Sith Philosophy: Inherently self-defeating or misunderstood by its practitioners?

[StokesFiveTwo]

It seems to me that there are two possible ways to interpret the Sith code and philosophy. Either it is a “pure evil” code that is inherently destructive, or it is an alternative to the Jedi code that has similar aims, but different methods. One way of interpreting the Sith Code seems to lead to insanity, destruction, and uselessness, whereas the other way of interpreting it is more akin to survival of the fittest or a twisted utilitarianism. But which is it?

 

Darth Nihilus is the perfect example of the “chaos” Sith. He literally wanted to destroy the universe. He is pure evil. Darth Revan is the perfect example of the “order” Sith. He wanted to use any means necessary, including violence and the dark side, to bring peace to the galaxy. You could argue he has good intentions, but is willing to use evil methods to bring it about.

 

But which type of Sith is closer to the core of Sith philosophy? Was Nihlus a better Sith, or Revan?

 

Most of the Sith you meet in the game seem to basically just be power obsessed sociopaths and murderers whose insanity is enabled by their power and standing in Imperial culture. They're more like Nihlus. They only care about themselves, and they end up doing more harm to the Empire than good, imo. Are these guys misusing the Sith code for their own personal sociopathology and advancement, or are they truly doing what the Sith code requires? Does being Sith just mean “being evil” and self-advancement or is there an actual rational philosophical way to be Sith?

 

What do you think? Is the Sith Code a rationally justifiable philosophy that could sustain an Empire, or is it an inherently self defeating philosophy that leads to a Hamlet scenario where everyone is lying dead on the floor with knives in their back?

[Diviciacus]

Revan was white with black methods, for anyone who plays Magic. Then the Emperor twisted his mind for three centuries, driving him insane, and fooling him into thinking he could be killed by means that we here possess. Anyway.

 

The thing about the Sith code was that it was developed as a response to the...stuffiness of the Jedi code. Which doesn't makes sense because the Jedi Code as it exists now (There is no emotion, there is peace... etc) wasn't actually developed until around 4,000 BBY. The original was much less frankly Vulcan-like. So the Sith Code is a bit of an anachronism in that it was created in response to something that wouldn't exist for two millennia. Woops.

 

The Sith Code is really about freedom from the restrictions of the post-Odan-Urr modified Jedi Code (which was developed in response to the resurgent Sith problem from the Krath cult and Exar Kun going to Yavin IV's moon and being corrupted by the spirits of the ancient Sith.

 

So really, what happened is:

 

Jedi Code (current) established -> Sith code created as response ->Sith break off from Jedi two thousand years before Jedi Code (current) even exists ->Jedi Code (original) modified to Jedi Code (current) as reponse to Sith.

 

It's like going back in time and becoming one's own grandfather, because people weren't really paying attention to when things were happening between all the Old Republic-era comics.

 

So if you ignore all the temporal weirdness, what you get from the Sith vs. the Jedi Codes as they are in TOR, is that the Sith Code is the Left-handed path of (real-world) magic, and the Jedi Code is the Right-handed path of (real world) magic.

 

The Sith value self-improvement through pursuing their passions.

The Jedi value self-improvement through pursuing asceticism.

 

The problem comes when people are easily corrupted by power. The Sith as a culture have replaced the pursuit of freedom and passions with the pursuit of power. A taste of power begets the desire for power. The competition for power begets more and more barbaric acts against one's enemies to prevent them from gaining power.

 

The Sith turned themselves evil because culturally they lack the foresight to realize that he who dies with the most toys is still dead, which you'll note is the defining problem of our own world.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Diviciacus

[Rodyn]

Darth Nihilus is the perfect example of the “chaos” Sith.

I wouldn't really call Nihilus a good example of any Sith. He didn't really "fall" to the dark side, but was more driven insane to the point where his mind was completely gone and the dark side took over. He had absolutely no control over what he was doing, and was running on pure instinct through the dark side. He wasn't even really a Sith anymore, he was just an abomination that wanted to feed.

 

Darth Bandon may be a better example of a "chaos" Sith. His first scene in KotOR (aside from the Trask Ulgo thing) was him walking onto the bridge of a ship and killing a few Sith soldiers doing their jobs for absolutely no reason. He's the embodiment of the Stupid Evil alignment.

