Light sith inside the dark empire

[efffel]

Seriously. Do Jaesa's dialog and listen to what she's saying. She kills Sith for not being light enough and is backed up by the council for doing so. It's her TASK AND POSITION for doing so. It seems you don't know very much what it means to be sith. :/

 

I don't have lightning coming out of my fingers (except static sometimes )

Zash kills Sith for an artefact, most Siths want to kill me to take my place,...

The council does not rule supreme and is in constant bickering

[Rhyltran]

I can concede many Siths will see light as weak, enough that you'd have many zealots (like DS Jaessa ) running after you . But it is still power Siths are after, not darkness

“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 set me free.”

-The Sith Code

And in Kotfe (introduced in Ziost), if you want your chains broken, you have to take light side points,...

 

The code is guidelines on how to be Sith. It's not the be all end all of being Sith. Learn the history of the Sith. It's a dark side philosophy. It's not "Just zealots." The position Jaesa has was given to her by the dark council. You know, the ruling body of the Sith? It's not even that they find it weak. They do but that isn't why they hate it so much. Read about the force wars and the events that lead to the Jedi exiles finding korriban.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Rhyltran

[Joachimthbear]

I can concede many Siths will see light as weak, enough that you'd have many zealots (like DS Jaessa ) running after you . But it is still power Siths are after, not darkness

The orthodox view of the Sith is that the dark side is the only path to true power. If you follow the light side, you are not claiming power for yourself; all you do is trust in the Force to provide what you need.

 

If you reject the dark side, you reject fear and hatred. You accept peace. You reject the Sith philosophy.

 

I understand if you want the Sith Code to be some kind of affirmation of personal freedom and independence of thought, but that is not what it means to the Sith in-universe. And if there was ever any doubt, any serious dissent, Darth Bane's destiny is to close the book on that.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Joachimthbear

[SithKoriandr]

I understand if you want the Sith Code to be some kind of affirmation of personal freedom and independence of thought, but that is not what it means to the Sith in-universe. And if there was ever any doubt, any serious dissent, Darth Bane's destiny is to close the book on that.

 

I find that to be what many WANT to try and believe it as. "I can be who I want to be if I'm Sith, and it affirms something in me!" No.

 

Why many still think that after it tells you what it means to be Sith on Korriban in the quests Being Sith is not being a nice person.

 

Of course, one doesn't have to be Sith or Jedi, even if the game pingeon holes you into it.

[nimmerstil]

Both the Light Side warrior and Light Side inquisitor make it a point of having to hide and keep it a secret. Using words like "Infiltrate" or "Change from Within." You're an inside agent surrounded by enemies. You are a heretic.

 

That was actually an important part of the fun of playing SI as light-side - although it plays little role during your story - knowing you were playing with fire, as if you were breaking and entering when choosing a light-side resolution. Later, choosing light-sided during planetary and side quests and then making up excuses that it benefits the Empire was highly enjoyable and outsmarting everyone became an almost casual act.

 

To the italics? Wrong. The sith has a clear code.

It has and it supports his view more then yours. "Through victory, my chains are broken.", to choose freely, remove restraints, fits better with "One of the Sith thing is to do whatever you please " then with "The sith is a dark side philosophy". It may very well be that not all, or even few, Sith follow the Code of the Sith, it may be that not everyone who follows the Code of the Sith can be considered Sith, but what is not true is that the Code of the Sith is exclusively Dark Side.

[Joachimthbear]

It has and it supports his view more then yours. "Through victory, my chains are broken.", to choose freely, remove restraints, fits better with "One of the Sith thing is to do whatever you please " then with "The sith is a dark side philosophy". It may very well be that not all, or even few, Sith follow the Code of the Sith, it may be that not everyone who follows the Code of the Sith can be considered Sith, but what is not true is that the Code of the Sith is exclusively Dark Side.

