Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Now while Lucas did not paint the portrait that well in the movies, we learn very well in the EU that Dooku is not "evil" in the Sith tradition. He's not a Palpatine...but he's not a Yoda, either. I felt he was portrayed and explored the best out of most any character in the Era. A character who can be argued to be virtuous and noble by one person and despicable and evil by another is my kind of character.

In fact, let's discuss this point. What do you think Dooku as? Good? Evil? What proof do you have of either?

Originally posted by Nikkolas
Now while Lucas did not paint the portrait that well in the movies, we learn very well in the EU that Dooku is not "evil" in the Sith tradition. He's not a Palpatine...but he's not a Yoda, either. I felt he was portrayed and explored the best out of most any character in the Era. A character who can be argued to be virtuous and noble by one person and despicable and evil by another is my kind of character.

In fact, let's discuss this point. What do you think Dooku as? Good? Evil? What proof do you have of either?

Actually Dook IS evil seeing as how he kills without remorse.

One could argue that the Confederacy of Independent Systems may have been "good" especially considering the corruption prevalent with the Republic at the time.

Dooku however was not. He and Sidious were using the Confederation in order to further their own agendas. He was a villain through and through - might I add, with style.

Dooku's agenda was Palpatine's but whereas Palpatine did it for himself, Dooku wanted the Empire for the benefit of the people. He saw, as many right-thinking persons do, the total failure in democratic systems; the endless corruption where the government continuously fails to meet the needs of the people...despite being "run" by the people.

He believed that under a single ruler, this could be remedied. A benevolent despot who would act and that action would result in reaction, kinda the opposite of what the Old Republic did. A kind-hearted dictator can make more progress to ruling a country/galaxy/etc. than any republic or democracy.



Living without regret or thinking "the ends justify the means" is a perfectly acceptable notion. you may disagree with it but we all think differently, depending on how we are raised and taught.

Dooku was evil after he joined the dark side. And Sidious is the ultimate evil.

I'm wondering how you are coming to the conclusion that Dooku even had the best interests of the "people?" If he even had any hint of morals, he would not resort to arsony, blackmail, or brute military force to get what he wanted. What more, why would he resort to biological weaponry and bombing civilian sites in order to defeat those star systems siding with the Republic? It seems he had a pretty good idea that what he was doing would cause more suffering, not prevent a greater evil from continuing.

There are numerous sources highliting Dooku's depravity. In the ROTS novel for example:

"In fact, he has never been entirely sure what beings mean
when they speak of friendship. Love, hate, joy, anger-even when he can feel the energy of these emotions in others, they translate in his perception to other kinds of feelings. The kinds that make sense.
Jealousy he understands, and possessiveness: he is fierce when any being encroaches on what is rightfully his.
Intolerance....
Spite is a recreation: he takes considerable pleasure from the suffering of his enemies.
Pride is a virtue in an aristocrat, and indignation his inalienable right: when any dare to impugn his integrity, his honor, or his rightful place atop the natural hierarchy of authority."

It highlights that human emotions are alien to him; concepts such as love or joy. Jealousy, intolerance, spite, and pride are what he understands. He believes himself to be superiour to any other being, and that his abilities and powers give him rights over lesser beings. If he were "morally grey" then he would possess at least some redeeming qualities, such as the intentional well being of those he rules.

These emotions seem to imply that Dooku never really had the interests of the Confederacy or the allying nations in mind; he wanted power, as all sith do. He was hiding behind the facade of the Confederacy to gain that power, to seem appealing before the public eye.

Also, for him to believe that a democratic system is corrupt and a totalitarian government ruled by himself and Sidious is not, well, that seems to me another sign of his pride, nothing more.

Finally, someone who subscribes to the theory that hatred is of paramount importance in someone's life seems to be the living definition of evil.

I agree completely. He was a political idealist and knew how speak to seem like a descent guy. Palpatine used the good of the people as his stance to stay the supreme ruler, but he in no way cared about the people, nor did Dooku. Before anything that he was, he was Sith first and foremost, and as such, evil was embedded within him. All he cared about was himself and his master (and even that was extremely conditional). In AOTC he prided himself to his master that he had started the war. Nothing grey about taking pride in starting a war.

Color it anyway you want, but he was evil. Killing without remorse, especially your old friends/comrades, is an evil act. Plain and simple.

Dooku was evil, he just had manners.

Anything he did that was "good for the people" was purely a coincidence. He looks after himself. Also, he was scared shitless of Palpatine, and knew he was evil, and, he still tried to get him into power.

Originally posted by Nikkolas
Now while Lucas did not paint the portrait that well in the movies, we learn very well in the EU that Dooku is not "evil" in the Sith tradition. He's not a Palpatine...but he's not a Yoda, either. I felt he was portrayed and explored the best out of most any character in the Era. A character who can be argued to be virtuous and noble by one person and despicable and evil by another is my kind of character.

In fact, let's discuss this point. What do you think Dooku as? Good? Evil? What proof do you have of either?

Damn you. I thought this was going to be the book that's replace Plagueis's novel.

Dooku was indeed Evil, just because your elegant, polite, well spoken...
doesn't make you any less evil. In the movies he has no regrets and just wants power, but in EU in some moments of weakness(which are very few) he seems to regret what he has done, turning to the Dark side, especially in Dark Rendezvous, but he never those anything.

Originally posted by jollyjim311
Dooku was evil, he just had manners.

Anything he did that was "good for the people" was purely a coincidence. He looks after himself. Also, he was scared shitless of Palpatine, and knew he was evil, and, he still tried to get him into power.

I share similar thoughts, but I have to say, Dooku is certainly not a Tarkin or a Malak when it comes to "evilness", so he's no where near on par with Palpatine in sheer ruthlessness.

