Stealth Moose
Umbrella Elite
Originally posted by Nephthys
I'd agree, if it wasn't for TOR showing why the Sith were too dangerous to let live. The problem isn't that the tried to genocide them, its that they didn't ****ing do a good enough job of it.
Ah, but the impetus for the war was revenge for the genocide of the Great Hyperspace War, which was in turn fueled by Jedi hatred from the Schism, etc. etc. Both sides are beholden to their past for the grudges and decisions they bear in the future.
However, the point was not to elevate the Jedi as being higher when one of their first act against the proper Sith Empire was to kill every last man, woman, and child. The known Sith Empire was barren, and the survivors had either fled in advance under Vitiate or they ended up crash landed on forgotten planets.
Imagine again, the Allies winning war and Germany being a crater in the ground. That's the level of devastation the Republic and Jedi wrought, and you seem to think it's a justified reaction because of fear, even though the only reason the Sith could attack the Republic is because a single individual was in power who wanted to do that much and he had tools to do it. Kressh was an isolationist, as were some of the council. The plebs off-council were not a threat in themselves and probably would have fractured into mini-fiefdoms had the Jedi not coming along to finish the job.
Plus, remember that the only reason the Sith exist is because the Jedi showed mercy on the Exiles and, well exiled them. If they'd have cut off Ajunta Palls stupid head and stuck it on a pike the entire Jedi vs Sith conflict would have been averted.
I'm not sure how that was a good decision in the first place. They basically wiped their hands of the problem instead of rehabilitating the Dark Jedi. The Jedi are hardly consistent. They exile Ajunta Pall's group, who then come back to fight them anyways, so they genocide the entire race (except for those who fled in advance) as a means of 'solving the issue'.
Make sure you aren't confusing pragmatism for morality here. The Jedi have express tenets not to murder folks, but they did such wholesale. And the devastation wrought by Sadow's initial attack was a fleabite compared to what they suffered during the Hundred Years Darkness.
Only because of Darth Baras' Plan Zero, where the Sith assassinated most of the Republics foremost generals in preperation for war, on top of several other acts where the Sith purposefully antagonized the Republic into open warfare (Quesh). The Sith really started the war, the Jedi just said the words. Satele even says in the Knight campaign that the Republic really, really doesn't want to go to war at the present time.
I verified this and I give you this point. I retract my earlier statement in this regard.
Yeah, and I agreed that the dark side could be used for good, but not that someone using it would be. This current discussion came about because of your argument that the term dark side isn't truly accurate.
Well, it isn't. We see that Revan, for example, uses it without corrupting himself, and that his fall was facilitated by Vitiate's ultra-strong mind-rape. Even Kreia's fall was not because she had non-Jedi-mainstream viewpoints or dabbled, but because she was overcome by energies on Malachor V. Then we have evidence of earlier Jedi using the Dark Side without corruption in the earliest days of the Order on Tython.
The implication is that its not the use of the Force that determines the temperament and future of the user, but their intent and motivations behind its use. For example, consider TK; it's a talent shared by both sides. You could use it in a manner considered "dark" (Force Crush), but this is used by Jedi as well as Sith. It's context-dependent, not side-dependent. Look at the mental suggestion employed by Obi-Wan; if a Sith used it like the Exile potentially can in TSL on Nar Shadaa, you can make someone kill themselves. Or, you can tell them to stop selling deathsticks and rethink their life.
Then think about the Jedi act of mind-wiping Revan. Was this a good thing because it saved him from forced corruption and allowed him to be the hero he was always meant to be? Or was it an equally vicious robbery of free will, merely having the polar opposite effect of what Vitiate had done?
These are difficult moral questions, and writing them off as "Dark makes u bad k" is oversimplifying.
I haven't really seen the Sith do good deeds, but ok.
You missed the sidequest for the Sith Inquisitor were you could help an old lady with her groceries.
Right, but they should only be used as examples for the actual topic, not to start a completely different one about the morality of the two factions. What I'd like to talk about is the dark side, how it works and if it can be used positively, not whether the Jedi are really pure good guys.
So would I. But I'm pointing out that the majority of our examples are composed of those groups and their collective viewpoints put a subjective bent on their moral choices. So you can't easily divorce stereotypical puppy-eating Dark Sider from Sith indoctrination any more than you could divorce Healing Priest Archetype from Jedi indoctrination.
Quite frankly, without rereading some of my books I can't think of any examples beyond the ones I presented above that disprove this theory of "dark always bad", but again those groups do not conform to the ideals of either sect, and they use the Force without strict binary morality.
Well this is actually something whatshisface brings up in the video, and I agree with his assessment. Its true that the dark side CAN be used in benevolent ways, but the fact is that the nature of the dark side is that those who wield are corrupted to the point where they don't WANT to use it for good.
But again, is this a product of their environment or an innate part of the powers themselves? Revan tapped both halves during his fight with Nyriss and Vitiate, but he did not become corrupted at all. He seems to disprove this rule, as do the earliest Jedi founders who had no idea what the Dark Side even was until the Schisms.
Caedus WANTED to save the galaxy from falling into chaos etc. I fact, as I recall a large part of the reason he fell was so that Luke wouldn't die. Fast forward a few books and he's changed to the point where he's actually [b]trying to kill Luke. Caedus was an example of a man who actually tried to use the dark side for benevolent ends, but his thought-process and ideals were corrupted by the darkside until he was anything but beneficial to the galaxy.[/b]
So did he evolve in a vacuum without influence? How did he come to use these dark side teachings? By immersing himself in Sith lore, perhaps?
I do agree with you on some of the Jedi's failings. Jolee said it perfectly that what Jedi need to do is learn how to deal with emotions instead of suppressing them. But they're still falling to the dark side.
Equilibrium is the state of balance between extremes. The Sith represent one extreme and the Jedi the other. They are diametrically opposed. Since they are the only real examples I can present to you in this context, my point stands.
Fringe Force groups are not riddled with hurr hurr Evul archetypes, and they seem to be almost always endemic of the Sith or the former Exiles. I am postulating, though not conclusively stating, that it is possible the traditions and teachings the Sith use to indoctrinate their followers is what accounts for their dramatic falls. Exar Kun was a proud individual, young, and talented, but it wasn't until he became influenced by the Sith that he truly fell. In fact, he fights falling until Nadd removes the ability of Vodo to help him and threatens him with death. It is the receiving of the amulet which explicitly increases his rage and hatred that marks the point of no return.
At no point did Kun just spam dark side powers and become irredeemable. He had a corruption, and it was the doctrine which facilitated his fall completely.