But what about the rest of the lines? "Peace is a lie, there is only passion" outright bans the use of anything but the dark side of the Force. Drawing strength and power from your passions is what the dark side is all about; peace is associated with (let's say) non-dark ways of using the Force. "The Force shall free me" clarifies that this is not a philosophy for those who cannot use the Force - and by extension, those people can never be free.

 

It's not a coincidence or bad writing that "Sith" and "totalitarian Empire" so often go together. The language of passion, strength, power, victory and chains being broken is the stuff from which such regimes are built.

[nimmerstil]

But what about the rest of the lines? "Peace is a lie, there is only passion" outright bans the use of anything but the dark side of the Force. Drawing strength and power from your passions is what the dark side is all about; peace is associated with (let's say) non-dark ways of using the Force.

 

The Sith code directly references the first line in the Jedi code, it's a statement about the Jedi Code, not a prescription about how to use the Force. Strictly seen within that context, peace is a lie, when dealing with emotions, there is no peace, at best there is a truce. We're full of conflicts, emotions, passions, the Jedi 'peace' is a way to handle them, a process, not a state, as is implied by the word - the 'older' version states it more accurately, "emotion, yet peace".

 

"The Force shall free me" clarifies that this is not a philosophy for those who cannot use the Force - and by extension, those people can never be free.

How does that connect to the current discussion?

 

It's not a coincidence or bad writing that "Sith" and "totalitarian Empire" so often go together. The language of passion, strength, power, victory and chains being broken is the stuff from which such regimes are built.

Well, actually there is 'bad writing' in the sense that it stems from a simplified good versus evil story that had some moral code attached to it later. The depiction of the Sith Empire is 'bad writing' in that it is a stereotypical depiction of an evil, totalitarian regime, it is not logically derived from idea's about the Sith or the Sith Code. Anyway, "chains being broken" is not a common theme for totalitarian regimes, on the contrary. While it may be the initiator of a 'revolt' against such a regime that later ends in another totalitarian regime, idea's about "breaking chains" frequently leads to the end of such a regime and consequently, totalitarian regimes usually try to repress such idea's.

Edited November 24, 2015 by nimmerstil

[Audoucet]

Well, actually there is 'bad writing' in the sense that it stems from a simplified good versus evil story that had some moral code attached to it later. The depiction of the Sith Empire is 'bad writing' in that it is a stereotypical depiction of an evil, totalitarian regime, it is not logically derived from idea's about the Sith or the Sith Code. Anyway, "chains being broken" is not a common theme for totalitarian regimes, on the contrary. While it may be the initiator of a 'revolt' against such a regime that later ends in another totalitarian regime, idea's about "breaking chains" frequently leads to the end of such a regime and consequently, totalitarian regimes usually try to repress such idea's.

 

It's bad, only because you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Dark Side is intended by its creator to be a magical corrupting force that turns you crazy.

[nimmerstil]

It's bad, only because you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Dark Side is intended by its creator to be a magical corrupting force that turns you crazy.

 

I put 'bad writing' between quote marks to indicate it was 'not really bad' and in reference to the post it replied to, it basically meant 'stereotypical'.

 

The movies explicitly show that the villains are villains because of the choices they make and never because of some overpowering, corrupting influence that made them do their evil deeds.

 

If said creator intended something else then it is indeed a prime example of bad writing, or rather, poor screenplay and directing. I doubt that, most likely, however, it is your mind that pulls things terribly out of context, similar to how you managed to read 'bad writing' totally out of it's intended meaning. Assuming you are referring to your fabled commentary, I am curious about what sparked your idea's, do you have a link, maybe something on Youtube?

 

Star Wars is about the things we, in general, believe in. It reflects our religions, our believes, our morals and weaves them into a, more or less, classic story of good and evil. One of the things we, at large, believe in is that we are responsible for our own decisions and actions. We do not (generally) believe in evil, corrupting forces that turn you into a crazed killer against our will. Even our own, christian religious evil mastermind, Lucifer, did not force people to act evil, but seduced them into doing so, exploiting every human weakness, but ultimately these people acted out of their own free will. It's no different in Star Wars.

