Why were the sith considered to be so evil?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



PhoenixSam5
Whenever I ask other star wars fans why darth vader/palpatine/the empire/the sith were so evil, they tell me about the death star and the destruction of alderaan. However......

Padme refused to join Anakin to rule the galaxy with him, but she had no idea about the death star, IIRC. The death star was definitley being built during ROTS and as early as AOTC or even before AOTC, but there is no indication that Padme ever knew about it. But yet she was just so emotional in staying good and in her refusal to rule the galaxy with Vader.

That same thing goes with Obi Wan, Yoda, and Mace Windu.

There is no indication that the Jedi knew that Palpatine had the death star in the storyline, or that the death star even existed at all.

And it's not just because Palpatine betrayed the Republic or Anakin killed the Jedi by starting the Clone Wars. There is some, a LOT of indication that even if he didn't betray the Republic, the Jedi would still try to kill/arrest him, and he would be evil even then.

Mace Windu stated that the Sith oppression will never return, implying that the Sith were very evil and opressive, but the movie gives us no logical reason why.

In TPM, it's implied heavily, if not blatantly admitted that the Jedi and the Sith were mortal enemies.

And yet there was no death star even then.

Order 66 was Palpatine defending himself against the Jedi Order because they wouldn't want a Sith Lord ruling the galaxy? But for what logical reasons, exactly?

The only plausible reason that the jedi hated the sith/darkside was because of religion differences of the Force. Which technically makes the Jedi just religious perscecutors, and evil.

Ushgarak
Well, you are certainly onto something that the film fails to explain what the Sith are- one of several basic concepts that Lucas had fleshed out in his head but seemed to forget to put on film.

But there's not the remotest doubt that Palpatine and co are evil, right from the very start of TPM as they constantly engage in assassination and overthrow for their own selfish needs. So it is very obvious that the Sith are morally defunct. Your idea that the 'only plausible reason' is simple religious differences really doesn't bear any relation to the films, and you are forgetting that Light and Dark Side are not religious beliefs but actual metaphysical realities in the Star Wars universe. Citing religious differences is neither a plausible reason in of itself nor is it the only reason to come up with there when there are much clearer ones. The Jedi are good and the Sith are evil; everything every Sith ever does goes to demonstrate this. That's pretty much the whole Star Wars deal.

Attempts like this to make the Jedi morally equivalent with the Sith simply go against the entire ethos and point of the films. You are looking at the wrong mythos if you want that kind of setup. Also, your idea that the Jedi are evil simply because the Empire hadn't built the Death Star yet really doesn't make any logical sense. You seem to be ignoring the simple fact that the Jedi were right about the Sith and would have saved the galaxy from that evil if they had stopped them. And that was the only reason they wanted to stop them- not hate, but to protect others.

It would have been nice if the genocidal history of the Sith was on-screen, but to take its absence as a reason to cast down the morals of the Jedi doesn't really work.

focus4chumps
i have the suspicion that this is going to end up creeping back to the tired old "balance of the force= sith+jedi" fallacy.


Originally posted by Ushgarak

It would have been nice if the genocidal history of the Sith was on-screen

even some vague anecdotal history would have sufficed. all we know is that they were oppressive.

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, you are certainly onto something that the film fails to explain what the Sith are- one of several basic concepts that Lucas had fleshed out in his head but seemed to forget to put on film.

But there's not the remotest doubt that Palpatine and co are evil, right from the very start of TPM as they constantly engage in assassination and overthrow for their own selfish needs. So it is very obvious that the Sith are morally defunct. Your idea that the 'only plausible reason' is simple religious differences really doesn't bear any relation to the films- it is neither a plausible reason in of itself nor is it the only reason to come up with there when there are much clearer ones. The Jedi are good and the Sith are evil; everything every Sith ever does goes to demonstrate this. Yhat's pretty much the whole Star Wars deal.

Attempts like this to make the Jedi morally equivalent with the Sith simply go against the entire ethos and point of the films. You are looking at the wrong mythos if you want that kind of setup.