What, you think that if Dooku had possesion of the Death Star he wouldn't blow up a planet?

Originally posted by Burnt Pancakes
What, you think that if Dooku had possesion of the Death Star he wouldn't blow up a planet?

Just for the hell of it? No, I don't. Color it anyway you like, but there are depths of evil. Palpatine is, obviously, the "biggest" and most ruthless incarnation of cruelty we've seen. Dooku isn't as evil as people like Tarkin and Malak.

Hell, Nute Gunray is evil, but would he blow up a planet? I hardly think so.

Originally posted by Gideon
I share similar thoughts, but I have to say, Dooku is certainly not a Tarkin or a Malak when it comes to "evilness", so he's no where near on par with Palpatine in sheer ruthlessness.

Of course he's not as evil as the "most evil people" (Sidious and Maul come to mind), but, saying that he is unlike Tarkin doesn't seem right to me. Tarkin does anything to benefit himself, without moral boundaries (such as enslaving wookiees, blowing up planets, and sentencing Leia to death). Dooku seems a lot like him. It was less what Dooku did personally, and more of what he allowed to happen, and what he oversaw, similar to Tarkin. He allowed for genocide to occur, and, if he were put in Tarkins' position, he probably would have done the same things Tarkin did.

Also, he's a friggin Sith.

Yea, he is Evil, but in Dark Rendezvous he almost came close to returning back to the light, but his pride prevented that. I think deep down he knows what he is doing is wrong, but it is because of his pride to become the best, greatest, to have more power, he just gos on, on the Dark path, he is more important then other people.

To the people who are talking about him being a "friggin' Sith" consult the topic on why he does not have "Sith Eyes." Most figured it was because he was never truly of the dark side, as malicious as a Dark Anakin or Sidious.

As for him caring about the people, I seem to recall it being labeled out in LoE. Might be wrong. He simply felt that the corrupt system of the Old Republic was a total farce and the dictatorship of the Sith would be better. It's hardly arrogance. That's like saying any system ever set up by anyone is arrogance because they think they can do well as leaders.

Who was he trying to persuade when he said that?

Jolly, I completely disagree. I don't see Dooku as the "let's-blow-up-a-planet-for-fun" type like Tarkin was. Of course, he'd be capable of doing it, but for some sort of a reason.

It wasn't a joyride in the Death Star. He meant to show the galaxy what the battle station could really do.

Talk about 'Sith Eyes' which are purely an element of style) all you want; you can't get away from the fact that Dooku is a Sith and was consumed by the Dark Side, as GL clearly intended and says.

He;s pure evil, just in a different style. Full stop.

There is very little in Star Wars fandom more tiresome than the desire for 'greyness'

Originally posted by jollyjim311
It wasn't a joyride in the Death Star. He meant to show the galaxy what the battle station could really do.

Actually, it was an inhuman display of barbarism that had the added advantage of being a "demonstration" of the Death Star's destructive qualities. Tarkin threatened to destroy Alderaan to acquire Leia's cooperation; she gave it (albeit a deception), he believed it, and went ahead and destroyed it.

While I certainly believe Dooku is evil, I do not put him anywhere near on Tarkin's level. Dark Rendezvous made it quite clear, as Count Makashi has pointed out, that Dooku was potentially redeemable (he came very close). That is one of the themes of the saga, Jolly.



I disagree, Ush. Vader, too, was consumed by the Dark Side. He commited brutal, heinous crimes (even more than Dooku), and yet he was redeemed. Certain types of evil can be redeemed. Palpatine couldn't have. He is pure evil, I don't fancy Dooku as such.

But Anakin as the chosen one had a bit good still in him, thats what allowed him to turn back. The "sith eyes" were to represent a state of rage or extreme hatred. Anakin only had them at the end of his Mustafar slaughter and after OB1 skewered him up. Sidious didn't always have them, Maul always had them, and Dooku (as we far as we've seen" never has. It doesn't make him any less of a Sith or any less evil, his just shows his control over his emotions. He's cool, calm, and collected almost all the time. He's still an evil bastard who looks out for himself. When Tarkin blew up Alderaan, those orders most likely came from Palpatine, not himself, or he at least had the ok to do so if he saw fit. I see no reason why Dooku wouldn't do the same if ordered. Didn't he have chemical missiles waiting to drop on innocent civilians? How's that different than the Death Star? Besides scale-wise, it's still killing innocent people.

It had nothing to do with him being the Chosen One, Subjekt. If that was simply the reason, he wouldn't have been Sidious's man/cyborg servant for two decades. The reason is that he was redeemed through his son. Defeating Sidious and the Sith was due to him being the Chosen One - not the redemption itself.

As I've said, Dooku was nearly redeemed through Yoda's efforts. "Pure evil" doesn't have weak moments. Pure evil can't be redeemed. Dooku isn't pure evil.

What I was saying was, being that the Chosen One's mission was to destroy the Sith, there's nothing that could deter that. You can say it was because of Luke, but that fits into the master plan. So it a round about way, it works that way. But, we're talking about Dooku who may have been close to redemption, but never made it for whatever reasons. Basically all i wanted to get across was that Dooku is in fact evil and there was no grey area. In star wars, good is good, evil is evil.

And evil will always win, because good is dumb.

Um... Luke was redeemed when he turned to the dark side, Quinlan Vos, Kyp... evil may be evil, but just because you're evil, doesn't mean you're pure evil. Dooku was far (far far far) from "pure evil".

Moviewise, if you're evil, you're pure evil. Vader is a special case.

EU wise, I hate the EU and it's damned revolving door policy, as Ush puts it. It's a stupid notion...

Dooku was "neutral" in his intentions, at least compared to other villains.