 

With that said, I feel the "order" approach to the Sith is the most "right" path. The original Lords of the Sith wanted to found a society based upon their teachings, not spawn an army of kill-crazy Saturday Morning Cartoon villains that are so chaotic and selfish that they're incapable of accomplishing any goals. Heck, the most successful Sith were the Lawful Evil ones, such as Marka Ragnos, Exar Kun, Darth Revan, Lord Kaan (he would have finished the Republic for good if Bane hadn't intervened on Ruusan), Darth Bane, Palpatine, and Darth Krayt. I can't even think of a "chaotic" Sith that was successful.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Rodyn

[SithKoriandr]

I wouldn't really call Nihilus a good example of any Sith. He didn't really "fall" to the dark side, but was more driven insane to the point where his mind was completely gone and the dark side took over. He had absolutely no control over what he was doing, and was running on pure instinct through the dark side. He wasn't even really a Sith anymore, he was just an abomination that wanted to feed.

 

Darth Bandon may be a better example of a "chaos" Sith. His first scene in KotOR (aside from the Trask Ulgo thing) was him walking onto the bridge of a ship and killing a few Sith soldiers doing their jobs for absolutely no reason. He's the embodiment of the Stupid Evil alignment.

 

With that said, I feel the "order" approach to the Sith is the most "right" path. The original Lords of the Sith wanted to found a society based upon their teachings, not spawn an army of kill-crazy Saturday Morning Cartoon villains that are so chaotic and selfish that they're incapable of accomplishing any goals. Heck, the most successful Sith were the Lawful Evil ones, such as Marka Ragnos, Exar Kun, Darth Revan, Lord Kaan (he would have finished the Republic for good if Bane hadn't intervened on Ruusan), Darth Bane, Palpatine, and Darth Krayt. I can't even think of a "chaotic" Sith that was successful.

 

We have stupidity on both sides, because it takes Luke to bring back a bit of common sense.

[SlickCorrog]

In my opinion, the Sith Code is not flawed any more than the Jedi Code. But the teachers of both are very flawed.

 

The Sith belief in power through emotion is not inherently bad. Power through emotion, channeled properly, can achieve great results. Sith teachers, however, choose often to focus on dark emotions such as hatred and fear. These emotions take a toll on your psyche over time, and can fundamentally alter who you are. Unless you are a sociopath, in which case Sith teachers are just enablers.

 

The Jedi Code, meanwhile, is about peace, serenity, and knowledge. The code is fine, and encourages cooperation, which can also accomplish great things. But the Jedi teachers focus these concepts into a corrupt hierarchy of detachment. Prolonged exposure to Jedi teachings would create detachment from a part of who you are as a person, maybe more.

 

If, someday, a new order is established with Knights preaching balance, that order would be more powerful than either side. They could explore the power of emotion, with the calm peace of a serene mind. They could live outside of fear, and in full acceptance of who they are.

 

Like any group, there'd be bad apples. But the concept would surely work better than the Sith relentless drive for power and the Jedi nevermind quest for perfect detachment.

 

All that said, both sides CAN achieve victory, if they abide by their own rules. If Sith ONLY killed each other when they were more powerful, not just well positioned (Malak), the end result would be a never-ending upward surge in power. And if Jedi completely detached from the horrors of war, they'd be perfectly positioned to be the unassailable wall Sith could never conquer.

 

But that won't ever happen. Sith backstabbing happens from the moment they enter training. Jedi detachment is robbed the moment they contemplate the fate of the Republic. Their ideals are both ridiculous, and both sides part the price.

[Cedia]

But that won't ever happen. Sith backstabbing happens from the moment they enter training. Jedi detachment is robbed the moment they contemplate the fate of the Republic. Their ideals are both ridiculous, and both sides part the price.

 

Yeah, they're both wrong, because they're both extreme. Most of the NPCs we meet are religious zealots, plain and simple. Revan tried to walk the middle path, but ended up being split in two instead.

 

This is why it's up to our characters to be the voice of reason. This is why I like playing the Smuggler and Bounty Hunter. They can be the most level headed at times.