Let's just agree on that one. We are given some hints throughout the prequel movies about the Sith/Jedi having a bad history with each other, but it's very vague and it's not explained in enough detail for the fans. We can all agree that that was a major fail of the prequels; they barely even explained the history of the Sith to us, why they were so evil/hated by the Jedi.

The Naboo invasion were the actions of a specific Sith Lord-aka Palpatine.

In the prequel movies, we are told that being a Sith Lord is evil, in and of itself. Mace Windu's statement about the Sith oppression prove that. It certainly seems like the naboo crisis was not the whoel

Ushgarak
The argument that perhaps it is just Palpatine and hence also his apprentices that are evil and not necessarily the whole Sith is not actually contradicted on-screen, but I do think you are again looking at the wrong sort of story for that. Star Wars really isn't about nuanced morality; the purpose of the Sith is to represent evil in the mythos.

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The argument that perhaps it is just Palpatine and hence also his apprentices that are evil and not necessarily the whole Sith is not actually contradicted on-screen, but I do think you are again looking at the wrong sort of story for that. Star Wars really isn't about nuanced morality; the purpose of the Sith is to represent evil in the mythos.

I think the EU talks about the Sith atrocities.

Please list some of them for me!

Mace Windu thought that the Sith were the enemies of the Jedi because of their oppression.

Lord Lucien
Using the films alone, the Jedi have no reason to view the Sith as "evil". But they are justified in viewing them as killers/aggressors.


Maul and the Sith are in league with (read: in charge of) an organization that blockades, invades, and occupies a peaceful planet. Maul attacks the Jedi twice, killing one of them. Dooku's fomenting secession at the head of a massive army (which in itself wouldn't be so bad, if the Republic had one of its own at inception). And a known Sith Lord is in league with another Sith Lord who also heads the Republic.

That last part is where is the seller. Religious and philosophical differences aside, one organization running both sides of a massive war is a damn good reason to call them evil.

Originally posted by PhoenixSam5
I think the EU talks about the Sith atrocities.

Please list some of them for me! You can just read all about them here.

JediRobin23
umm...you mean killing young-lings is not evil? Palpatine corrupting Anakin to do this would indicate hes evil.

Order 66 was also direct aggression towards the Jedi.

This kinda reminds me of WWII. Common western perception is everyone thinks Hitler and Stalin were evil, but were they really?

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by JediRobin23
umm...you mean killing young-lings is not evil? Palpatine corrupting Anakin to do this would indicate hes evil.

Order 66 was also direct aggression towards the Jedi.

This kinda reminds me of WWII. Common western perception is everyone thinks Hitler and Stalin were evil, but were they really? The f*ck? Are you high?

JediRobin23
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The f*ck? Are you high?

No, why do you say that?

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by JediRobin23
No, why do you say that? Because you said this:

Originally posted by JediRobin23
Common western perception is everyone thinks Hitler and Stalin were evil, but were they really?

JediRobin23
Are you high? explain yourself, dont just say aggressive comments without saying anything else

Lord Lucien
If I have to explain why that post was absurd, then you need to take a good look at yourself.

JediRobin23
I didn't say that they were not evil. If you start questioning that if the sith are not evil, then what makes that different then the dictators in WWII

Lord Lucien
Because the dictators of WWII were real people who slaughtered millions of real people. They are demonstrably, incontrovertibly evil.

The Sith are a work of a fiction in a poorly written movie trilogy. If you're going to ask glib questions for the sake of comparison, then make sure to frame them as such. If you don't, you'll come off as a crass, twisted individual with a warped view of morality.


And the killing Younglings thing only occurred after the Sith were outed. The OP is questioning the Jedi opposition prior to that.

focus4chumps
whatever point you intended to make, it obviously didn't go over as you intended.

JediRobin23
If you recall is Lucas's interview with Kathleen Kennedy, Lucas speaks out in direct comparison with Dictatorships to his movies and how it can happen again in the real world as it did over and over in history. Lucas comes across as making his movies symbolize what can happen

The younglings thing was when Obiwan said to Anakin during the last battle ' Chancellor Palpatine was evil' then Anakin ' from my point of view the jedi are evil'. This was after Anakin killed younglings

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by JediRobin23
umm...you mean killing young-lings is not evil? Palpatine corrupting Anakin to do this would indicate hes evil.