He wanted reform, and ultimately peace and stability, that was his TRUE desire.

But he went about it the wrong way.

That was blunt I know, but STFU.

His goals were corrupted by Sidious, of course...

Those poor kids, all falling in with the wrong crowd. 70 year old Jedi Masters just don't have enough common sense.

Rex, you'll forgive me for once if we disagree, but I find the notion of declaring Dooku as "pure evil" is ridiculous. He is not as evil as Sidious is, and you know it.

Indeed, TG, indeed. We should fund PSA videos to send out to all those aging Jedi...

No I won't. *cuts you in half* Who said anything about comparing evilness? Of Sidious is more evil than Dooku, but that's not the point. The point of what I said is that evil is evil, there's no redeeming it. Vader is a special case.

If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could ever imagine.

Anyways, you called Dooku "pure evil", which isn't the case. Vader isn't a "special case" in that he is the only one. The movies quite clearly show that he was redeemed through his son. Sidious is the only pure evil we've seen.

And Maul, i don't think he could be ever redeemed.

Originally posted by Count Makashi
And Maul, i don't think he could be ever redeemed.

Maul is certainly described as "pure evil", but he was trained to be an instrument of evil.

Maul was not "pure evil" neither is Sidious.

In order to be pure evil, they would have to be completely seperated from virtue of any kind.

However Sidious is persistent, ambitious, and values education and knowledge. To me, those are some very good traits. Maul is loyal to the core (to Sidious that is). Another good virtue.

Don't get me wrong, they are both evil, very much so actually, but not "pure evil," since they possess at least some traits looked high upon by society.

If you are saying who "looks" like evil the most, I say Maul

Maul was abused in his childhood, he was like brainwashed you know. I'm sure he got to heaven, it was not his fault. He was created a monster by Sidious. ;_;

Originally posted by zephiel7
Maul was not "pure evil" neither is Sidious.

In order to be pure evil, they would have to be completely seperated from virtue of any kind.

However Sidious is persistent, ambitious, and values education and knowledge. To me, those are some very good traits. Maul is loyal to the core (to Sidious that is). Another good virtue.

Don't get me wrong, they are both evil, very much so actually, but not "pure evil," since they possess at least some traits looked high upon by society.

I find your definition of "pure evil" to be a bit... ridiculous. Are you insinuating that, to be "pure evil", they must be stupid? Palpatine isn't evil because he is intelligent? Weird... no, Sidious is pure evil in his actions, methods, and motivation.

Simply because they possess traits that are considered "good" or "positive" by society means jack shit, especially when they use those "good" traits for evil ends. In fact, I find that more perverse and more evil.

Palpatine is unquestionably pure evil. Intelligence isn't any resembling 'good.' It's a tool to be used. However, Maul is most definitely not pure evil, anymore than a wild animal could be evil. Or a sword.

Dooku was not a good person. Not in the least. He was manipulative, murderous and genocidal.

Count Dooku wasn't evil, he genuinely felt that what he was doing was for the good of The Galaxy, and while he had to do a few bad things on the way, he did feel remorse for the bad things he had to do, so no, he wasn't evil.

Pure evil, I view, as an impossibility. There can be no evil that threatens without it being compromised with a virtue. Pure evil would be a joke; composed entirely of cowardice, hatred at all things, hatred of itself, inability to act out laziness and sloth etc.,



Isn't evil?

Sorry Jess, but I'd ask you look at what I actually typed. I said that Palpatine is evil, just that he isn't "pure evil."

Original quote by me:


He values education, a trait undoubtedly looked upon by society. There is persistence in his actions, he's patient and to an extent, diligent in his devotion to the darkside.

A pure evil being would not possess any of those traits, since evil by definition is anything "causing ruin, injury, or pain." Last time I checked, patience, diligence, devotion, and persistence don't exactly fit the bill.



Maybe, but that does not diminish the traits themselves. They are considered "good" and "desirable" in any individual.

Palpatine has his own abundance of vices, but he can't be considered a "pure incarnation of evil", because such a thing does not possess any virtue.

Please. Palpatine was self-destructive, and an argument could be made that all Sith are that way. His arrogance led to his demise and the collapse of the Galactic Empire; in fact, his own actions led to his ruin moreso than any other person - Luke and Anakin included.



And you're making a very poor argument for it.



This is ridiculous, Zephiel. Simply because he bears traits that would be considered "good" or "productive" in a good person doesn't mean that he isn't pure evil.



Palpatine used those so-called "good" traits to murder billions, engineer two wars, destroy an ancient order of peace-keeping Force users, conquere the greatest government in history, and initiate a totalitarian regime that oppressed the denizens of the galaxy for two decades.

Last time I checked, that would fit the bill for "pure evil".



That's stupid. I doubt any of Palpatine's enemies thought: "Hey, he's intelligent. That's good." Palpatine's intelligence and so on were assets that would earn him fear or respect but certainly not feelings of admiration from any sane person.



In your opinion. Realistically, it makes no difference if someone of "pure evil" possesses any "virtues". If they use those virtues for evil ends, then it is more perverse.

I removed self destructive because it wasn't really the right word I was looking for. More like, pure evil would not be able to spread itself because it does not have the required bravery to defy what is good. It is too scared, too lazy etc.,

And really, you're avoiding the point.

If he possessed no virtue (diligence, patience, ambition), how would he be able to construct a galactic empire in the first place?

Through reason alone, do you really believe a pure evil being, one that has no virtue whatsoever (omitting perserverance, and hard work), could possibly construct an empire? They would be a wreck, unable to get up out of fear and sloth. As I said, in order for evil to be threatening, it would have to be compromised by a virtue. Otherwise it would be a joke; unable to act due to sloth, fear, jealousy.




