The Sith as the Good Guys?

[Beniboybling]

Off topic: Enders Game falls in line with a lot of literature (Starship Troopers is probably the best example) based off Fascist wet dreams and costumed as fiction. I'm of the personal opinion that Orson Scot Card should be ashamed of himself for disguising dogma as a children's book (there's a reason Ender's Game is on the top reading lists of Military Academies).

All this stuff about Ender's Game is getting be interested, I though it was just sci-fi about a kid, ha ha.

[Lexandrous]

I recently came across a quote that I'd found (and then lost) a while ago that I thought was really interesting. I don't know the context, but its from Lumiya, and a very interesting take on what it is to be Sith:

 

…Taking the life of an innocent is always harder even than taking your own, if you're sincere. This is the ultimate test of selflessness—whether you're ready to face unending emotional pain, true agony, to gain the power to create peace and order for billions of total strangers. That is the sacrifice. To be vilified by others, by people you know and care for, and for your personal sacrifice to be totally unknown to those billions you save, to do your duty as a Sith. To do your duty for the good of the galaxy. It's easy to be a clean-cut hero slaying monsters. There's always a little bit of vanity in it. There can be no room for vanity or pride in being despised.

 

So what do people think? Is there any room for a Sith Lord to ever be considered a "good guy"/having a morality?

 

EDIT: P.S. I'd just like to make clear that I'm not saying that their is room for us justifying the actions of the Sith on moral grounds, but the Sith doing it themselves, as opposed to disregarding morality and conscious as restraints.

 

Interesting.

The emotional pain and agony may or may not effect Sith.

Reasons being they do not have the conscience and empathy to think about those that suffer because of them.

Even if they do anguish over such things. Sith are taught to use such pain to their advantage.

 

For example

If they feel guilt over doing something like sacrificing someone they did not want to.

Conventional wisdom teaches them to save that pain and or anger. Grow stronger, wiser and more cunning. So you will no longer in a situation where you are left in an Ultimatum.

 

Sometimes there are things that are inconsequential to safeguarding Imperial Interests.

Looking beyond the "I am mighty, Look at my power and quake in fear of my shadow" type of Sith.

 

Protecting the people of the Empire is the duty of a Sith.

Power plays and betrayals aside.

 

A Siths duty is beyond dealing with the threats to the Empire that like the Jedi and Republic.

Sith look after the Empire and its people. Self interest aside. A Sith improves themselves because someone must lead Imperials. Not just through might and power, but vision, wisdom, being calculating, diplomacy and so on.

 

If the people thank you or resent you does not matter.

Because the Order and Safety you bring them allows them to live their lives and prosper. For a Leaders true strength is uniting a people. regardless the cause or direction they are led in.

 

Even the more self-centered Sith will realize that they are Lord of nothing if the Empire crumbles.

[Spetulhu]

If the people thank you or resent you does not matter.

Because the Order and Safety you bring them allows them to live their lives and prosper. For a Leaders true strength is uniting a people. regardless the cause or direction they are led in.

 

Hah... that's starting to sound like "The Prince", when Macchiavelli discusses whether it's better to be loved or feared. He doesn't dismiss love, and even gives examples where people resisted a new ruler and brought back the son of the old because they loved the old ruling family. And yet, as he says... People love as they will but fear at the will of the prince.

[Euphrosyne]

It stands to reason that a Sith would balk at you when questioned about the morality of their actions. The mindset that seeks absolute power even over death won't exactly admit wrong, otherwise that person wouldn't be absolutely powerful now would they? They may as well call themselves the Sociopaths, it sure as well would clarify their positions.

Of course it stands to reason as such. That's not a particularly revelatory comment, though. Most people consider themselves the heroes of their own stories; Hitler, who explicitly referred to himself in messianic terms, certainly did. People that point out fictional characters that appear to be so evil that they can't be plausibly regarded as the 'heroes of their own stories' are probably just engaging in wishful thinking, because they don't want to recognize the utter inhumanity that real people have exhibited in the same vein.

