Can the Dark Side be used for good?

No, stealth, I was in no way saying anything is invalidated because it does not match GL. I was simply saying that GL's view is always relevant to a discussion about Star Wars fundamentals- you can't pretend it doesn't exist, even, as I say, if you are just marking how far an interpretation has gone from GL's position. He's too fundamental to all things Star Wars to move aside. I also never meant to imply 'it's inconsistent so ignore it.'. My ides was to say 'the EU is inconsistent so if you are trying to answer this question you must pick which interpretation you are working from first'. This is nothing to do with canon, because canon is an official position whilst the position anyone takes here is personal. If you don't take a position the argument is no good because one person can say A and another can say B and both provide sources to back it; there's no way to put one above the other.

I also added my opinion that interpretations that cause the trouble you are having with the Jedi- like the potential genocide of the Sith, for example- are interpretations so far removed from what Star Wars a. was intended to be about and b. does well that I do not believe they are interpretations of much quality. I happily agree that Jedi presentation fluctuates like crazy throughout the EU- I merely used TOR as an example as a lot of this thread was using TOR references, and also because TOR is so broad it doesn't even agree with itself in how it present the Jedi, so it has no consistent interpretation.. Like I said, the EU has very often interpreted things differently from GL. You are, of course, also entitled to re-interpret GL's own work in your position as a viewer.

I prefer a straight good guy/bad guy interpretation, and Star Wars is a great setting for exploring that. There are other great series, from Blake's 7 to Battlestar Galactica to Game of Thrones, to explore areas where the waters are muddied. I don't think Star Wars is at its best within interpretations where the Jedi are morally dodgy (by intention as opposed to by error, because even in a straight good guy/bad guy interpretation you allow for people making mistakes), and by extension, I think Star Wars is at its best when the bad guys never achieve anything good- which is not to say that you don't make them believable and with fleshed out motivations.

well,imo yes...grey jedi are neutral...they just see gray...Jolee Bindo said it best.....
you might say I'm pulling a bindo,here (lol)....I respect your replies.....

imo EU is EU to me....even though some of it is crap like NJO...or canon....or etc.
I just like that its different....anything is possible....no disrespect to GL....but Disney???
I was very disappointed....I'm worried about the new SW Movie....if Disney is doing it

then prepare to be disappointed like the Lone Ranger....
anyway....pulling another bindo.....imo it depends on which Dark Side Power or skill....
I don't mean use thought bomb or Drain Force and go nuts with it.......

if there is a great evil threating the galaxy and you have no other choice....to sacrifice yourself
and this great evil then bomb his a**... at the cost of you and 213 other Jedi and what...about
600 Sith.....it was nice serving with you dog....booommm!!!!

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, stealth, I was in no way saying anything is invalidated because it does not match GL. I was simply saying that GL's view is always relevant to a discussion about Star Wars fundamentals- you can't pretend it doesn't exist, even, as I say, if you are just marking how far an interpretation has gone from GL's position. He's too fundamental to all things Star Wars to move aside. I also never meant to imply 'it's inconsistent so ignore it.'. My ides was to say 'the EU is inconsistent so if you are trying to answer this question you must pick which interpretation you are working from first'. This is nothing to do with canon, because canon is an official position whilst the position anyone takes here is personal. If you don't take a position the argument is no good because one person can say A and another can say B and both provide sources to back it; there's no way to put one above the other.

I also added my opinion that interpretations that cause the trouble you are having with the Jedi- like the potential genocide of the Sith, for example- are interpretations so far removed from what Star Wars a. was intended to be about and b. does well that I do not believe they are interpretations of much quality. I happily agree that Jedi presentation fluctuates like crazy throughout the EU- I merely used TOR as an example as a lot of this thread was using TOR references, and also because TOR is so broad it doesn't even agree with itself in how it present the Jedi, so it has no consistent interpretation.. Like I said, the EU has very often interpreted things differently from GL. You are, of course, also entitled to re-interpret GL's own work in your position as a viewer.