A poor argument is whatever you can't find a proper rebuttal for, eh Gideon? What type of pipe dream are you living in?



Wrong. That he bears traits that are productive would make it an impossibility for him to be "pure evil."

Definition of pure: "Complete; utter: pure folly."

Definition of evil: Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful

I don't have to argue with your insipid notions since the definitions of the words which you use to describe Palpatine speak for themselves. Pure implies "complete; utter" whereas evil represents "morally wrong, causing ruin, injury, or pain."

Palpatine is not utterly devoid of his share of virtues. Dilegence, patience, and devotion are good traits, hence he cannot be considered pure evil, under the definition of what evil currently is.

Get. It. Through. Your. Head.



And how would he conquer the government if he possessed no ability to recognize his goals through perseverance, and ambition. That he did all those things automatically excludes him from what the English language defines as "pure evil."

That Palpatine did kill thousands of people highlights that he is evil, very much so, but not that he is "pure evil."



No because his virtues are by and far hidden by his vices. There's obviously much to despise about Palpatine, that masks whatever little virtue that he possesses. Nevertheless, that universal virtue still exists.



Oh yes, they are evil. But the "pure evil" being that you think Palpatine is can't be attributed for under what the definition of "pure" and "evil" are in the current English language.

Originally posted by Nikkolas
Now while Lucas did not paint the portrait that well in the movies, we learn very well in the EU that Dooku is not "evil" in the Sith tradition. He's not a Palpatine...but he's not a Yoda, either. I felt he was portrayed and explored the best out of most any character in the Era. A character who can be argued to be virtuous and noble by one person and despicable and evil by another is my kind of character.

In fact, let's discuss this point. What do you think Dooku as? Good? Evil? What proof do you have of either?

Very good. There are more greys than Dooku though.

I have no idea why you people are overanalyzing a simple concept. Sidious was THE personification of evil, ok? There were some such as the ancient sith, Nadd, and Kun, that came close, but Sidious defines evil. Dooku does NOT.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
THE personification of evil, ok?

Under the strict English definition of "pure" and "evil"? You'd be hard pressed to argue that, dude.

Originally posted by Apollo Cloud
Count Dooku wasn't evil, he genuinely felt that what he was doing was for the good of The Galaxy, and while he had to do a few bad things on the way, he did feel remorse for the bad things he had to do, so no, he wasn't evil.

Are you ****ing stupid? Dooku happily had people slaughtered by the millions and made Grievous solely to take the fall for it

Originally posted by zephiel7
Under the strict English definition of "pure" and "evil"? You'd be hard pressed to argue that, dude.

You're overanalyzing dude. If Sidious wasn't the epitome of pure evil, I don't know any fictional character that was. Unless you want to start arguing world leaders.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
You're overanalyzing dude. If Sidious wasn't the epitome of pure evil, I don't know any fictional character that was. Unless you want to start arguing world leaders.

Satan is probably the closest.

Even that is somewhat contradicting, due to his "courage" (or maybe stupidity is more the word for it) to defy God.

EDIT: I was also, in no way implying God is fictional btw.

Satan, as evil as he is, adheres to certain standards, I believe. Sidious has no such standards. He kills without mercy or thought.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Satan, as evil as he is, adheres to certain standards, I believe. Sidious has no such standards. He kills without mercy or thought.

Well in traditional Judeo-Christian belief, isn't Lucifer/Satan the cause of all things "dark and nasty?" I suppose, if that were true, in SW, he IS the closest thing to a living breathing darkside.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Are you ****ing stupid? Dooku happily had people slaughtered by the millions and made Grievous solely to take the fall for it

What part of 'the end justifies the means' don't you get?

Originally posted by zephiel7
Well in traditional Judeo-Christian belief, isn't Lucifer/Satan the cause of all things "dark and nasty?" I suppose, if that were true, in SW, he IS the closest thing to a living breathing darkside.

That's more of a Christian belief because Satan doesn't exactly exist in Judaism, or at least not in the way that you think. In Judaism Satan is just another angel and servant of god, mixed with Demons, or in Judaism they are referred to as the "Ayin Harrah", or evil inclinations. Anyways, Sidious is basically Satan in the SW universe.

Ends justifying means isn't what we call being good or noble. If the ends are peace and you start happily butchering planets' worth of populations to attain it? Congrats, you're evil.

Palpatine wanted to bring peace and end corruption. Going to argue he's not evil?

I believe that someone has become entrenched in subjectivity. You do not define "what is a good trait" and what isn't and expect others to adhere to it. I am of the perception that decisions and how people use their talents or virtues defines their character. Simply because someone is intelligent or because someone is patient doesn't mean that they are any bit "good". If that is your belief, then you're welcome to it, but do not expect to tell me that I am wrong, because you have no evidence to support a "moral debate" and pass off your conclusion as fact.



Are you an idiot, Zephiel ? I have not denied for a second that Sidious didn't possess your so-called "virtues". I simply am arguing that that, in no way, makes him "good" or even slightly so.

.

Since when has it been a fact that "pure evil" is virtueless? I consider virtues to be honesty and integrity - things that, when people truly possess - cannot be used in evil methods. You consider "perseverance" and "patience" to be virtues, I don't. Not in the manner that you consider them to be.



No, Zephiel, a "poor argument" is anything that you type.



No, you are wrong. He possesses traits that can be productive positive ends]. Sidious himself never used his intelligence, patience, or "dilligence" to better society or the galaxy. He did it for selfish, murderous, maniacal reasons.



Glad to know you've learned two new words, Zephiel. I suppose your lexicon now surpasses twelve words?



And you can be "completely morally wrong" or "causing complete pain or injury", considering how Palpatine's actions didn't spur a bit of productivity or positivity. All that occured from it was an influx in the mortality rate, another war, and more lives scarred.