Edited November 24, 2015 by nimmerstil

[Audoucet]

I put 'bad writing' between quote marks to indicate it was 'not really bad' and in reference to the post it replied to, it basically meant 'stereotypical'.

 

The movies explicitly show that the villains are villains because of the choices they make and never because of some overpowering, corrupting influence that made them do their evil deeds.

 

If said creator intended something else then it is indeed a prime example of bad writing, or rather, poor screenplay and directing. I doubt that, most likely, however, it is your mind that pulls things terribly out of context, similar to how you managed to read 'bad writing' totally out of it's intended meaning. Assuming you are referring to your fabled commentary, I am curious about what sparked your idea's, do you have a link, maybe something on Youtube?

 

Star Wars is about the things we, in general, believe in. It reflects our religions, our believes, our morals and weaves them into a, more or less, classic story of good and evil. One of the things we, at large, believe in is that we are responsible for our own decisions and actions. We do not (generally) believe in evil, corrupting forces that turn you into a crazed killer against our will. Even our own, christian religious evil mastermind, Lucifer, did not force people to act evil, but seduced them into doing so, exploiting every human weakness, but ultimately these people acted out of their own free will. It's no different in Star Wars.

 

Hey man, I'm not going to feed your delusions, when you are obviously one of the only people to be unable to understand the basic elements of a movie. I don't see the point of talking with you about the weather if you don't even aknowledge, the sun is hot. I don't mean to be rude, but reading you is like reading a crazy person.

[Lerden]

Hey man, I'm not going to feed your delusions, when you are obviously one of the only people to be unable to understand the basic elements of a movie. I don't see the point of talking with you about the weather if you don't even aknowledge, the sun is hot. I don't mean to be rude, but reading you is like reading a crazy person.

 

That's some top tier argumentation right there, i applaud you sir.

[Audoucet]

That's some top tier argumentation right there, i applaud you sir.

 

Well, I already argued with him. What do you want me to say ? He's asking for videos, but everybody in the Star Wars fandom already take it for granted, the Dark Side corrupts and is addictive. If you want videos, which will essentially just tell you the same thing, you can find some yourself. If you want me to find some I can, but you will just dismiss it just like you dismiss me.

 

EVERY sources will tell you the same, just like every sources will tell you that alcohol and heroin are addictive, but if you are an addict, I can't even begin to argue with you.

[nimmerstil]

.... reading you is like reading a crazy person.

 

You really know how to plead your case

[Audoucet]

You really know how to plead your case

 

Well, the Wikipedia and Wookieepedia communities agree with me, it's enough for me.

[Joachimthbear]

The Sith code directly references the first line in the Jedi code, it's a statement about the Jedi Code, not a prescription about how to use the Force. Strictly seen within that context, peace is a lie, when dealing with emotions, there is no peace, at best there is a truce. We're full of conflicts, emotions, passions, the Jedi 'peace' is a way to handle them, a process, not a state, as is implied by the word - the 'older' version states it more accurately, "emotion, yet peace".

Follow the line of thought, though. "There is only passion -> Through passion, I gain strength". With the Force, to gain strength through passion means to use the dark side.

 

How does that connect to the current discussion?

Because if the Sith code is simply about self-determination and independent thought, it should be applicable to both Force users and non-Force users. Aren't they all equally free-willed beings with the same rights? The Sith code makes the Force the path to freedom - a path only the chosen few have even the potential of following. Just as the dark side is a concept that only really has full meaning for Force users. Other people can be bad, but they can't be "dark" in the way that a Force user can be.

 

Well, actually there is 'bad writing' in the sense that it stems from a simplified good versus evil story that had some moral code attached to it later. The depiction of the Sith Empire is 'bad writing' in that it is a stereotypical depiction of an evil, totalitarian regime, it is not logically derived from idea's about the Sith or the Sith Code.