I prefer a straight good guy/bad guy interpretation, and Star Wars is a great setting for exploring that. There are other great series, from Blake's 7 to Battlestar Galactica to Game of Thrones, to explore areas where the waters are muddied. I don't think Star Wars is at its best within interpretations where the Jedi are morally dodgy (by intention as opposed to by error, because even in a straight good guy/bad guy interpretation you allow for people making mistakes), and by extension, I think Star Wars [b]is at its best when the bad guys never achieve anything good- which is not to say that you don't make them believable and with fleshed out motivations. [/B]

I think I understand what you're saying herein the latter part of your statement easily enough. Star Wars was never meant to be morally muddled or grey, even though EU certainly has approached that, either intentionally or unintentionally. Comparing The Sith Lords or Golden Age of the Sith or The Old Republic to each other, we see that things are not clear-cut to the viewer.

I disagree that GL's intentions should be ultimately considered so fundamental that they dominate the discussion, or cannot be removed from it. We are interpreting EU, avowedly a different world, rife with inconsistencies because it's a mesh of different authors working rather independently over the course of what? 20+ years in some cases? It's true that the original source material is GL's work, and in that realm (G-canon/T-canon continuity), his will reigns supreme. But it does so because he is himself involved in it, and EU is itself an example of the telephone game.

No two people witness and perceive the same event the same way; some minute difference always appears. And the more and more events are interpreted or built upon, the more they may become alienated from the original. Just like in the telephone game, when the code word or phrase may become something else entirely by the time it comes back around.

You brought up the idea of the potential genocide (which is funny, given that it's an explicit genocide, that did happen) of the Sith:

[list][...] are interpretations so far removed from what Star Wars a. was intended to be about and b. does well that I do not believe they are interpretations of much quality.[/list]

This requires some elaboration. On one hand, you are saying nothing should be discarded for not matching GL's intentions:

[list]No, stealth, I was in no way saying anything is invalidated because it does not match GL.[/list]

On the other hand, you are saying these intentions are so ingrained and so fundamental that they cannot be removed at all, even for C-canon only consideration, and you seem to belittle an established C-Canon event. This doesn't seem clear to me.

Is the genocide which took place during the Great Hyperspace War somehow less valid for consideration in this discussion than Anakin's slaughter of sand people or Jedi/younglings by virtue of being unaligned with GL's intent and poor quality material?

Please note I'm not saying the examples with Anakin are themselves indication of Jedi behavior because they're not; but they are similar behaviors which are shunned in the PT but wholesale advocated in the ancient era of the Jedi before. This is a moral contradiction, which exists in the world of EU, and requires some reflection and thought. Dismissal is counterproductive to discussion and debate, so I hope you'll agree on this point.

Now, I don't see how you could make a claim like you did above without inherent contradiction. Either the EU piece is valid from an EU standpoint (the one we are explicitly looking at here) and worthy of consideration in a debate about morality according to the viewers, or it's not and you need to then throw out whole heaps of EU that you find impure. And if the second option is the one you choose, then evaluating EU at all is fruitless because much of it isn't under GL's thumb and varies all across the board. You'd have to establish standards for "GL purity", which sounds completely silly.

> In order to argue this point holistically, in an EU sub-forum, I have taken the viewpoint that C-Canon events are valid for the sole purpose of comparing and contrasting moral changes, developments, and deviations. I have not excluded anything nor poo-poo'd it because of inconsistency with GL's original intents nor have I excluded it based on quality.

ahhhhhhh stop writing so much!

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
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.

The Sith only have themselves to blame for that genocide considering they started the war in the first place and are guilty of genocide themselves iirc. And the reason for the Schism is that the Exiles were performing all sorts of ****ed up darkside stuff like creating Leviathans and stuff. They don't really have much leg to stand on with getting pissed at the Republic and Jedi.

As I said, this was under the orders of the Supreme Chancellor at the time. Gnost-Dural doesn't mention whether the Jedi protested the order or not.

Thats not a fair comparison because Germany doesn't have citizens with the ability to shoot nukes out of their nipples. The Sith are extremely dangerous, arguably too dangerous to let live. You say they were broken, but someone like oh I don't know, Vitiate could always appear to make them a credible threat again. You scoff at them for being afraid at shadows, but the Sith actually are that dangerous. Remember that they possessed the knowledge of Nihilus' technique. If left unchecked, they could potentially have 50 Nihilus' attack the Republic. And thats just a single technique, the Ancient Sith pioneered the huge rituals of mass-destruction and huge battle-magic.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
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.

I doubt that after a 100 years of war Ajunta Pall and pals would be interested in rehabilitation. They were given the choice between execution (which would solve the issue as you said), incarceration (which may not have been feasible depending on how large the Exiles forces were) or exile (and we all know how that turned out).