Again, when has "pure evil" been defined as evil without traits, talents, or your so-called "virtues"?



Get. Your. Head. Out. Of. Your. Ass.



No, it doesn't. Palpatine possessed remarkable skill that he directed towards selfish, evil ends. Using your logic, he took what was "pure" (patience, ambition, ect) and used them for evil ends. If taking something "good" and completely destroying it and using it against what they were meant to be used for (which Sidious was skilled at doing) isn't a more perverse sign of evil, then I simply suppose "evil" doesn't exist in the Wonderfully Stupid World of Zephiel.



Try indirectly causing the deaths of billions (in Alderaan alone), through his policies. Not even begin to tabulating his direct actions. Palpatine's manipulations did nothing but scar people.



He used his talents - which society has deemed to be potentially positive - (calling them virtues, I conclude is a stretch) for evil ends. He is pure evil. He utilized what ever "positive" nature was in him and completely manhandled it for selfish purposes. That isn't good. That is the absence of virtue.

Zephiel, by your logic, Hitler, who was described as a genius and an incredible speaker beyond his time, was somehow good?

Zephiel: Everything you've listed is just a neutral trait...intelligence, patience, dilligence...they're tools to be used.

Precisely, you two. Simply because one is "highly intelligent" or "highly patient" doesn't mean that they have a bit of "good-ness" (stupid word, I know, but nothing that encompasses the whole thing), in the same way that someone who isn't highly intelligent or isn't highly patient isn't "evil".

Intelligence and patience are traits that, when used properly and positively, bear proper and positive results. Palpatine did not use his vast intellect or patience in a proper, positive manner. He used them for selfish and destructive means - and the fact that Palpatine could have used these traits to yield positive results does not detract from the horrors that he orchestrated and the crimes he committed.

What you sadly are incapable of grasping is I am not arguing out of a sense of perceptions, but on what the words actually mean. You referred to Sidious as pure evil, and as per strict semantics exuding your romantic notions that is simply not true.




Your insipid and moronic posts seem to imply that he did not.



Insomuch as he possesses such a quality, a quality that is not immoral or "Morally bad or wrong; wicked," he cannot be pure evil. Someone pure evil, "consisting of nothing but evil" would possess only evil qualities.



The words "pure" and "evil" (you know, the meaning for absence of virtue) make it rather self evident....dumbass.



Nevertheless, something that is "pure evil" doesn't possess anything except those qualities that are evil. That is how the words were defined. If you had any bit of sense in that sadly lacking brain, perhaps you would understand the meaning and prevent this idiotic charade of yours from continuing.



Coming from a complete simpleton like you, who avoids the point and cannot understand the definition of two simple words in the english language, I'm only glad that you don't consider my arguments cogent.



Well lets see Gideon. Is Sidious slothful? No he is not, he created the Galactic Empire, therefore such a vice is absent in him.

But wait, Sloth is a sin, an evil trait. Sidious does not possess such a vice. Therefore, he cannot be "pure evil," since he does not possess every single sin (vice). Pure means completely and utterly, therefore he lacks the capacity to be "pure evil."

It appears folks, that Gideon sadly was not able to pass fifth grade. Do yourself a favour, Gids, and repeat elementary school. Maybe you can at least get a basic understanding of the two words.



No, I just typed it out so even a person of your rather poor reasoning abilities can comprehend their definitions.



Since the two words were defined that way! Pure "evil" implies that Sidious would also be slothful. The epitome of sloth , actually. As per the definition of evil, a morally wrong act, sloth is included. In fact, its a capital sin! Does Sidious possess it? No Gideon, therefore, - I hope your sad reasoning abilities can pick this up - Sidious is not pure evil.



Exactly what I would expect an imbecile like yourself to say. Did I not make it clear that I was arguing as per the definition of the two words. Sidious is evil, but it would be wrong as per semantics to state he is "pure evil."



Time and time you've proven your idiocy.

It's effective evil, you moron. Its using a virtue in order to propagate itself. It isn't "pure evil," because pure evil would include an amoral trait such a sloth, by it's very definition. You missed it the first time I typed it. You're not exactly the brightest lightbulb around, are you?



That makes him evil, but that cannot make him pure evil. There was obviously a sense of courage that he had in order to fight against the entirety of the Jedi order. If he were dominated, say by the seven capital sins (we'll use the catholic basis for classifying an immoral act), one of his evil vices would not even enable him to act. Hell, if he were the absence of all that is good, he would not have the courage to act.



I don't care about your definitions. I am arguing out of a literal interpretation of what the words "pure" and "evil" mean. It seems you failed to notice that (although I wouldn't be surprised why, you don't seem to always have the best reading comprehension.)

What a joke

Has this philosophical debate upset you, Zephiel? I seem to recall you crucifying me for bashing SW_LeGenD, a few weeks to go, citing people like me as "the reason you left KMC". I find it oh-so-ironic that you engage in similar actions when provoked or when upset. How hypocritical of you.

What a way to go from "hollier-than-thou" to "just-as-bad", lmao.



The words themselves have multiple that means more than one, by the way] definitions. In this particular context, I am arguing that Sidious is "pure" (completely) "evil" (bad), and based on the accurate representation that the Star Wars mythos has provided for us, he is.



You comment on my intelligence, and then base half of your argument on an implication? Just so we're clear, this is an Internet forum: where statements are misread and misconceived by the very minute. Don't base a conclusion off of an "implication", Zephiel. Next time, ask for further clarity, and you shall receive it. It'll spare you from looking like a dumbass.