 

 

 

Edited July 21, 2015 by Cedia

[Canareth]

The Jedi have a point in how the Dark Side is all but impossible to use safely. Besides the nigh-universal corruption, we do see pure Dark Side entities. They're Sel-Makor, the Dread Masters, the Emperor. These things are monsters. And the corruption is a problem. It's killing Darth Marr despite him having a strong grip on his sanity, being utterly rational and being able to work with Jedi without backstabbing them for lulz. There's not a lot left of him under that armor.

 

In that respect, the Sith Code is set up to fail. Only the very strongest Sith Lords we meet have mastered the Dark Side and are still "okay."

 

The problem with the Jedi Code as portrayed in SWTOR and the PT/OT is that it is incompatible with humans and dysfunctional for fighting wars.

[MadDutchman]

A lot of the problem we have here is we have this idiotic idea of Lucas' that equates emotions to the dark side to evil.

 

This of course is in violation of human nature.

 

You can follow the Jedi code of peace, harmony, serenity, etc. and still do HORRIBLE things. Vice versa for the sith code.

 

where things start going wrong with the Sith is their culture, while it is possible to follow the Sith code and not be corrupted, these kinds of people probably won't make it very far because the people in power are insane. Just look at politics in RL for an example of this.

 

We see plenty of examples in legends (especially post ROTJ) where positive emotions can be used to do great good, and maintain the psychological health of an individual, but according to the old definition, this is of the dark side, which is just stupid. Rather than try to understand that only the negative emotions like hate lead to darkness, the old Jedi just decided to purge them, rather than try and work with their members when those emotions might become unhealthy. And we all know how well that worked out.

[CrutchCricket]

A few common misconceptions I've found about the Sith and the Sith code:

1. For the evulz

2. Ruling others

 

The Sith code isn't about these at all. The Sith are about two things: power and freedom (of the self). The first begets the second (the code is clear on that). But what a lot of people often get wrong or oversimplify to the same point is that freedom isn't simply doing what you want. It's moral freedom as well. It's about being absolutely and entirely unconstrained by anything instead being the sole agent of your actions. "Through victory my chains are broken./ The Force shall free me". The Sith don't aim to be evil, they seek to be above such notions, to be unfettered. And this is accomplished by having the personal power to ignore/remove these and any blocks, whether they be physical or mental, internal or external. Of course, as others have mentioned few Sith ever make it that far, even if they may be very adept at manipulating the dark side. The most obvious cause is of course being ruled by their emotions and thus the dark side instead of the other way around.

 

Ruling or dominating others likewise isn't a direct aim but rather a consequence of the power a Sith gains. It's both a display of power and insurance of the Sith's continued freedom. The enchained cannot chain you. There is a "strong rule the weak" belief that goes hand in hand with the code but is not a part of it I think. It too seems like a consequence of it or an extrapolation. Like, I must gain power to be free, therefore freedom requires power. The weak do not have power, therefore they must not have freedom. If they are strong enough to take their freedom, they deserve it, otherwise they will be chained. We can't all be free because we will inevitably come into conflict, therefore only the strongest must prevail.

 

I think treating ruling as an end as opposed to a means or a byproduct is a mistake. Even if the Code didn't require every adherent to exhibit Chronic Backstabbing Disorder, overly patriotic "for the Empire" Sith never made sense to me. The Empire is a tool every Sith should be using to gain the power required to no longer need it. While the Emperor actually ruled it kind of made sense because he was the strongest and no one could hope to challenge him. But now? Every being that calls itself Sith should be plotting how to seize power and destroy their enemies. And I don't mean scheme short-term to kill Marr and declare yourself the new Emperor. I'm talking Palpatine levels of scheming that take years, even decades to come to fruition, but will actually deliver victory in the end.

 

Darth Bane and his Rule of Two are the perfect expression of the Sith code and its victory. It is no detriment to its worthiness that the downfall of the Sith order came as a result of a) Plagueis and Palpatine screwing with it b) the Force itself opposing it or c) Vader having an unaccounted-for redeem point, or some combination of the three, depending on your interpretation of how things went down.