Actually, I don't think they do. Mace Windu has said that the Jedi are primarily protectors of the peace and issues of morality are secondary to them. Even if they do have these tenants, did they exists at the time of the Great Hyperspace War? Pragmatism could easily have outweighed ethics at that time.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
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.

Finally I get to actually address this. In the case of Revan Reborn, he was only actually using it for a very short amount of time. What, just the end of the book? We can't say therefore that he was able to use it long term without corruption. As you point out, he did get corrupted after that point. In the case of Mando Wars Revan, the SWTOR Encyclopedia says that when he met Vitiate he and Malak were 'on the precipice of the dark side' already. It wasn't just Vitiate who turned Revan to evil, he was only a hop and a skip from it already.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
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.

True, but I don't believe Kreia actually dabbled in the dark side prior to that. Is there evidence that she was using it beforehand without being warped by it?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Then we have evidence of earlier Jedi using the Dark Side without corruption in the earliest days of the Order on Tython.

Again, true. But that did lead to the Force Wars and I don't really know enough to talk about them besides that.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
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.

"A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack." - Yoda

Force Crush was used by Windu, the Jedi who taps into his inner darkness. 😉

The manner in which you use the Force also determines whether it is light or dark. Plo Koon and Luke use Emerald Lightning as opposed to Force Lightning, drawing on calm instead of hate. In the case of mental suggestion, its a neutral force power for a reason.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
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.

Can't it be both? I never said that the Jedi haven't done some ****ed up things, just knowing the plot of the KOTOR comics can show you that. But thats what makes them stand out so much, because Jedi has supposed to be better than that. When you have a group of people who hold themselves to a high standards, its interesting storytelling to show when they fall short of them.

I'm not simplifying anything. I'm just pointing out that the darkside is an inherently corrupting force that does make you bad. Thats just how it works. Complaining about it is like complaining about the Ring simplifies Gollums character. The Ring corrupts people. The Dark Side corrupts people. That isn't oversimplifying. It is that simple.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
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.

Yeah, but the Jedi don't really have anything to do with this. Pointing out that they sometimes do bad things is frankly irrelevant. People do bad things, duh. We're only talking about the Dark Side here. They don't use the dark side to do those things, or if they do they fall to the dark side and become corrupted. If you had some examples of a Jedi using the dark side without falling then that would be relevant, but not really otherwise.

Kyle Katarn used it without turning bad iirc. But he's a Gary Stu anyway so I usually just ignore him.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
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.

Again x 2 combo, can't it be both? People who are ****ed up tend to be drawn to the ****ed up evil force of hate and murder. But even people who are good guys get corrupted. Uliq Qel'Droma for example. Revan and Malak were nice guys who became corrupted through war. Dooku. etc etc

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
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?

Are you saying that Sith Lore is corruptive in nature? I doubt that. Jacen at the start of the LotF series was a decent guy, but by the end of it he was Force Choking people who failed him and torturing people.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
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.

Ok.

Aren't these fringe dark side cults pretty evil anyway though? The Jedi Path lists a few of them and they sure sound preeety evil!

Theres nothing suggesting that its the traditions and not the darkside. If you're a nice guy, why would you follow those traditions? They don't actually change who you are, the dark side does because it exaggerates the darker natures in you. Exar Kun didn't fall because of Sith teachings, he fell because he was an arrogant, violent shitheel, even before the Sith come into play he was a complete prick who was obviously not a true Jedi.

At what point does Exar Kun even learn Sith doctrine? He doesn't start following a bunch of evil rules and then turn evil, he acts like a psychopath, becomes more of a psychopath and then admits that he's been a psychopath the entire time.

I'm not responding to your other word chunks because hell no.

Originally posted by Nephthys
ahhhhhhh stop writing so much!

You only make it worse by replying, Neph. YOU CANNOT WIN.

The Sith only have themselves to blame for that genocide considering they started the war in the first place and are guilty of genocide themselves iirc.

Hold on, let me redo this for you:

The SithGermans only have themselves to blame for that genocide considering they started the war in the first place and are guilty of genocide themselves iirc.

So with your moral reasoning, genocide of the German people after WW II, had it ever come to pass, would be correct.