You and I differ of opinion. I do not cite "qualities" in themselves as good or evil, with the exception of a few (honesty, ect). Intelligence is a quality that can be utilized for both good and evil ends. It is the manner in which they are used that defines them. Or have you never heard of the age-old parable that it is our decisions and choices that define us as people?



That's funny. My Dictionary and Dictionary.com don't have "absence of virtue" as a definition listed for evil.



Just so we're clear, this "sadly lacking brain" is considered to be the mind behind some of the best arguments on this forum. It's funny how, save for a handful of times, your name never crops up on the "best debater list". Qualities such as "intelligence" cannot be defined as innately good or evil.



Actually, one could make an argument that Sidious exhibited sloth in his lack of regard for the Rebellion until after the first Death Star was destroyed - and, by then, of course - they became a major threat to his reign. So, no, Zephiel, "sloth" is not absent about him.

But wait, Sloth is a sin, an evil trait. Sidious does not possess such a vice. Therefore, he cannot be "pure evil," since he does not possess every single sin (vice). Pure means completely and utterly, therefore he lacks the capacity to be "pure evil."



Well, considering how I am only 15-years-old, and yet - regarded as a more capable debater than yourself - I'd say I'm doing rather well.



Excuses, excuses, Zephiel... they say that honesty is the best policy.



...Except that Sidious has exhibited "sloth" before. In fact, I could make an argument that he has exhibited all of the seven deadly sins.



This doesn't seem to be the case.



Perhaps, but, as I have stated before, it would seem that the general "public" seems to regard that I've proven my intellect more than anything...



Sidious has exhibited sloth before. He is pure evil.



Qualities such as "intelligence and courage" are not, necessarily, "good" things. It depends on the manner in which they are used, and Sidious used potentially positive traits to yield destructive results.



Your insults slash and tear at my very soul, Zephiel.



This is precisely what I think of, when I see you debate, Zephiel.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Zephiel, by your logic, Hitler, who was described as a genius and an incredible speaker beyond his time, was somehow good?

No man. But he was certainly hard working to get what he wanted, and yes he was an evil, evil, - did I mention evil?- man. Just not of the "pure" variety.


Anyways, I have my exam week coming up soon, so I am off to study. If anyone is so inclined, we can continue this pointless charade after.

This doesn't excuse anything, Zephiel. Supposedly, you are both older and more mature than myself. Assuming that I did provoke you, and one could easily argue that you also initiated provocation, you have failed to express your collosal maturity. In fact, you have made the most insults on this thread, bar none. Really. Don't piss and moan about people being an "*******" if you're going to turn around and act like one yourself. That's when you become a hypocrite and where you fail to act more mature than an adolescent such as myself. Really, dude. Outstanding.



Calling your argument ridiculous warrants a full post of flame with an occasional rebuttal? Notice how I didn't call you stupid, Zephiel, but rather your argument. Not until you provoked me. You like to take the moral high ground in most cases, as shown with LeGenD, but in this case? You're in quicksand. My advice would be to omit the insults from further posts (including the response to this) and you won't have to deal with my remarks.



I never said that exhibiting "sloth" was good. I never said exhibiting "envy" was good. I said that qualities such as intelligence (which I consider to be mental or psychological moreso than "personality" could not be labeled "good" or "bad" unless they are used for positive or negative purposes.



This all comes down to the fact that you and I express different opinions on what is "good" and what is "bad". You label certain qualities such as intelligence and patience to be automatically good, whereas I believe that they are only "good" when used in a positive manner.

.

Let's compare: I'm a 15-year-old kid in high school. You're a post-high-schooler (am I right?) with college courses with an adult life. I have no such restraints on my schedule, yet. However, assuming that I have no life is - quite frankly - beyond your comprehension. You don't know me. In addition, I would personally say that I have a very strong social life. Furthermore, I assume that Ushgarak and REX (who have made far more posts than I have) also have no life? What about Darth Sexy or Lightsnake? Or, in fact, have you made a stupid assertion in an attempt to insult me? Pick your words carefully.



Nothing indicates that "sloth" - even from a pure villain - would encompass thoughts. To be quite technical, if one lacks thoughts, one has no mental capacity. One is virtually dead. Palpatine was quite alive.



In addition, Palpatine didn't run the Empire by himself. He had dozens of aids and advisors, Vader, and so-forth. He gave them the latitude to act in horrific, horrendous, and extremely excessive ways to ensure that the Empire remained dominant. Tarkin's destruction of Alderaan comes to mind.



Well, also to be quite technical, you coming to the conclusion that I haven't outdebated you is about the same as me coming to the conclusion that you haven't outdebated me. We're human, you don't have any authority or superiority over me, or I over you, so it really amounts to "jack shit" if you think I haven't outdebated you. The fact remains that, apparently, others have thought so.

That's not even getting into your posts on EoD. The point is, Zephiel, that you're not as respected as you'd like to think. And, here, certainly not above me. Now, perhaps you're right, and you are better, and the only reason I'm thought to be "superior" is due to my stronger activity. I didn't argue that. I basically commited a cardinal sin of debating and successfully appealed to the majority, which was my intent.



Again, you telling me that I'm an idiot is the same as me saying that you are an idiot. If you expect me to adhere to it, you'd better get in touch with God and get his opinion on it.



We can debate this all the time. One could interpret it that "pure evil" is simply someone or something that exhibits all evil or is capable of all evil things.



Again, it depends on how you interpret it. Pure evil implies that he or she is completely evil. Not in "a complete state of all the facets of evil".



Bravery can be a tool for evil purposes. If a brave person is evil, that means that they use the trait itself for destructive ends, which - in turn - defies the "morality" of the thing itself. Making it, thus, evil.



He uses these so-called "virtues" (again, I don't know why you bother to call them that) for destructive, evil ends, and at the end of the long, vicious cycle, makes the things themselves evil. At least in his case. Thus, yes, he is a creature of pure evil.