[ChazDoit]

Darth Bane and his Rule of Two are the perfect expression of the Sith code and its victory.

 

I think I saw a movie as a little kid that contradicts that statement... you might have heard of it it was called Return of the Jedi, and it involved someone being thrown down a reactor shaft. I wouldnt call that a victory.

Edited July 23, 2015 by ChazDoit

[SithKoriandr]

A few common misconceptions I've found about the Sith and the Sith code:

1. For the evulz

2. Ruling others

 

The Sith code isn't about these at all. The Sith are about two things: power and freedom (of the self). The first begets the second (the code is clear on that). But what a lot of people often get wrong or oversimplify to the same point is that freedom isn't simply doing what you want. It's moral freedom as well. It's about being absolutely and entirely unconstrained by anything instead being the sole agent of your actions. "Through victory my chains are broken./ The Force shall free me". The Sith don't aim to be evil, they seek to be above such notions, to be unfettered. And this is accomplished by having the personal power to ignore/remove these and any blocks, whether they be physical or mental, internal or external. Of course, as others have mentioned few Sith ever make it that far, even if they may be very adept at manipulating the dark side. The most obvious cause is of course being ruled by their emotions and thus the dark side instead of the other way around.

 

Ruling or dominating others likewise isn't a direct aim but rather a consequence of the power a Sith gains. It's both a display of power and insurance of the Sith's continued freedom. The enchained cannot chain you. There is a "strong rule the weak" belief that goes hand in hand with the code but is not a part of it I think. It too seems like a consequence of it or an extrapolation. Like, I must gain power to be free, therefore freedom requires power. The weak do not have power, therefore they must not have freedom. If they are strong enough to take their freedom, they deserve it, otherwise they will be chained. We can't all be free because we will inevitably come into conflict, therefore only the strongest must prevail.

 

I think treating ruling as an end as opposed to a means or a byproduct is a mistake. Even if the Code didn't require every adherent to exhibit Chronic Backstabbing Disorder, overly patriotic "for the Empire" Sith never made sense to me. The Empire is a tool every Sith should be using to gain the power required to no longer need it. While the Emperor actually ruled it kind of made sense because he was the strongest and no one could hope to challenge him. But now? Every being that calls itself Sith should be plotting how to seize power and destroy their enemies. And I don't mean scheme short-term to kill Marr and declare yourself the new Emperor. I'm talking Palpatine levels of scheming that take years, even decades to come to fruition, but will actually deliver victory in the end.

 

Darth Bane and his Rule of Two are the perfect expression of the Sith code and its victory. It is no detriment to its worthiness that the downfall of the Sith order came as a result of a) Plagueis and Palpatine screwing with it b) the Force itself opposing it or c) Vader having an unaccounted-for redeem point, or some combination of the three, depending on your interpretation of how things went down.

 

I did not get that feeling with how it was described in game. You decide to let someone live for instance, your Sith is considered weak. You have light side? Weak. If the point of Sith is power for freedom of self, then if a Sith is lightside it should be because that's what their choice/freedom (or they just don't want to be an *******) is.

 

Of course, this may be the proper way to play in the SW universe (one side or the other) but I think players tend to realize that's kinda dumb Also, I think we all tend to play like Luke. Common sense above all else.

 

At the very basics, the Sith appear to be "gain power do as you wish with it" and the very powerful Sith can do things to reshape worlds/galaxies.

 

Jedi seem to realize how dangerous they can be to normal power and the world/galaxy around them. So they go to the extremes, to try to avoid some very powerful force user from throwing a fit that kills people in mass numbers.

 

Anakin goes Dark Side and the galaxy lost lots of people and his going dark side was a choice. It wasn't like the DSers the consular fights int he first chapter who are basically being brainwashed, or like the JK right before/at the start of chapter 3.

 

Of course, those who are raised in either order, are likely to continue on their tradition of extreme one sidedness.

[Nydus]

Ummm...

 

If the Sith Code only spoke to passion, strength, and power and freedom it might be salvageable as an individualistic, if not aggressive, philosophy. However the "peace is a lie" and "victory" portions make it inherently unstable, and speak to a constant state of conflict and violence. The Sith Code needs enemies and it would seem to me that even if the Republic was completely defeated, the Sith would turn on each other and factions of the Empire.