Depending on your interpretation, the Sith code may not lead to such thinking. But the writing in this case is self-consistent because the Sith are shown as interpreting their code in a particular way that does give rise to exactly that kind of Empire. Cliche and simplistic... maybe, I don't know.

 

Anyway, "chains being broken" is not a common theme for totalitarian regimes, on the contrary. While it may be the initiator of a 'revolt' against such a regime that later ends in another totalitarian regime, idea's about "breaking chains" frequently leads to the end of such a regime and consequently, totalitarian regimes usually try to repress such idea's.

Well, that depends. Some real-life totalitarian regimes identify themselves as revolutionary and make overcoming previous or outside oppression part of their narrative. Any examples are going to get us into real-life politics, though, so if you disagree I'll concede that particular point.

 

The movies explicitly show that the villains are villains because of the choices they make and never because of some overpowering, corrupting influence that made them do their evil deeds.

I don't know if this a particularly good analogy, but try thinking of it in terms of addiction. Addiction always starts with a free choice, and nobody ever chooses to become addicted; but the more you indulge an addiction, the harder it becomes to quit, and the more extreme the resulting behaviour will be. The dark side only makes you do anything in the same sense that a drug does - the path to reaching that point, to profoundly losing control, is one that you walk down of your own free will.

 

Further personal interpretation, probably not canon, within the spoilertag below.

My own take on the dark side is that it is what happens when your own passions, your own desires, drown out all the other empathic feedback reaching you through the Force. Consider: crushing or choking someone to death with the Force is just regular telekinesis, like pushing or lifting them; but as you use the Force to actively and progressively destroy another person's body, you should be feeling the consequences of that through the Force. That's why most Jedi can't do it - it's not forbidden knowledge, it's just too psychologically painful to do. But with the dark side, you block out that feedback, silence the voice of the person you're killing, and then there is only your own anger and hatred pounding in your ears...

 

And as you get used to blocking out that feedback, you change as a person. Genuine empathy becomes harder and harder. Other people lose their value as people and come to represent only what they mean to you. It's possible to pull back before you're too far gone, to regain your balance, but it gets more difficult over time.

 

Edited November 24, 2015 by Joachimthbear

[nimmerstil]

Follow the line of thought, though. "There is only passion -> Through passion, I gain strength". With the Force, to gain strength through passion means to use the dark side.

 

By definition, using the dark side of the force requires tapping into the emotions, passion. Using that path does not, by default, require making evil choices. This path is however easier, more tempting, for those already inclined to give in to their personal darker side, or give in to the more destructive emotions like anger and hatred.

 

 

Because if the Sith code is simply about self-determination and independent thought, it should be applicable to both Force users and non-Force users. Aren't they all equally free-willed beings with the same rights? The Sith code makes the Force the path to freedom - a path only the chosen few have even the potential of following.

 

That is one way to read it, I never did read it as such, it can also be read as stating that The Force is one path to freedom. It's more relevant to Force Users, but power does not come from the Force alone, nor do the SIth rely solely on the Force as their source of strength and power.

 

Just as the dark side is a concept that only really has full meaning for Force users. Other people can be bad, but they can't be "dark" in the way that a Force user can be.

Everyone has a dark side, it's a common expression in our language, in various languages, and main theme in many stories. For me this Dark Side of the Force is just another 'form', another expression of this same dark side - and I think it was intended as such in the OT (something with a cave?). It's even associated with the same range of emotions.

 

 

Depending on your interpretation, the Sith code may not lead to such thinking. But the writing in this case is self-consistent because the Sith are shown as interpreting their code in a particular way that does give rise to exactly that kind of Empire.

How? The Empire shows a direction, a common goal, that I can not derive from the self-centered Sith doctrine - with or without the Code. I'd expect a kind of anarchy, with a lot of 'warlords', a feudal system at best. But something as organized as the Empire?