And the reason for the Schism is that the Exiles were performing all sorts of ****ed up darkside stuff like creating Leviathans and stuff. They don't really have much leg to stand on with getting pissed at the Republic and Jedi.

But I never said they weren't evil. I said it seems inconsistent with Jedi beliefs in other eras that genocide was the next best step. Especially considering the Jedi and Republic vastly outnumbered the ancient Sith Empire (which, IIIRC, barely numbered 120 planets) with its fractured society, broken leadership, vastly inferior fleet and you had Jedi like Odan-urr with an ability to near-instantly render powerful Force users helpless and able to be you know, imprisoned.

As I said, this was under the orders of the Supreme Chancellor at the time. Gnost-Dural doesn't mention whether the Jedi protested the order or not.

We never see any indication that they protested and every indication that they were the main force behind it. Odan-urr talks quite frankly about mastering Sever Force during the Great Hyperspace War.

It's interesting to reflect that the Sith general defector from the Black Talon questline considers the potential new war between factions to be approaching the Great Hyperspace War in terms of atrocities and scale. This is probably the only time I've seen an in-universe character say that the war was one full of horrible atrocities and should not be repeated.

Thats not a fair comparison because Germany doesn't have citizens with the ability to shoot nukes out of their nipples.

Neither do the Sith. A large majority of them were not anywhere nearly as powerful as the Dark Council. Again, the only Sith who is a threat to the Republic is Sadow, with his hidden location, meditation sphere, and sun-chucking ship. Even Ragnos, for all his Force badassery, recognized that the Sith Empire was no match for the Republic and advocated isolationism.

If you're saying that every man, woman and child in the Sith Empire was a cosmic threat to the Republic, pass the joint please.

The Sith are extremely dangerous, arguably too dangerous to let live.

But you just said that the Jedi don't kill and we know they can sever Force.

You say they were broken, but someone like oh I don't know, [b]Vitiate could always appear to make them a credible threat again.[/b]

And Vitiate was completely unknown to the Jedi and Republic. Both his nature and his planet remained obscured from both, and he did not dabble in politics so he remained an enigma even among his own people. Vitiate actually profited from the fear and panic sowed by the Jedi counterattack and used to sway Sith lords and vassals under his ritual and later leave for parts unknown with the remnants of the exiles. The Sith Empire we see in TOR is a direct result of the Jedi genocide.

You scoff at them for being afraid at shadows, but the Sith actually are that dangerous.

Erm, no. I never ever said this. Strawman.

Remember that they possessed the knowledge of Nihilus' technique.

All of them? The only individuals we see using it include Ragnos, Vitiate, and the Sith Triumvirate which didn't exist in this time. You're assuming much here.

If left unchecked, they could potentially have 50 Nihilus' attack the Republic. And thats just a single technique, the Ancient Sith pioneered the huge rituals of mass-destruction and huge battle-magic.

Slippery slope much? They obviously weren't too dangerous, or neophyte Odan-urr couldn't have perfected his sever Force in personal combat with tons of them. Unless Odan-urr is now by virtue of his status as Sith Lord killer, the best fighter the galaxy has ever known.

I see a lot of Slippery Slope and Historian's Fallacy going on here and almost zero moral reasoning being examined.

I doubt that after a 100 years of war Ajunta Pall and pals would be interested in rehabilitation. They were given the choice between execution (which would solve the issue as you said), incarceration (which may not have been feasible depending on how large the Exiles forces were) or exile (and we all know how that turned out).

They were given a choice? IIRC, they were exiled after they surrendered due to being overwhelmed and disorderly in the final battle. I don't recall them being given a choice.

Actually, I don't think they do. Mace Windu has said that the Jedi are primarily protectors of the peace and issues of morality are secondary to them.

When specifically? What is the quote?

Even if they do have these tenants, did they exists at the time of the Great Hyperspace War?

Yes. In fact, Odan-urr is telling Nomi the Jedi Code.

Pragmatism could easily have outweighed ethics at that time.

Except pragmatism isn't itself a moral code of the "Light Side". You've advocated that the Dark Side corrupts because of blah blah, but then you advocate pragmatism (through your own future viewpoint; remember, per the historian fallacy you are judging the events of the past with the then-unknown knowledge of the future) on behalf of the Jedi because Sith r bad.

If you can't see what's wrong with this, I don't know why you even brought this up for discussion. Your mind is obviously closed.