 

So no matter how bad the writing, fictional characters like, indeed, the Sith do make sense as plausible sentient villains instead of cardboard cutouts or forces of nature. But, again, the fact that they explain themselves in this way doesn't mean much of anything at all. There is no more reason to take, say, Lumiya in the OP any more seriously when she speaks of sacrifice than there was to lap up Mao's comments on the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution.

Off topic: Enders Game falls in line with a lot of literature (Starship Troopers is probably the best example) based off Fascist wet dreams and costumed as fiction. I'm of the personal opinion that Orson Scot Card should be ashamed of himself for disguising dogma as a children's book (there's a reason Ender's Game is on the top reading lists of Military Academies).

I wouldn't connect Ender's Game with Italian Fascism or with 'militarism' in a general sense; Card expresses sentiments leery of the whole war idea throughout at least the first Ender book. The parallels aren't nearly so obvious as the ones in Starship Troopers are. But the connection between Ender's Game, the morality of intention, and genocide is actually well documented from an academic standpoint.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Euphrosyne

[Lexandrous]

Hah... that's starting to sound like "The Prince", when Macchiavelli discusses whether it's better to be loved or feared. He doesn't dismiss love, and even gives examples where people resisted a new ruler and brought back the son of the old because they loved the old ruling family. And yet, as he says... People love as they will but fear at the will of the prince.

 

Uh huh.

Never heard of it until now and not really sure what your on about.

Just responding to the initial post and tried showing the reason relationship the Empires citizens has with its Sith.

And why so many are still loyal regardless of the fall out of the sadistic and power hungry general crazy Sith.

 

I also tried to portray the mantle of responsibility that not all Sith are able to carry.

As naturally others would flock around them.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Lexandrous
not enough information

[AshlaBoga]

Luke Skywalker has a quote that I find to be quite relevant in this discussion.

"There are times when the end justifies the means. But when you build an argument based on a whole series of such times, you may find that you've constructed an entire philosophy of evil."

Edited February 20, 2014 by AshlaBoga

[lironBD]

Peace?

 

Peace is a lie.

[tunewalker]

Luke Skywalker has a quote that I find to be quite relevant in this discussion.

"There are times when the end justifies the means. But when you build an argument based on a whole series of such times, you may find that you've constructed an entire philosophy of evil."

 

Quotes like this are why I really hope Hamil gets to play the Wise old Master Luke.

[theUndead]

This is true, but what I found most interesting is a possibility for a Sith to be selfless as opposed to selfish. So in such a sense power, ambition etc. have nothing to do with it. And one might believe they are doing "the right thing" for others.

 

Of course such an individual would be morally flawed, but not your atypical "UNLIMITED POWER!" individual. They would actually have morals - but I expect this is quite similar to the person Darth Caedus was.

 

I understand what you are saying, but wouldn't the act of selflessness be in direct contrast to what the ideology of the Sith are?

 

I recall a quote in EP3 when Anikan and Palpaitine are at the opera and after discussing Playguis, Anikan says" The Sith relay on the their passion for their strength, they look inwards only about themselves". Now. take that as you will but it would seem that to many the notion of a good hearted Sith is well lost to people.

[CGSithLord]

I agree a Sith can be a great Anti Hero in a Lelouch vi Britannia sort of way. if you want a more Sith like hero, Rose the Dark Dragoon would be the best example; ( PSX Legend of Dragoon), and Nathan Ford from Leverage who's often compared as a White knight turned Black king. and the cast of Akame la Kill is another example of Bad things against very very bad people. Edited August 8, 2014 by CGSithLord
Best example yet

[Lucianthisis]