 

Heck, that even happens when the Republic is still around!

 

Heck, even when you only have two of them they end of defeating themselves!

 

So yes, as written it is ultimately self-defeating.

 

- Arcada

[CrutchCricket]

I think I saw a movie as a little kid that contradicts that statement... you might have heard of it it was called Return of the Jedi, and it involved someone being thrown down a reactor shaft. I wouldnt call that a victory.

Pity you didn't read right after that quote where I explained precisely why this is false.

 

I did not get that feeling with how it was described in game. You decide to let someone live for instance, your Sith is considered weak. You have light side? Weak. If the point of Sith is power for freedom of self, then if a Sith is lightside it should be because that's what their choice/freedom (or they just don't want to be an *******) is.

Why did you spare them? Empathy? Compassion? These are chains holding you back, therefore you are weak and have not yet fully embraced your potential.

 

On the other hand, there may be more utility to be gained from letting someone live. Or there may simply be no real purpose in their death. The game (and a lot of other media) unfortunately do simplify to kill=dark, spare/help=good. But you have to look at the context of the decision. Usually they must be made from purely utility considerations to be in line with Sith reasoning. Also keep in mind, pain and death bolster the dark side which in turn fuels a Sith's power. So this also becomes a pragmatic factor in the decision. If there's nothing to be gained from someone' s life, is there something to be gained from their death? Sometimes (maybe even more often than not) the dark side swell is enough of a reason to do it.

 

Of course, this may be the proper way to play in the SW universe (one side or the other) but I think players tend to realize that's kinda dumb Also, I think we all tend to play like Luke. Common sense above all else.

Sith and Jedi follow their codes, unless it's convenient to make exceptions. The idea is that this does not necessarily translate directly into Jedi=good (and always good) and Sith=evil (and always evil).

 

Everyone else does what they can and think is best, just like in real life. Dogmatically following alignments on non-Force classes never made sense to me. Thankfully there's no non-Force user gear with alignment requirements (relics notwithstanding) so it doesn't matter what you choose.

 

Ummm...

 

If the Sith Code only spoke to passion, strength, and power and freedom it might be salvageable as an individualistic, if not aggressive, philosophy. However the "peace is a lie" and "victory" portions make it inherently unstable, and speak to a constant state of conflict and violence. The Sith Code needs enemies and it would seem to me that even if the Republic was completely defeated, the Sith would turn on each other and factions of the Empire.

 

Heck, that even happens when the Republic is still around!

 

Heck, even when you only have two of them they end of defeating themselves!

 

So yes, as written it is ultimately self-defeating.

 

- Arcada

All true, until that last part. Yes the Sith way is constant conflict. The key isn't to stop that. It's to properly harness it. The Rule of Two succeed in doing just that.

 

The Sith way is a never ceasing drive to perfection it its own way. Conventional logic has us believe that perfection is unattainable yet trying for it is still a good thing. If that's true the Sith have a better attitude for it than the Jedi. Notice the difference in each line of the Jedi Code vs the Sith. The Jedi code is mere assertion, x is y. The Sith code is prescription, with x comes y. The Jedi code is static, perhaps stagnant. The Sith code speaks of constant change .

 

There's more to look at here than just "lol they're killing themselves".

[BrianDavion]

I think it's worth noting that the jedi code as we know it is actually just the opening mantra of a FAAAAAAAAAAR larger document. and THIS is what trips people up.

 

it's like judging the USA Consisution on it's preamble.

[Shayddow]

If the Sith Code only spoke to passion, strength, and power and freedom it might be salvageable as an individualistic, if not aggressive, philosophy. However the "peace is a lie" and "victory" portions make it inherently unstable, and speak to a constant state of conflict and violence. The Sith Code needs enemies and it would seem to me that even if the Republic was completely defeated, the Sith would turn on each other and factions of the Empire.

No, I think "peace is a lie" is basically a realization by the Sith of what the people of the galaxy "are" - rather than a myopic thinking that "peace will be achieved' - it is a recognition that sentient beings will fight each other, if given a chance. It is recognition of basic "human" nature <or sentient nature>.