Finally I get to actually address this. In the case of Revan Reborn, he was only actually using it for a very short amount of time. What, just the end of the book? We can't say therefore that he was able to use it long term without corruption.

Actually, he claims to be both as of the Foundry flashpoint, and his Revanites follow a very grey moral compass, neither recognizing the Light Side or the Dark Side as superior.

As you point out, he did get corrupted after that point.

Correction: He got mind-raped for generations and later wanted to commit genocide on all pureblood Sith, using the Foundry to make droids to do his bidding. This is not a result of his earlier duality viewpoint but because of his mental struggle with Vitiate, the most powerful Sith in the era and possibly the mythos.

In the case of Mando Wars Revan, the SWTOR Encyclopedia says that when he met Vitiate he and Malak were 'on the precipice of the dark side' already. It wasn't just Vitiate who turned Revan to evil, he was only a hop and a skip from it already.

Revan and Malak had already delved into Sith relics, and explored places like Malachor V, hence why they found the true Sith Empire. But the actual conversion is explicitly forced by Vitiate. From the same source, iirc.

True, but I don't believe Kreia actually dabbled in the dark side prior to that. Is there evidence that she was using it beforehand without being warped by it?

We don't know. Kreia was already doubting the Jedi, and her students followed Revan into the war and mostly fell. Kreia's fall was explicitly a result of her exposure to Malachor V, which was my point. She didn't show any corruption prior.

Again, true. But that did lead to the Force Wars and I don't really know enough to talk about them besides that.

Fair enough.

"A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack." - Yoda

Force Crush was used by Windu, the Jedi who taps into his inner darkness. 😉

The manner in which you use the Force also determines whether it is light or dark. Plo Koon and Luke use Emerald Lightning as opposed to Force Lightning, drawing on calm instead of hate. In the case of mental suggestion, its a neutral force power for a reason.

So you agree with me then? After all, you don't use Force powers in a vacuum without intent. The intent comes first, then the powers are used. Mace Windu's inner darkness, a purely EU concept I might add, is extremely bizarre among Jedi. He is the exception rather than the rule.

But think of it this way: Luke Skywalker chokes one of the Gamorreans guarding Jabba's palace. Anakin chokes Padme.

What's the fundamental difference here?

Cut for character limit. More coming...

Can't it be both?

That's moral relativism. Indeed, why can't it be both?

I never said that the Jedi haven't done some ****ed up things, just knowing the plot of the KOTOR comics can show you that. But thats what makes them stand out so much, because Jedi has supposed to be better than that. When you have a group of people who hold themselves to a high standards, its interesting storytelling to show when they fall short of them.

Right, but we're talking about using critical thinking to analyze how the Jedi fall short of their ideals and how they lack a more universal moral reasoning, instead relying on traditions which they stretch or break when pragmatism overcomes them.

If your point was to reaffirm "Dark side always bad", you should have been more explicit in your intro post. You agreed with me before that morality is subjective IRL, but refuse to apply the same standards to the storyline because you feel uncomfortable with it, and the idea baffles me.

I'm not simplifying anything. I'm just pointing out that the darkside is an inherently corrupting force that [b]does make you bad. Thats just how it works. Complaining about it is like complaining about the Ring simplifies Gollums character. The Ring corrupts people. The Dark Side corrupts people. That isn't oversimplifying. It is that simple. [/b]

The difference is that the Ring is only ever described, explained, and created by Tolkien. The Dark Side, although it originated with GL, has gone through the hands of dozens of authors, game-makers, and artists, and has taken a life of its own.

If you truly feel that analyzing it outside of a fundamentalist, absolute black and white morality is too challenging, just say so.

Yeah, but the Jedi don't really have anything to do with this. Pointing out that they sometimes do bad things is frankly irrelevant. People do bad things, duh. We're only talking about the Dark Side here. They don't use the dark side to do those things, or if they do they fall to the dark side and become corrupted. If you had some examples of a Jedi using the dark side without falling then that would be relevant, but not really otherwise.

Kyle Katarn used it without turning bad iirc. But he's a Gary Stu anyway so I usually just ignore him.

Glad to know Kyle Katarn gets a pass because you've classified him as a Gary Stu.

Here, let me try:

Luke uses the Dark Side to choke a Gamorrean and mind-control a Hutt for personal gain. But he gets a pass because he's the hero of the story.