 

Well, that depends. Some real-life totalitarian regimes identify themselves as revolutionary and make overcoming previous or outside oppression part of their narrative. Any examples are going to get us into real-life politics, though, so if you disagree I'll concede that particular point.

Ok, it's another discussion.

 

 

Addiction always starts with a free choice, and nobody ever chooses to become addicted; but the more you indulge an addiction, the harder it becomes to quit, and the more extreme the resulting behaviour will be. The dark side only makes you do anything in the same sense that a drug does - the path to reaching that point, to profoundly losing control, is one that you walk down of your own free will.

That is the point, there is a choice, it does not force itself upon you. And not just to get started, quitting is a choice, even if it becomes a progressively harder choice to make. Even, and especially in the movies, Anakin, aka Darth Vader, could still make that choice after falling so completely and after a lifetime of using the Dark Side.

Further personal interpretation, probably not canon, within the spoilertag below.

My own take on the dark side is that it is what happens when your own passions, your own desires, drown out all the other empathic feedback reaching you through the Force. Consider: crushing or choking someone to death with the Force is just regular telekinesis, like pushing or lifting them; but as you use the Force to actively and progressively destroy another person's body, you should be feeling the consequences of that through the Force. That's why most Jedi can't do it - it's not forbidden knowledge, it's just too psychologically painful to do. But with the dark side, you block out that feedback, silence the voice of the person you're killing, and then there is only your own anger and hatred pounding in your ears...

 

And as you get used to blocking out that feedback, you change as a person. Genuine empathy becomes harder and harder. Other people lose their value as people and come to represent only what they mean to you. It's possible to pull back before you're too far gone, to regain your balance, but it gets more difficult over time.

 

I can follow you here,

Although I think emphatic feedback is not limited to the Force i do imagine it might be more intense. It also seems that emotions like anger and hatred diminish emphatic perception, possibly because of evolutionary, survival needs - how else could one kill, or harm anyone trying to hurt you?

 

I think tt's also related to the rite that the Sith so perversely call "The Sacrifice".

 

 

Edited November 24, 2015 by nimmerstil

[SithKoriandr]

Well, the Wikipedia and Wookieepedia communities agree with me, it's enough for me.

 

Those who don't, generally want to interrupt the dark side as something more than the movies (which are canon) or shows show it to be.

 

The movies and shows keep it simple. The game itself generally keeps the Sith code simple (the players who disagree don't listen to the NPCs on Korriban at all).

 

Being Sith is being evil. You take and kill who you want. There's a reason it's considered strange for our PCs to be of the light side.

[Joachimthbear]

By definition, using the dark side of the force requires tapping into the emotions, passion. Using that path does not, by default, require making evil choices. This path is however easier, more tempting, for those already inclined to give in to their personal darker side, or give in to the more destructive emotions like anger and hatred.

Agreed, the powers associated with the dark side can in theory be used for good, and a few people (including, we can probably assume, the various Force using player characters in SWTOR) have enough willpower and strength of character to wield that power without losing control of themselves, at least for a time. However, I believe that the vast majority of Force users could not do this, and if they try, they will fall. Whether it's an addiction or some other kind of self-reinforcing behaviour, it's all too easy to slip that little bit too far without even realising it. As I believe Kreia once said, "it is such a quiet thing, to fall".

 

That is one way to read it, I never did read it as such, it can also be read as stating that The Force is one path to freedom. It's more relevant to Force Users, but power does not come from the Force alone, nor do the SIth rely solely on the Force as their source of strength and power.

There are different ways to read it, but I still believe that when taken as a whole, the Sith code is mainly prescribing a particular path for Force users, that of the dark side. Perhaps more importantly, that seems to be how the majority of Sith in-universe interpret it. And as others have noted the Sith orthodoxy can legally kill you for deviating from their philosophy (though the Emperor's/Empire's Wrath is probably considered to be beyond such laws and Darth Imperius is just too flippin' scary).