Order 66 was also direct aggression towards the Jedi.

This kinda reminds me of WWII. Common western perception is everyone thinks Hitler and Stalin were evil, but were they really?

Quoted straight from our old friend Wookipedia

As decipted in several sources and video games, the Imperials assaulted Yavin 4 as a counterattack.

No. Order 66 was done to protect Sidious/Palpatine from religious persecution from the Jedi. Even if the galactic sized Clone Wars and the naboo invasion had never happened, Mace Windu would still go to kill Sidious/Palpatine, for the sake of preventing the supposed "sith oppression" from returning.

The Sith religion was outlawed around the time of the Russan Reformation.

The Force went out of its way to concieve a being to kill the Sith, to, key word, bring balance to the force. The Jedi were persecuting the Sith due to the Sith imbalancing the Force, a purely religious thing, and Order 66 was done by Palpatine to defend himself against the persecutors.

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Because the dictators of WWII were real people who slaughtered millions of real people. They are demonstrably, incontrovertibly evil.

The Sith are a work of a fiction in a poorly written movie trilogy. If you're going to ask glib questions for the sake of comparison, then make sure to frame them as such. If you don't, you'll come off as a crass, twisted individual with a warped view of morality.


And the killing Younglings thing only occurred after the Sith were outed. The OP is questioning the Jedi opposition prior to that.

The killing of the younglings, not to mention the deaths of about 10,000 Jedi during Order 66, happened before Mace Windu went to go kill Sidious and it happened before the animosity between Mace Windu and the Sith (and in TPM, when the jedi council had anakin they talked about their sith enemies, which was long before the naboo invasion or the clone wars too).

Not to mention the fact that Order 66 never would have happened if the Jedi weren't so hell bent on wiping out the Sith Order.

Order 66, was after all, self defense against the Jedi.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by PhoenixSam5
Mace Windu would still go to kill Sidious/Palpatine Uh, he actually went to arrest him. If Palpatine (a super popular politician) had intended to prevent himself from being persecuted, he would have let himself be arrested and use the law to attack to the Jedi. Instead he whipped out a sword and killed three of them.


That's not a persecuted religious man, that's a supremely powerful leader of the government cutting down three people who went to arrest him---and arrest him not for his ideology, but for his refusal to surrender his dictatorial powers.

Originally posted by PhoenixSam5
The killing of the younglings, not to mention the deaths of about 10,000 Jedi during Order 66, happened before Mace Windu went to go kill Sidious and it happened before the animosity between Mace Windu and the Sith No, it didn't. You need to re-watch that film.

Originally posted by PhoenixSam5
Not to mention the fact that Order 66 never would have happened if the Jedi weren't so hell bent on wiping out the Sith Order. No, they weren't. The films make it abundantly clear that the opposite is true, and the Jedi are only determined to wipe out the Sith after the Sith had nearly wiped out them.

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Uh, he actually went to arrest him. If Palpatine (a super popular politician) had intended to prevent himself from being persecuted, he would have let himself be arrested and use the law to attack to the Jedi. Instead he whipped out a sword and killed three of them.


That's not a persecuted religious man, that's a supremely powerful leader of the government cutting down three people who went to arrest him---and arrest him not for his ideology, but for his refusal to surrender his dictatorial powers.

No, it didn't. You need to re-watch that film.

Order 66 happened after the Jedi and the Sith's unexplained animosity between each other. Not before! Get your facts straight, bro!

"the oppression of the sith will never return".

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by PhoenixSam5
Order 66 happened after the Jedi and the Sith's unexplained animosity between each other. Not before! Get your facts straight, bro!

"the oppression of the sith will never return". You said the Youngilng's deaths and Order 66 happened before Mace went to kill Sidious. You said it right here:

Originally posted by PhoenixSam5
The killing of the younglings, not to mention the deaths of about 10,000 Jedi during Order 66, happened before Mace Windu went to go kill Sidious



That is incorrect. Get your facts straight, brah.

JediRobin23
What is everyone defending the Sith? Didn't Lucas intend them to be evil......

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You said the Youngilng's deaths and Order 66 happened before Mace went to kill Sidious. You said it right here:





That is incorrect. Get your facts straight, brah.