Right. Actually, I never said that I was. I said that others considered me as much; I assume that you simply thought that I implied that I was a good debater. You're making a habit of misreading my statements into implications of my superiority. And, as I've said before, "there are multiple definitions of pure and evil", thus proving that I have successfully defined both.

Anyways, you responded about the Christian religion (and specifically mentioned Catholicism, I think). One of the first things that a Christian is indoctrinated in is that God - an all-powerful entity of "pure good" - is a jealous God. Jealousy/envy is a sin, is it not? Are we to assume, then, that since God possesses an attribute that "society looks down upon" or is a "bad quality" that he is not pure good?

I hardly think so.

Originally posted by Gideon
Now, perhaps you're right, and you are better, and the only reason I'm thought to be "superior" is due to my stronger activity.

I really don't see how that's necessarily true. While the number of posts you make does play a substantial role (in that if you don't display your "skill", how will anyone know you actually have any?), it really isn't a defining reason for the rankings most of the members use.

For example, I'm named as being one of the best debaters ever whenever there's a discussion about it, or a list being made. And, I've always been noted as above you, zephiel, yet I only have 500 more posts (and back when there was a huge classification of all the then current debaters, I had even less; plus, a number of my replies are attributed in the RP forum).

Another example would be IKC, who's actually made slightly less posts than you, was still placed above you, and others who've made (not so) countless more.

Although, like Gideon said, it's appeal to the majority, ergo it doesn't account for much, but it does say something about the possibility of such.

Oh, I think there is (at the very, very least) a definite positibility that Zephiel is better than myself. To be quite honest, he has me beaten on the current issue regarding Jacen Solo. I have found only one or two passages that would be of assistance (but one is really good), and I find myself waiting for further evidence to reveal itself.

My only concern with him is that he's a bit of a hypocrite.

In my opinion, you're the best. You're selective, but the best.

Originally posted by Gideon
You're selective, but the best.

Thanks, but what do you mean by "selective"?

Sorry, my computer was being a little whore. What I mean by selective is that you don't argue on every other thread; you pick certain ones. The only pattern I've detected is that you bring your presence to threads with an overabundance of stupidity. But that's a working theory.

Anyways, I'm getting off for a bit (and then probably heading to bed). But if you've got more questions, I'll probably be on MSN for another hour or so. But that should answer it sufficiently.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Ends justifying means isn't what we call being good or noble. If the ends are peace and you start happily butchering planets' worth of populations to attain it? Congrats, you're evil.

Not really. If, in one's perspective, it is the only/best way to achieve a greater good, then why not? And please, stop with this 'happily' bs, Dooku quite clearly felt remorse for all the bad things he had done, which is made quite clear in Dark Rendezvous (his own private intimate thoughts).



Did we watch the same movies? Palpatine wanted power, and to bully The Galaxy into becoming his own personal playground. Really, what are you talking about, where the hell is it indicated that he genuinely wanted peace or the end of corruption? There's also the fact that Palpatine took pleasure in doing all the bad things he did. Dooku didn't.

Edit - For the record, I rate Zephiel, he's the fourth best debater currently here imho, and I'm pretty good at judging things like that.

Originally posted by Apollo Cloud
Edit - For the record, I rate Zephiel, he's the fourth best debater currently here imho, and I'm pretty good at judging things like that.

Who's the third, second, and first then, CAC?

I'll tell you if you tell me what CAC stands for.

Somehow I knew you would say something like that.

CAC = Create-A-Character. It's just a video game term for games where you can create, and fully customize your character (well, obviously -- the name is self explainatory). I was using it in reference to the fact "Apollo Cloud" is a name you've used on some Star Wars RPs.

Fine, don't tell me then, be like that. Anyways, the list goes a little something like this:

1. Advent Killed Commies. (jk, I know you're not IKC, I'll stop doing that now)

2. AcStyles.

3. Gideon.

Edit - Lol ok, just saw that post, seems I need to learn to refresh more.

No dude, I admit that I acted out this time...I am in a bit of stress and wasting time isn't really the right way to rectify the probelm. It just seems, Jessiah, among everyone in these forums, you have a personal vendetta against everything I do. Your a bright guy and I would assume thre is a reason for your reputation, but I get the impression you really dont like me. You can empathize why I would not like a person that does not really like me, no?

And really, I am not that much older than you. I'm 18. I'm generally pleasant, ask anyone on this thread. Hell, PM Lightsnake right now, he'll guarantee that I'm nice guy. We disagree on plenty of points, but we can understand each others differences in views and see the logic behind why we think or do what we do.



Duly noted.



I respect your opinon. But I am of the opinion that intelligence is trait that can only be present in an individual due to an absence of sloth.




Again, my initial post was unbecoming. I apologize.

About Rex and all the others, they have been here for a long time, and Sexy and Lightsnake seem to make a lot of short posts (usually bashing the hell out of each other).

In Grade 10 I was all about "playing games/on the internet 50%" of the time, so I can see where you are coming from though. I just recently got involved with message boards in my graduating year, so I haven't really been able to show up all the time.



Sloth implies "aversion to work." Nothing defines sloth as purely relegated to physical work, it could very much be "aversion to mental work," which doesn't really fit the bill, as Palpatine was always thinking. Always.



Which is one of the reasons why I think "pure evil" is an absurd notion. They would be a joke; they'd be a lazy ass pile of filth that could do nothing but hate and be envious.



It is true that he had aids, but he must also be subject to a huge burden in running the empire. I doubt the Emperor was jacking of to Twi'lek porn all the time, and thinking about nothing - but Palpatine does seem the sort.