 

Everyone has a dark side, it's a common expression in our language, in various languages, and main theme in many stories. For me this Dark Side of the Force is just another 'form', another expression of this same dark side - and I think it was intended as such in the OT (something with a cave?). It's even associated with the same range of emotions.

I agree, the Force and the dark side here are serving as metaphors for parts of our real experience. The fantastical elements simply blow the issues up to bigger than life size so they can be looked at in new ways. Following from my own speculation about how the dark side works, it is not some kind of evil presence in the Force itself that corrupts you - it's the echo of your own darkness, reflected back and amplified as you impose your will on the Force. It's just an exaggerated version of what we can do to ourselves in real life if we let fear and hate rule our actions.

 

How? The Empire shows a direction, a common goal, that I can not derive from the self-centered Sith doctrine - with or without the Code. I'd expect a kind of anarchy, with a lot of 'warlords', a feudal system at best. But something as organized as the Empire?

I can only answer this in terms of my own understanding of the Sith philosophy - not just the usual code but their whole way of thinking as presented through the game and other sources. Basically, the Sith do not just want to be free - they want power, and to rule over others. Their philosophy divides all people into strong and weak, masters and slaves, rulers and subjects. The strong deserve to rule and the weak deserve to be ruled - or worse.

 

Put a bunch of Sith together in one place, then, and each will aspire to rule over the rest. Every Sith wants to be Emperor. And it takes a very powerful Sith indeed to seize that position alone, because every other Sith is a rival and a threat. This is why Sith tradition places a huge emphasis on building a power base, and on showing deference to those who are (for the moment) more powerful than you.

 

So as a Sith, you accept your place within a wider ruling caste, and bide your time. You may not be Emperor yet, but you can still hold power partway to the top, asserting your superiority over the castes beneath you. And you never stop thinking about your own advancement - because there's a bunch of newcomers on their way up who'd gladly take your position, and the longer you wait around, the more likely it is that one of them will get strong or lucky enough to topple you.

 

The Sith Empire breaks this dynamic a little bit because Vitiate was well known to be in a whole separate league from everyone else power-wise, and functionally immortal. Sith couldn't really aspire to overthrow him, or succeed him, and he became more of a god-figure than a conventional ruler. His authority allowed the Dark Council to rule as a collective without the risk that they would kill each other for even more power. Since Vitiate's defeat/banishment coincided with the Empire being on the back foot in the war and the Dark Council losing several members in quick succession, the balance of power held in his absence out of sheer self-preservation. If things ever calm down enough for the high-ranking Sith to start eyeing up that top position again, however, all bets are off.

 

That is the point, there is a choice, it does not force itself upon you. And not just to get started, quitting is a choice, even if it becomes a progressively harder choice to make. Even, and especially in the movies, Anakin, aka Darth Vader, could still make that choice after falling so completely and after a lifetime of using the Dark Side.

The choice does not force itself on you, but others can try to force it on you - or trick you into it. Palpatine did everything in his power to lure Anakin onto the dark path. For the Sith of the Empire it's a bit easier - they take you to a dangerous hellhole of a planet, shove a basic weapon in your hand, and tell you, "kill as we have taught you, or be killed". The Sith who balked at the idea of killing frightened slaves who only want to be free - they died. Surviving the Sith Academy without falling to the dark side takes supreme will or a modest dose of insanity. But you're right, there is always hope that you can change, as Anakin, Darth Sajar and others did.

 

Sajar, incidentally, is my main basis for comparing the dark side to an addiction - even having reformed and repented, he's terrified that he could still slip back into his old patterns with a moment's lapse of resolve, and if that happens he may not find his way back again.

 

I can follow you here,

Although I think emphatic feedback is not limited to the Force i do imagine it might be more intense.

 

I think tt's also related to the rite that the Sith so perversely call "The Sacrifice".

 

Agreed, again, I believe the Force is here acting as a larger-than-life metaphor for the real experiences we have in living and interacting with other people.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Joachimthbear

[Deshiel]

Well, the Wikipedia and Wookieepedia communities agree with me, it's enough for me.