Order 66 was a result of the Jedi-Sith animosity, and it did certainly make the Jedi even more angry at the Sith, but that alone was not the pure cause of it.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by JediRobin23
What is everyone defending the Sith? Didn't Lucas intend them to be evil...... Yes, he just really sucked at establishing that fact.


Originally posted by PhoenixSam5
Order 66 was a result of the Jedi-Sith animosity, and it did certainly make the Jedi even more angry at the Sith, but that alone was not the pure cause of it. That had absolutely nothing to do with what I just said. Way to beat around the bush.

JediRobin23
The Jedi learned Palpatine was a sith lord that was behind starting the war since TPM.

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by JediRobin23
The Jedi learned Palpatine was a sith lord that was behind starting the war since TPM.

I love to indulge into hypothethicals partially, and crucially to this discussion, because hypothethicals help me to understand the "real main storyline" much more.

That's very hard to explain. I won't explain how just right now.

OK, but here's the hypothethical. What if Palpatine wasn't the person that started the Clone Wars, but the Jedi still found out that he was a Sith Lord.

They still would try to kill/arrest him, because of "the oppression of the Sith will never return", and in TPM, the Sith were heavily implied to be the Jedi's enemies, long before the Naboo Invasion.

focus4chumps
Originally posted by PhoenixSam5

OK, but here's the hypothethical. What if Palpatine wasn't the person that started the Clone Wars, but the Jedi still found out that he was a Sith Lord.

They still would try to kill/arrest him, because of "the oppression of the Sith will never return", and in TPM, the Sith were heavily implied to be the Jedi's enemies, long before the Naboo Invasion.

true. but this is not to be confused with people being arrested for dabbling in the dark side. the sith is not only a couple of people using the dark side of the force, nor just a religious sect, but also a deposed and condemned criminal totalitarianism. since the old order was still in place (that past the apparent sentence on the sith) they were in fact criminals at large.

arrest: justified

and yes i know thats not a helpful answer. just pointing out that this particular question is a dead end, imho.

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Uh, he actually went to arrest him. If Palpatine (a super popular politician) had intended to prevent himself from being persecuted, he would have let himself be arrested and use the law to attack to the Jedi. Instead he whipped out a sword and killed three of them.


That's not a persecuted religious man, that's a supremely powerful leader of the government cutting down three people who went to arrest him---and arrest him not for his ideology, but for his refusal to surrender his dictatorial powers.

No, it didn't. You need to re-watch that film.

No, they weren't. The films make it abundantly clear that the opposite is true, and the Jedi are only determined to wipe out the Sith after the Sith had nearly wiped out them.

No. Well then, why did Sidious have Order 66 happen?

The Sith oppression seems to heavily hint/imply that even if Sids had no death star, the Jedi still wouldn't let a Sith rule the galaxy.

SevenShackles
Order 66.. Wasn't that just another part of the overall big plan of palpatine? He manipulated nearly everything in the prequels. Created a clone army before it was needed to use them to defeat the droid army he was secretly commanding.. The dude was having a civil war with himself and manipulated the Jedi his only real opposition to power into joining the war threw the threat of the sith. As in Mauls presence alerting the Jedi of sith manipulation in the hostilities on naboo and putting them in a state of alert. The Jedi fought the war as generals and got stretched thin across the universe.. Then when things seemed to be reaching it's end and the separatist forces were on the ropes Palpatine deemed the Jedi traitors and issued ordered 66. Why? My impression was it was a 'fail safe' order given to the clones from the start just in case the Jedi turned. So when palpatine felt compromised he issued the order to kill as many Jedi off as he possibly could without having to do it himself.
It also cut all support from the people toward the Jedi and solidified him as the good guy. Everything was played out to make him the hero and insure his galactic throne.

He started a galactic war ending countless lives all so he could manipulate politics and as the man who lead them to victory would ensure galactic peace by establishing a galactic empire.

That's evil, sith or not.

Why are sith evil? They have no regard for life and viciously seek power. Rule of two isn't a religious belief it's a rule established to keep the number of rivals low but still have an apprentice to further your goals.
At one point there were alot of sith.. And when every sith wants unlimited power and to rule then suddenly the people to worry most about are other sith. So rule of two. Clean and effective.