 

Of what use is the Jedi Code when it states that "there is no ignorance, there is knowledge" - IF that knowledge is only accessible to a few <only to the Jedi Masters, as happens later <during the time of the Prequels> - when all knowledge is held within the Jedi Temple - but is INACCESSIBLE to the vast public. Again, only the masters have full access.

And again, "there is no emotion, there is peace" - - we all know how well THAT turned out. No love - no marriage - well.... if Anakin had been allowed to openly marry Padame, perhaps he never would have been able to be led , at least so easily, into the Dark Side by Sidious.

 

What Is self-defeating about the Empire is a point one of the Republic characters says to you in the storyline on one of the planets <I forget which one> where he states that ultimately the Republic wins because they pull up the weak - to be stronger - rather than being ALL about the individual - which is Sith-dom in a nutshell. I have noticed that in the cases where Empire citizens were willing to work together for a common goal - they often manage to prevail.

 

after all, as Hillel once said, "if I am only for myself, what am I?"

[ChazDoit]

Pity you didn't read right after that quote where I explained precisely why this is false.

 

Heh, the idea that there should only be two sith was not very smart and had one fatal flaw that ultimately caused it's failure, if you only have two sith in the whole galaxy, and at some point they're supposed to kill one another, what if they both end up dying during this confrontation? I'm not surprised Vader and Sidious destroyed each other, I'm surprised that in 1000 years, this is the first time it happened.

 

Now, it remains to be seen if the RoT is still being implemented on Episode 7, but until that movie is released, all we know is that RoT crashed and burned with Papatine down that reactor shaft. I don't know if Abrams and Disney are going to be respecting anything beyond the movies and maybe give nods to the lore and story of the EU, or if they have no idea or don't care of the whole galaxy that exists beyond the movies and are just going to do whatever they like and throw in some heavy handed political message.

 

I think the latter.

Edited July 24, 2015 by ChazDoit

[CrutchCricket]

Heh, the idea that there should only be two sith was not very smart and had one fatal flaw that ultimately caused it's failure, if you only have two sith in the whole galaxy, and at some point they're supposed to kill one another, what if they both end up dying during this confrontation? I'm not surprised Vader and Sidious destroyed each other, I'm surprised that in 1000 years, this is the first time it happened.

Not so. The apprentice is supposed to kill the Master in a duel and in so doing prove he is the stronger. Which means you get progressively stronger Sith with each cycle. It also means there will be a clear victor each time.

 

The Rule of Two didn't fail. Vader as an apprentice did. He was a failure because he could be redeemed. And he was a failure because he would never be strong enough to challenge Palpatine. I say Vader is the failure, but it's Palpatine who should've seen this. And you could argue that he did, with trying to get both Galen Marek and Luke Skywalker to kill Vader and take his place. But the idiot ball is squarely on Palpatine a) announcing he wanted Luke to take his father's pace with Vader right there and b) torturing Luke like it ain't no thing right in Vader's face. If Luke could "feel the conflict" why couldn't the Emperor?

 

Now, it remains to be seen if the RoT is still being implemented on Episode 7, but until that movie is released, all we know is that RoT crashed and burned with Papatine down that reactor shaft. I don't know if Abrams and Disney are going to be respecting anything beyond the movies and maybe give nods to the lore and story of the EU, or if they have no idea or don't care of the whole galaxy that exists beyond the movies and are just going to do whatever they like and throw in some heavy handed political message.

 

I think the latter.

The Mickey Mouse reboot can do what it wants. I think we've clearly seen the level of respect the EU is going to get already

 

 

It is precisely dick.

 

[BrianDavion]

Not so. The apprentice is supposed to kill the Master in a duel and in so doing prove he is the stronger. Which means you get progressively stronger Sith with each cycle. It also means there will be a clear victor each time.

 

The Rule of Two didn't fail. Vader as an apprentice did. He was a failure because he could be redeemed. And he was a failure because he would never be strong enough to challenge Palpatine. I say Vader is the failure, but it's Palpatine who should've seen this. And you could argue that he did, with trying to get both Galen Marek and Luke Skywalker to kill Vader and take his place. But the idiot ball is squarely on Palpatine a) announcing he wanted Luke to take his father's pace with Vader right there and b) torturing Luke like it ain't no thing right in Vader's face. If Luke could "feel the conflict" why couldn't the Emperor?