You should reread this stuff before you hit submit, Neph. It reeks of "I don't wanna change my thoughts" whining rather than any kind of reflective thinking. instead of taking what I'm saying and immediately trying to dismiss it or use an exception, maybe you could you know, actually consider a different approach?

Originally posted by Nephthys
Again x 2 combo, can't it be both? People who are ****ed up tend to be drawn to the ****ed up evil force of hate and murder. But even people who are good guys get corrupted. Uliq Qel'Droma for example. Revan and Malak were nice guys who became corrupted through war. Dooku. etc etc

Except Ulic Qel-Droma became ****ed up from acquiring and using a Sith amulet that increases rage, and becoming immersed in Sith culture. Revan and Malak dabbled with Sith relics and history, and were later mind-raped into being Darths. These aren't counter examples; they prove my point.

Are you saying that Sith Lore is corruptive in nature? I doubt that.

Really? So Atris was already evil when she got corrupted by all those holocrons in TSL? Or did you forget that already?

Jacen at the start of the LotF series was a decent guy, but by the end of it he was Force Choking people who failed him and torturing people.

You never answered the context of it he was subjecting himself to Sith lore and teachings.

Ok.

Aren't these fringe dark side cults pretty evil anyway though? The Jedi Path lists a few of them and they sure sound preeety evil!

The Sorcerers of Tund and those Dervishes are basically splinter groups from Sith, so this point doesn't mean anything.

Theres nothing suggesting that its the traditions and not the darkside. If you're a nice guy, why would you follow those traditions? They don't actually change who you are, the dark side does because it exaggerates the darker natures in you. Exar Kun didn't fall because of Sith teachings, he fell because he was an arrogant, violent shitheel, even before the Sith come into play he was a complete prick who was obviously not a true Jedi.

At what point does Exar Kun even learn Sith doctrine? He doesn't start following a bunch of evil rules and then turn evil, he acts like a psychopath, becomes more of a psychopath and then admits that he's been a psychopath the entire time.

I'm not responding to your other word chunks because hell no.

Honestly, this is the most disappointing reply you've ever given me, Neph. I realize that you take debating as serious only if you're really invested, and any other time you're prone to just clinging to your point and not giving up an inch. I've known you long enough to be aware when you're just basically pitching a fit because you can't and won't recognize a viewpoint other than your own.

You could have saved both of us a lot of time and just said "I don't want to deal with your counter viewpoint". Then I could go on and talk to other people who probably aren't being babies about an honest intellectual discussion.

Very simple replies to your points there Stealth- no need to overcomplicate at all.

As to my point about things not suiting Star Wars, very simple. My opinion is that things that try to insert morally grey areas into Star Wars are simply not very good, and this is because Star Wars is not a suitable setting for that, and this brings us back to it being, in essence, GL's creation and other authors can;t escape that, trying to graft something onto a setting unsuitable. Fine that you don;t agree GL's word should dominate. I think this view is unhelpful and, ultimately, objectively untrue, as I don't think Star ars has ever been written without GL being a major influence, directly or indirectly.

I am afraid I cannot make any sense of your point about comparing the Hyperspace War with Anakin's actions. I'm not intending to hang around here so that will have to stay unanswered. Suffice to say, I think your apparent tactic of looking at everything as one giant continuity that bears direct comparison is likely never really going to bear fruit. It works far better simply to say that different interpretations say very different things, and this really has nothing to do with canon, because regardless of what canon does or does not say, trying to keep such different interpretations in the same continuity for direct comparison is simply doomed to failure if you are searching for an answer.

My view remains as straightforward as I said above. I think Star Wars works best from a GL-centric interpretation (which is different from saying GL gets everything right) and interpretations that try to introduce grey areas into Star Wars never work well; they work much better in settings fundamentally designed for such things. At that point, I've said all I can usefully say.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Honestly, this is the most disappointing reply you've ever given me, Neph. I realize that you take debating as serious only if you're really invested, and any other time you're prone to just clinging to your point and not giving up an inch. I've known you long enough to be aware when you're just basically pitching a fit because you can't and won't recognize a viewpoint other than your own.

You could have saved both of us a lot of time and just said "I don't want to deal with your counter viewpoint". Then I could go on and talk to other people who probably aren't being babies about an honest intellectual discussion.