Is this what you thought of me? When did I ever state that I was the uber-god of debating? Again, I'm more of a scientist than a debater, dude. Debating is something I do when I want to pass the time, I don't even claim to be good at it.




I'm confused here. Why would you think that being "completely evil" is not identical to the "complete state of all facets of evil." Completely, by it's definition -in this case - would include "complete state of all things that make evil well, evil." They're synonyms really for the same meaning.



By definition though, something that is "pure evil" does not possess that virtue that makes them brave enough to propagate vice. They are comprising vice "cowardice" for virtue "courage/fortitude," in this case. That doesn't make Sidious Mother Teresa - don't get me wrong - but by the definitions of the two in the english language, it cannot comply to concept of "pure evil." (That is the absence of all things good.)



No.

This really connects with the "Problem of Evil" and all types of unpleasant theodicies that have been argued by scholars and theoligians as to why God "will allow evil to occur".

Kant came up with this argument stating that humans can't judge God's actions because we do not have the required faculties - being confined to human preconceptions as we are. God is a being, as per christians, of omniscience and omnibelevolence. A Christian/Jew, I would assume, would believe that only God possesses the required knowledge (due to his omniscience) to judge what is truly good or evil. Hence, by attributing what we perceive what God is displaying(jealousy in this case), assumes that we as humans can judge God's actions and apply labels to Him. To assume that God is jealous assumes that we know more about jealousy than what God does. But God is omniscient, so we obviously don't. Since God is omnibenevolent, he would not do something out of jealousy, but out of some grand optimal plan of "goodness" that He designed.

Originally posted by Apollo Cloud
Not really. If, in one's perspective, it is the only/best way to achieve a greater good, then why not? And please, stop with this 'happily' bs, Dooku quite clearly felt remorse for all the bad things he had done, which is made quite clear in Dark Rendezvous (his own private intimate thoughts).
He 'felt remorse'...and then continued to sanction Grievous's actions and continue with them. Dooku thought of himself as Darth Tyranus, remember? And this 'one's perspective' bullshit is ridiculous. You start slaughtering the population of planets to continue to propagate a war? You're evil.
Dooku is guilty of biological genocide, raining flaming death on planets, assassinations, manipulations, outright regicide...
And the 'greater good' was to establish a police state and Dark Side Theocracy


Gideon, you want to give this dolt that exact quote from the ROTS visual dictionary? Palpatine saw himself as a savior, cleansing the galaxy of the corruption by establishing a strong will.
but, wha-hey! Ends justify means, don't they?
Dooku sure as hell didn't mind killing at least billions to establish a Dark Side theocracy and police state, not to mention a human supremacist one.

Not evil? Please

Originally posted by Apollo Cloud
Fine, don't tell me then, be like that. Anyways, the list goes a little something like this:

1. Advent Killed Commies. (jk, I know you're not IKC, I'll stop doing that now)

2. AcStyles.

3. Gideon.

Edit - Lol ok, just saw that post, seems I need to learn to refresh more.

AC sucks at debating, and so do you. You're not exactly an authority on debating either.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
AC sucks at debating

Personally, I don't see how he's that bad, but that's just me. I mean, just wondering, but why does AcStyles 'suck'?

Judging from my last debate with him, he has the common sense of a 6 year old paraplegic.

Well anyways, I will have to be rather succinct about declining from a debate this time. I am unfortunately a little head over heels with work.

It's been a pleasure ladies and gentlemen. It's good Gids, for the most part we can work out our differences.

I think Sidious is pure evil, just because he had some virtues recognized good by society(intelligence, patience...) doesn't make him any less evil, in fact, it is because of his traits, that makes him even more evil, he did allot more damage, destruction, cause more pain... because ha had those traits, without them he would be nothing, he wouldn't be in any position to make/cause any pain, destruction........

Ofcoz Sidious is pure evil...

All right, then, Zephiel. We're good, and we'll just agree to disagree. As for ACstyles, I think he's a good debater.

Edit: Nebaris (I knew you loved me, lmao), Lightsnake is correct in regards to Sidious's delusion that he was a "savior". Lucas confirmed this in the RotS commentary, saying that "evil never thinks of itself as evil" and that Sidious isn't any different.

"Sidious does not consider himself evil but rather a savior." page 194 of the Complete Visual Dictionary.

Originally posted by Nikkolas
Now while Lucas did not paint the portrait that well in the movies, we learn very well in the EU that Dooku is not "evil" in the Sith tradition. He's not a Palpatine...but he's not a Yoda, either. I felt he was portrayed and explored the best out of most any character in the Era. A character who can be argued to be virtuous and noble by one person and despicable and evil by another is my kind of character.

In fact, let's discuss this point. What do you think Dooku as? Good? Evil? What proof do you have of either?

Well, considering that he did try to persuade Obi-Wan to join him to destroy Darth Sidious (which he refused) near the end of episode II, I'd say he's part good, and mostly evil for the reasons most others have already mentioned...

Needless to say, I didn't like how he was so easily killed off in episode III...

Persuading Obi-Wan to join him, was fake, he told Obi-Wan the truth about Sidious controlling the Senate and when Obi reported this to the council, they immediately denied it and said that Dooku joined the Dark Side and that he was using lies as weapon, it was part of Sidious and Dookus plan.

Originally posted by Count Makashi
Persuading Obi-Wan to join him, was fake, he told Obi-Wan the truth about Sidious controlling the Senate and when Obi reported this to the council, they immediately denied it and said that Dooku joined the Dark Side and that he was using lies as weapon, it was part of Sidious and Dookus plan.

Ah. That's right. Now I remember...

I had a strange feeling I said something wrong there... Thanks for clearing that up.

Yeah. They did deny what Obi-Wan had said for the reasons you stated...