gone down like the following:

 

Palpatine: "Hey Senator of the Trade Federation, I want you to blockade Naboo."

TF: "Yeah okay."

 

1 year later

TF: "Hey Palps, that didn't go so well."

Palps: "Okay, well now you and Doku are going to rebel from the Republic."

TF: "Yeah okay."

Doku: "Yeah, sure."

 

In Senate Room:

Palps: "Senators I regret to inform you that several of our delegation have rebelled against us. We must take up arms and force them to submit."

Senators: "Here Here. Let us take it to those rebellious scum. By the way, do we have an army?"

 

There had to be some sort of law relating to the issue of what would happen if a planet separated from the Galactic Republic pre-existing in order for Palpatine to do any of the stuff that he did in the movies.

 

The Republic was breaking up and had no laws to prevent it. That was the entire point of Episode II. Because there was no law to prevent it, Palpatine convinced Jar Jar to put forth a proposal to give Palpatine the power to prevent it.

 

Once that happened, Palpatine was able to commission an army and actually go to war to stop it (with an army he and his former master had ordered made).

 

The good guys (i.e. Bail, Amadala, etc) wanted to convince them to stay through diplomacy, not war. But Palpatine gained so much power, the other senators were afraid to stand against him.

 

The reason Palpatine rose to power was because there was no law against a planet leaving the Republic. The corrupt senators gave him the power to stop it, which was the beginning of the Clone Wars.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Vecke

[Euphrosyne]

Does this wide academic agreement come solely from Scholars who are Semetic-Apologists? Because I can't think of any other reason why any reputable scholar would agree that any society as a whole is both cruel and savage in banal terms or in terms of their most egregious offenses.

 

But then, what most of these Scholars forget to mention is that the Jews weren't innocent bystanders. They committed just as many evil acts as the Romans. Sometimes they committed acts that made the Romans look innocent by comparison. After all, the Jews were the people who went in and slaughtered entire cities, including the women and children and then claimed said cities for themselves, at least when the Greek's razed cities they left survivors.

No, the Jews really don't enter into the discussion at all. I wasn't even mostly thinking of them at the time; Jewish history doesn't interest me in the slightest. What Rome did to the Jews was pretty awful, but it was only the most famous atrocity of a very long laundry list. What happened to Yerushalayim was no worse than what happened to Korinthos or Qarthadast or Numantia or even freaking Veii. (Oh, and "the other side did it too" is no defense at all, regardless of whether it is actually true, and that's somewhat doubtful in this case. In fact, that just goes to prove the point that Alex and I were making, namely that all premodern societies can and should be described as "evil" by any reasonable standard of morality.)

 

It's amusing that you bring up apologism here while attempting to pretend as though Roman society didn't regularly have people killed for entertainment purposes, didn't allow its military to engage in practices that would have horrified even the participants of the Second Congo War, and didn't have an economy predicated almost entirely upon slave labor. Or, if you don't deny that those things happened, you are claiming that they don't really matter, or that they don't make Rome look evil, either of which is prima facie ridiculous.

 

John Ma barely touched on Rome at all in his work; it's mostly concerned with the Greek East, which was the important part of Mediterranean society anyway. (Or, at least, by far the most populous.) And Eckstein is if anything a Roman apologist; the point of his book (and a subsequent book on Rome's "eastern turn") was to demonstrate that the thesis that Rome successfully created an empire because it was so brutal compared to other societies was wrong, and that Rome was no more or less violent and vicious than any of its competitor states.

At least the Sith Government actually can make progress and decisions. The Galactic Republic Senate is so mired in controversy that it takes decades to actually decide on something relevant to anything.

What a farce. The Dark Council, as a group, can barely decide what day it is. And it's almost always at some kind of civil war against itself. Say what you like about the Senate's ability to function - and frankly, there's not a whole lot of evidence suggesting that it's any worse than any other democratic assembly in history - but at least the senators aren't using private armies to duke it out with each other on a regular basis.

 

There is no way an unbiased observer could even think about claiming that the Empire is more stable or better organized or more capable of making decisions than the Republic.

Only House Thul is trying to get Alderan to secede from the Republic. As far as the rest of Alderan is concerned they are in the middle of a Civil War.

Alderaan left the Republic in the aftermath of the Treaty of Coruscant, when its senator, Gaul Panteer, issued an ordinance of secession in protest of the Republic's decision to seek peace. He was reportedly in the midst of negotiations to overturn this when he died, and when the Panteer queen was assassinated shortly thereafter there was no legal government on Alderaan capable of bringing it back into the Republic. Bouris Ulgo's protestations aside, his seizure of the throne was a naked power grab and he obviously had no intention of returning the planet to the Republic's fold (otherwise, you know, he would've done it, as king).

 

Alderaan is in the middle of a civil war, yes. But by Alderaanian law, the planet is not under Republic control, and would have to apply for readmission or something similar once a legitimate government regained authority. It's not clear if the Republic recognized Alderaan's withdrawal; I would lean toward "no", but there's no real evidence either way.