 

 

The Mickey Mouse reboot can do what it wants. I think we've clearly seen the level of respect the EU is going to get already

 

 

It is precisely dick.

 

 

really? why's that? I see a lot more of the EU followed then ignored.

 

I'm sure we can find plenty of things they ignored. but we can also find stuff they followed.

[ChazDoit]

Not so. The apprentice is supposed to kill the Master in a duel and in so doing prove he is the stronger.

 

Two words: Darth Plagueis

[jauvtus]

What about Darth Imperius? She interprets the Sith Code meaning that Sith are free to do anything they want, they can bring destruction if wanted but can also serve the light and save lives, if thats her passion. And also Sith value power and someone being able to defend others is more powerful than the one who destroys.

[lokdron]

What about Darth Imperius? She interprets the Sith Code meaning that Sith are free to do anything they want, they can bring destruction if wanted but can also serve the light and save lives, if thats her passion. And also Sith value power and someone being able to defend others is more powerful than the one who destroys.

 

Problem is that sith is a dark side religion that is your sith interpretation of the code you being light side and showing empthay etc are considered chains in sith religion. You aren't truly "free" in a sith eyes because you spend your time protecting others. Plus being light side is pure heresy to the sith its the reason why the SW and SI don't outright say it and why a sith lord was utterly destroyed for what he thought and sealed away.

 

Since well they will be killed if they do so, heck even darth marr converts captured jedi to the dark side and I am quite sure that is not a pleasant experience either.

 

As Crutch said people consider that murdering people to be stupid evil BUT to a sith its not, The dark side feeds on death, suffering, pain and all hosts of other dark acts and emotions and the more a sith does it. The more stronger you get in the dark side. It becomes even more easier to connect to the dark side as well its the reason why in kotor 2 kriea approves when you spread death and pain through manipulation. which in turn causes more suffering than outright killing them since all of the ripples you cause.

Edited July 24, 2015 by lokdron

[jauvtus]

Problem is that sith is a dark side religion that is your sith interpretation of the code you being light side and showing empthay etc are considered chains in sith religion. You aren't truly "free" in a sith eyes because you spend your time protecting others. Plus being light side is pure heresy to the sith its the reason why the SW and SI don't outright say it and why a sith lord was utterly destroyed for what he thought and sealed away.

 

Since well they will be killed if they do so, heck even darth marr converts captured jedi to the dark side and I am quite sure that is not a pleasant experience either.

 

As Crutch said people consider that murdering people to be stupid evil BUT to a sith its not, The dark side feeds on death, suffering, pain and all hosts of other dark acts and emotions and the more a sith does it. The more stronger you get in the dark side. It becomes even more easier to connect to the dark side as well its the reason why in kotor 2 kriea approves when you spread death and pain through manipulation. which in turn causes more suffering than outright killing them since all of the ripples you cause.

 

She is not alone in that view, both SW and SI story shows that, but they are minority sure. Protecting loved ones is not against the Sith Code, heck that was the main reason Anakin chose the dark side. Plus mass murdering is easy with a Death Star for example, but trying to save a life is a much bigger challenge than killing, and true Sith pursue bigger challenges to become even more powerful. Btw Darth Imperius doesn't have to tell everyone on the Dark Council that she's closer to the light side, her actions show that on Makeb, on Oricon, against Revan, on Ziost and so on, I think the Dark Council is well aware of Imperius' views on the Sith Code, yet they acknowledge her, because she is powerful enough and has her place in the Order ( with the Emperor and even Jadus gone, she knows the most about the secrets of the order). Also being Sith your first priority isnt een the dark side, it's the destruction of the Jedi Order. There are other dark side orders, like the Rakata or the Zakuul Empire just to name those who are in-game, the hatred against Jedi differentiates the Sith from them. And being LS, Darth Imperius can still hate the Jedi and their dogmas. For example someone acts as tyrann in a land, the Jedi cant actually help the ppl, while Imperius simply slays the bastard. After then ofc she will take over, because she wants more power base as well, but that doesnt mean she has to act like her predecessor. Being Sith doesnt mean you are dark sided. Being dark side doesnt mean you are Sith.