Honestly, I was going to reply just to make you eat your words. But then I re-read this and realised I just didn't want to put up with your melodrama bullshit. So

The impression I get is, you can dabble in the dark and manage to pull stuff out, but sooner or later you're going to fall on one side or another, just by how things work, so don't try living in the grey.

Even if you don't go full dark, you may find things increasingly backfire on you (See: Cade Skywalker, who tried to be grey and ended up pretty ground up by it, alienating his family and friends).

Originally posted by Q99
The impression I get is, you can dabble in the dark and manage to pull stuff out, but sooner or later you're going to fall on one side or another, just by how things work, so don't try living in the grey.

Even if you don't go full dark, you may find things increasingly backfire on you (See: Cade Skywalker, who tried to be grey and ended up pretty ground up by it, alienating his family and friends).

So why didn't all of the Jedi founders fall? They seem to be the strongest exceptions and they predate Sith lore.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
So why didn't all of the Jedi founders fall? They seem to be the strongest exceptions and they predate Sith lore.

Reading the Dawn of the Jedi comic? I'd say their take on the dark side is a bit different. They use emotions and stuff, which I think they might lump in.

And a lot of them do fall temporarily- they have a prison moon just for keeping people who head too far that way. And they eventually did decided that the Bogan was just bad, which is when they changed their name to Jedi.

I do think their way is more like "sampling grey for awhile but largely staying in the light," by how they act.

You do raise a good point, so I'll update my claims and say, "Using anger, hatred, and stuff inevitably lead to a fall, but one can use passion and such, which is often considered dark side, without falling."

If people are actually offended by calling the Sith evil then by all means continue but don't expect people to agree with you. People grow up believing that mass killing, torturing, enslaving, and whatever are wrong. In Sith societies these are expected norms. So to them it's not evil ofc, but for normal people I would hope they do consider it evil.

Of course no one is saying all Sith do this and the Jedi are perfect but if you can't see a night and day difference between the two sides you're trying to insert real life topics in the completely wrong setting.

I don't see the point of it. It's fvcking Star Wars.

Originally posted by Based
If people are actually offended by calling the Sith evil then by all means continue but don't expect people to agree with you.

Who is offended by this?

People grow up believing that mass killing, torturing, enslaving, and whatever are wrong. In Sith societies these are expected norms. So to them it's not evil ofc, but for normal people I would hope they do consider it evil.

Right, this is moral relativism.

Of course no one is saying all Sith do this and the Jedi are perfect but if you can't see a night and day difference between the two sides you're trying to insert real life topics in the completely wrong setting.

I don't see the point of it. It's fvcking Star Wars.

Except that night and day difference implies exact opposites. We know that the Sith are morally bankrupt, because they act upon the extremes of their baser emotions and are selfish, instead of altruistic. I pointed out that using the Dark Side may not necessarily indicate puppy-eating evil stereotypes, because some non-Sith/non-Jedi groups use the Force in a more balanced fashion and even the founders did as well.

It says a lot about how people see the mythos when they see Sith and Dark Siders as synonymous, even if they aren't the same thing. I pointed out, for the sake of discussion, that Sith lore (which is anything originating from the Sith legacy post-Schism-Exile) is innately seductive and corrupting. In fact, it was hard to find any instance of someone falling to the Dark Side from the ranks of the Jedi without being exposed to this same lore and teachings.

GL, in his world, would simply address it as "Feelings of fear, rage, jealousy, love, etc. make one go corrupt".

EU, itself being a product of dozens of different authors, all with different philosophical exposure and viewpoints, have come to different conclusions. This is why Revan can use both sides of the Force to deflect Lightning and goes on to influence a cult of individuals who do not embrace either extreme to the uttermost.

Regarding the Jedi, evaluate them using your own moral values.

In this light, the Jedi aren't paragons of what we would consider in our own world objectively good either. While they are more good than the Sith, they still do some morally questionable things, and they place tradition and tenets over doing what is morally right at all times, to the point of stagnating the Order in some ways.