Can a Sith be a good guy? I see no reason why not, while they are not portrayed that way because let's be honest they make better bad guys just because they use emotion and passion doesn't mean they can't be passionate about the right things e.g. fighting against a tyranny or an evil criminal group. However as others have pointed out when they disregard the welfare of others in their quest they can quickly fall into the "ends justify the means" trap. There have been many examples throughout history of just such events, groups and individuals with good causes that ended badly, but there are equal numbers of times that it has not. And while many might point to the whole "Peace is a lie" part of their code that doesn't mean a Sith has to be constantly at war; conflict comes in many shapes and sizes. However that said the quote only states a fact of the universe, never in the course of HUMAN history has the world been at peace, and that's just one species on one planet, so I don't think that in an intergalactic setting finding a place to fight for the right reasons would be exactly difficult for a "good" Sith.

[the_kof]

One thing that the Sith have on the Jedi (at least in SWTOR times) is that they allow themselves passion and love, which to me is a more human emotion than the Jedi's peace and detachment idea.

 

One could also argue that the Sith are more realistic than the Jedi; many people in our world try to be "good guys" by doing evil things (like the bombings of Dresden or the mass bombings of Japan in WWII). Out of context, this is an evil act, but it was better in the long run than losing more lives. From that, I would call the Sith pragmatic and more like our own people.

 

There is a book called "Sympathy for the Devil." In it, the author argues that he has sympathy for the Devil because someone has to be the bad guy....

 

I would compare a heroic Sith to Jamie Lannister in GOT (who is one of my favorite characters in the whole series)

 

Jamie does what needs to be done to save his family and love when he pushes Bran out the window. Justifiable evil act. And yes, I know that it was odd because it was his sister, but I think that if I had to choose between my wife (who is not my sister) and a child I don't really know, I would like to think that I would chose my wife. I might be heartless though....

Jamie breaks his oath and kills a mad king in order to save people. Justifiable evil act.

 

 

So yeah a Sith can be good but in an evil way. Which solves nothing!!!! :D:D:D

[errant_knight]

This is STAR WARS, not A Song of Ice and Fire: INNN SPAAAAAAAACE.

It would be a complete departure from the space opera subtext if not all "good" guys were "good", and not all "bad" guys were bad. It just wouldn't be Star Wars without that "black and white" moralty.

 

This game is considerably greyer than the films and Kotor 2 was even more so. Kreia made some pretty valid points.

[BradTheImpaler]

Peace?

 

Peace is a lie.

 

Emperor Palpatine made this point, in a sort of ironic way. "We shall have peace...". If "peace" is defined as a status quo uninterrupted by violent insurrection, but containing thinly-veiled systemic violence, then "peace" of that sort is undesirable. "Peace", for some, can mean being in chains, whether in the sense that the Sith Code depicts them or in a more literal sense. As Yuthura Ban said, "Sometimes anger and hatred are so deserved and right. Sometimes things change because of it."

Edited August 16, 2014 by BradTheImpaler

[smartalectwo]

One could also argue that the Sith are more realistic than the Jedi; many people in our world try to be "good guys" by doing evil things (like the bombings of Dresden or the mass bombings of Japan in WWII). Out of context, this is an evil act, but it was better in the long run than losing more lives. From that, I would call the Sith pragmatic and more like our own people.

 

That's not really the Sith way of thinking, though, is it? The Sith are extremists - they take that kind of thinking and turn it up to eleven. They don't drop bombs until someone surrenders; they drop bombs until nothing is left, so that no-one else will ever think of resisting them ever again. And then they say, "Better in the long run, right? It's not like we were going to occupy the place; at least we get some use out of it this way."

 

I don't get it when folks say that a violent religious cult dedicated to the spreading of fear and hate are 'more our kind of people'. Hell no. The Jedi, at least, are trying to be the best people that the galaxy will let them be. The Sith don't even bother, and might not even understand why you would want to. A heroic Sith would be that in direct spite of his training and teachings, not because of them - if you follow the Sith way to the letter, you are a genuine villain.

Edited August 16, 2014 by smartalectwo