 

Wookipedia also includes individuals who were resistant to the addiction or conseuqences of using the dark side. There are also the opposites. Like that one story where a jedi taps to the dark side for the briefest of moment and it almost kills her.

[Audoucet]

Wookipedia also includes individuals who were resistant to the addiction or conseuqences of using the dark side.

 

Yeah, but that very phrase agrees with. Ok, you can resist, but there is indeed an addiction/corruption to resist.

[Analyst]

I personally played my Sith Warrior as Light - according to game mechanics. But the interpretation of Light was a bit different here, and more subject to practicality and control. Basically, it goes with the following logic:

 

Imagine that you want to become the Emperor. The first problem is that you cannot be a ruler without subjects and subordinates. The second problem is that you will need allies for gaining the throne and holding it later. But what if subordinates and allies rise against you?

One way is to surround yourself with those who are much weaker than you (as Darth Scotia did). But then your enemies may take them down without problems, and such weaklings won't be really useful to you. Second way is to find powerful and capable individuals and kill them before they can challenge you (like Darth Baras loved to do). But if they are strong - they may survive and get just the perfect reason for rebellion if they haven't it before.

So, for my Warrior the solution was: find capable people, but not to give them cause for rebellion. That may be done either with making a person sincerely believe in you and respect you (like Pierce), or make a person highly dependent on you (like Vette). Either way insulting and Force-choking will do little good.

 

The second reason was that you can find only limited use for a dead person. For a living one... that is different. Kill a Jedi - and you'll get a corpse of a Jedi. Spare a Jedi - and you will give him doubts about Sith image, create a possible link to use, and generally have at least one enemy who is less inclined to fight you. Maybe even possible recruit for you. By the way, that was demonstrated in the Warrior's storyline, at least twice.

The same is with the others. Why kill a capable person when you can make use of him? Why kill if you won't get any profit of it?

 

And the third base was control. Sith are about power - but you cannot achieve power over others if you have no power over yourself. Emotions should fuel your actions as gas fuels the car movements... but gas does not dictate car movement. The driver does. Here it is the same: channel emotions when necessary, concentrate your passions on your goals, but keep a hold on yourself.

 

All this combined gave me the possibility to play "light" Sith, the kind I've always wanted to play - and I thank the creators for such an opportunity. But my Warrior is not a moral paragon; he will definitely kill, decieve or destroy, when he sees that it is the best way to solve the problem. The last part is the key one.

 

Perhaps I tend to interpret the Dark Side more like Thamarite faith from Warmachine, but it suits me.

[Audoucet]

I hate BW's relativism, so I actually played the craziness implied by a growing connection to the Dark Side.

 

But obviously, it doesn't mean systematically killing everyone. With my SW, when I offered someone his life in exchange of something, say information, I actually spared him, not because I was trustworthy or honorable, But just so people wouldn't answer me "You will kill me anyway !".

 

I lied a few times, because I considered the target to be too important to live, but it was rare, and nobody could now it.

 

I think that the main problem is that SWTOR's light/dark system is just a stupid subjective good/bad dichotomy. Obeying your hierarchy in the Jedi order and not intervening in a conflict should definitely not make you dark. It was obvious with Revan, against the Mandalorian, he did a good thing, by listening to his emotions and not his reason. That eventually led him to the Dark Side...

[Deshiel]

I came to realise that nobody is realy going to kill that one light side sith that brings back 25/25 tauntaun hides right?

[adormitul]

Well lets put it this way the SW even if he is lightish as lets be honest even light side he kills people without issue like literally crushing some just because, he is the apprentice of a very powerful Darth and later he is feared for killing said Darth's master a powerful sith also so the organisation that deals with light side sith knows that their no match for the SW so they leave him be as fear and pragmatism is not a foreign concept to the sith so if they can not kill him they ignore him.

Now for why they ignore a light side SI well if he is light side well them I do not know anything.