Consider the following:

[list][*] The genocide of the Red Sith
[*] The inactivity during the Mandalorian War
[*] The mind-wipe and reprogramming of Revan
[*] The instance of manipulation in Revan's case, Luke's case, even Anakin's case.
[*] The implicit war crimes on Belsavis (it remains to be seen if the Jedi are themselves in on it, but some of their own are prisoners on the planet)
[*] Luke murdering two Gamorreans outside of Jabba's palace
[*] Obi-Wan removing a sentient's free will by 'influencing him for the better' in making him not sell death-sticks.
[*] Abandoning slaves to harsh masters, including Shmi.[/list]

These are not cut and dry moral problems. They require some actual thinking. I don't know why asking other people to reflect on these is a sin. If you require other people to tell you what is or isn't morally right, how can you pass any kind of judgment except through the lens given you?

Again, I don't understand the point of going "this is cut and dry" or "this is SW, who cares" when most of us here have spent a hundred thousand characters debating stuff far more trivial. Interpreting morality in SW is a healthy mental exercise, and again I'm shocked at how many people just cannot see the benefit of it.

Saying "Morality is defined according to GL" or "according to the Jedi who are undoubtedly the good guys" is just reasserting what is supposed to be the case, as opposed to analyzing the source material and establishing if indeed it truly is that way.

What exactly is so corruptive about Sith Lore other than the dark side itself?

Originally posted by Nephthys
What exactly is so corruptive about Sith Lore [b]other than the dark side itself? [/B]

I'd say two things: the nature of Sith magic, which predates the arrival of the Exiles, and the Sith Code, which stresses individualism at the expense of others.

"I am not a man of words. But I respect the power of words, for that is what transformed me. The words of the Sith Code. Others had heard them, contemplated them, and so on. But I understood them, and they changed me. For what was I before I heard those words? Nothing."
―Darth Bane, Dark Lord of the Sith

[list]Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.[/list]

The emphasis of Sith teachings is most evident in the Sith code, which is the foundation of the entire sect. The Sith Code doesn't advocate pure Stoicism (quite the opposite) nor does it advocate a middle ground between the two extremes. It attempts to be a dark mirror to the Jedi and reinforces only the moral worth of the individual pursuing strength, power, victory etc.

[list]"Evil is a word used by the ignorant and the weak. The dark side is about survival. It's about unleashing your inner power. It glorifies the strength of the individual."
―Darth Zannah[/list]

Now, it's a bit of a slow transition. First, you have someone who is perhaps arrogant, naturally self-centered, powerful, and feels restricted by say, the Jedi. Take that individual, introduce them to this code of conduct which permeates this new alternative structure that says what you're feeling is not only okay, but the penultimate reason to exist. Then you expose this individual to Sith magic that turns the nudge into more of a push or shove.

Suddenly you've got this individual who thinks being a hate-filled selfish prick is k and anything else is unnatural. But this isn't indicative of every individual who draws on both sides of the Force. Indeed, I'd argue that to use the Dark Side without being compromised requires using it in moderation, but simply using it isn't this grease-lined slope where you just became a youngling killing asshat because you "used dark emotions etc."

Examples are: Luke Skywalker, Kyle Katarn, Revan, Jaden Korr.

I know there are more but it may take a bit to think of them off the top of my head.

Originally posted by The Merchant
Darth Vectivus is supposed to be a "good" guy.

Yes, and the only proof we have of this is the word of a known liar and manipulator.

Originally posted by The Merchant
And the Jedi aren't that good, the Jedi Covenant IIRC killed their padawans ;_;

Hold on, so you're saying that an entire Order comprised of thousands of people, that has existed for thousands of years, "aren't that good" because seven people committed an atrocity?

Word of advice, don't tar everyone with the same brush.

well,this is interesting...and no I'm not offended...
I do agree that this is star wars and not real life....
I still think certain Dark Side powers can be used for good...

And you're right Mace Windu might be the exception...
Revan,imo didn't get a chance to explore this way of using the Force long enough,
I like to think out side of the box sometimes.....

This light and dark is imo,outside of the box....
yes DOJ experimented with this I'm curious to know what happened to them
and the appearance of the Followers of Palawa and Teras Kasi...

yes the DOJ sent there brotherns to the moons of Ashla and Bogan.
when they went too light and too dark.....
Your reply about the Sith Code...I agree.

Imo,I think those light and dark side powers that are neutral can be used for good...
The Jensaarai seem to be not corrupted...their founders were.....
their new generation of followers are not....
Kyle slipped a few times and he still uses light and dark side powers...

In closing...imo only neutral DSP can be used for good...