[CrutchCricket]

Two words: Darth Plagueis

What about him? He had a plan to kill his Master. He ended up improvising. He also explicitly felt he no longer needed the Rule of Two, being so focused on immortality and midi-chlorians. Look how that turned out.

 

And if you're referring to Tenebrous and his actions to seemingly trap both of them in a cave, keep in mind that a) it didn't work and b) his whole maxi-chlorian shenaningans indicate he never intended it to be permanent either. What would be the point of "infecting" his former apprentice with his consciousness if he was then just as trapped? and a distant point c) he broke the Rule of two as well with Venamis.

 

The Rule of Two is foolproof. But you could say that like the Sith code itself, its adherents' own fallibility poses a level of risk. Which isn't saying that much because even in a galaxy far far away, no one's perfect.

 

She is not alone in that view, both SW and SI story shows that, but they are minority sure. Protecting loved ones is not against the Sith Code, heck that was the main reason Anakin chose the dark side.

Yes it is, like it was said above, loved ones are a chain. Furthermore they're a weakness. Literally. If you expend strength to protect others that's by definition, less strength you have to advance yourself. Hence you're weakening yourself, which is unacceptable.

 

Anakin was tricked into joining the dark side. Rather stupidly I might add. Not really the best example.

 

Plus mass murdering is easy with a Death Star for example, but trying to save a life is a much bigger challenge than killing, and true Sith pursue bigger challenges to become even more powerful.

Turning on life support remotely or dunking someone in a bacta/kolto tank is easy but torturing someone just to the brink of death is a much bigger challenge.

 

See what I did there? If you're going to make a comparison keep it on the same scale.

 

I think the Dark Council is well aware of Imperius' views on the Sith Code, yet they acknowledge her, because she is powerful enough and has her place in the Order ( with the Emperor and even Jadus gone, she knows the most about the secrets of the order).

That's called the power of plot/being the protagonist in a Bioware game. You can play however you want but lore-wise "light side Sith" (which may not even be defined by the types of choices you make in game) does not make sense and would not be tolerated by other Sith. The only two lore examples we have developed in isolation. And they're still considered heretics.

 

Being Sith doesnt mean you are dark sided. Being dark side doesnt mean you are Sith.

Yes it does, in 99% of cases. This is true, not all darksiders are Sith.

[ChazDoit]

What about him?

 

You said that apprentices are supposed to duel their master, to ensure the strongest Sith prevails. And Palpatine ended up pouring some wine for Plagueis and then killim him in his sleep, there was no duel, most likely because if he attacked his master, there was a pretty good chance he would have been killed.

 

Which is pretty much the theme with Palpatine, it was all about political manipulation, and subverting the senate, I prefer the direct approach of the Sith Empire, conquer the galaxy with force of arms, at least it makes a great theme for a video game, that's for sure.

[Bouncy_Hunter]

I think Sith philosophy is self destructive indeed, and the Jedi code is often misinterpreted. I remember In Knights of the Old Republic, the Twi'lek Sith and her Master at the Sith Academy explain to you the interpretation of the Sith code, and frankly I think it's very animalistic and uncivilized. They constantly compare themselves to beasts that hunt their prey and use that as an excuse to explain their lack of morals. I think the code is very primal almost backward compared to the more controlled and civilized aka with the times method of the Jedi. As for the parts of the code that say for example "There is no emotion, there is peace." It doesn't mean they can't have emotions but as in any professional or civilized setting in real life even, (for example at the office) You don't want your emotions like your possible hate for your job or a co worker/boss dictate your actions. You shouldn't start throwing tables because you're angry unless you're just looking to get fired or in trouble. I'm not sure if the Sith in the game just misinterpret the code but 90% of the Sith I meet in SWTOR are either incredibly evil or Insane. Some not so much, like Marr possibly. The Sith code is also the reason for the constant back stabbing and infighting amongst the Sith. So now you have my view on this topic, I think it's too Primal for a civilized society. Edited July 25, 2015 by Bouncy_Hunter