Was vader evil is what can be argued and honestly despite being given a fancy name I don't consider him a real sith. He failed to fully give himself to the dark side he just existed in some sort of limbo of sorts. Real sith could of wtf owned his son for not listening. It's the nature of dark side. Anakin was emotional and selfish (something a Jedi is not supposed to be) and vadar was broken but powerful and was used as a tool.

focus4chumps
Originally posted by PhoenixSam5
No. Well then, why did Sidious have Order 66 happen?

The Sith oppression seems to heavily hint/imply that even if Sids had no death star, the Jedi still wouldn't let a Sith rule the galaxy.

he executed the order and the jedi because the sith are inherently evil. the nature of evil is to consume everything and achieve absolute power, crushing all who oppose and all on the same planet as those who oppose...as in the context of the films.

SevenShackles
Also on the topic of the death star.. They are not evil because they have a death star but the fact they created it at all never mind their intentions of using it as a tool of oppression and eradicating enemies along with the innocents of complete planets.

Because they don't have a death star or that it's construction wasn't known doesnt mean that somehow the Jedi are not justified in thinking their evil.

The Jedi are like monks and conduct themselves in certain ways and have respect for life even if they must take one to save many. The sith perverse their teachings and instead of being selfless are selfish and rather rule than serve. Not to mention i doubt they want their century old shame (the sith) to be common knowledge for all the universe to know.
The windu comment of their former oppressive rule was a hint to a longer history between the two factions and the fact that palpatine is instigating a galactic war which he is manipulating from both sides (something we know as viewers) that is causing chaos and death hints that that's the sith MO more or less.

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by focus4chumps
he executed the order and the jedi because the sith are inherently evil. the nature of evil is to consume everything and achieve absolute power, crushing all who oppose and all on the same planet as those who oppose...as in the context of the films.

Ahh, the Jedi opposed him. So, the arguement that the Jedi wanted to kill the Sith out of self defense after the Sith tried to kill them first is now INVALID!

But here's the plot hole. He was clouding their minds with the darkside.

The Jedi would have no idea that he's a Sith if their minds were so clouded with the darkside. If Palpatine never revealed his Sith identity to Mace Windu and kit fisto and the other two guys via telling Anakin, they would never know.

They never knew that he was a Sith beforehand because of that.

So, the arguement that Palpatine killed them because they wouldn't allow a Sith Lord to rule the galaxy is false/invalid.

And, besides, yes, what if some random Sith guy that didn't commit treason became the ruler, and the Jedi found out that he was a sith lord?

Please list some EU sith atrocities for me!

Prove to me that the Jedi didn't arrest you simply for dabbling in the darkside, whoever wrote that post before. Please give me some examples of people legally being allowed by the Jedi/Republic. to practice the darkside

focus4chumps
Originally posted by PhoenixSam5
Ahh, the Jedi opposed him. So, the arguement that the Jedi wanted to kill the Sith out of self defense after the Sith tried to kill them first is now INVALID!

i was speaking in terms of republic law, not the jedi order. "in the name of the republic blah blah you are under arrest", remember?

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by SevenShackles
Also on the topic of the death star.. They are not evil because they have a death star but the fact they created it at all never mind their intentions of using it as a tool of oppression and eradicating enemies along with the innocents of complete planets.

Because they don't have a death star or that it's construction wasn't known doesnt mean that somehow the Jedi are not justified in thinking their evil.

The Jedi are like monks and conduct themselves in certain ways and have respect for life even if they must take one to save many. The sith perverse their teachings and instead of being selfless are selfish and rather rule than serve. Not to mention i doubt they want their century old shame (the sith) to be common knowledge for all the universe to know.
The windu comment of their former oppressive rule was a hint to a longer history between the two factions and the fact that palpatine is instigating a galactic war which he is manipulating from both sides (something we know as viewers) that is causing chaos and death hints that that's the sith MO more or less.

Sith oppression is not a reference to the treasonous clone wars. Here's why.

In TPM, even before the Naboo Invasion and the clone wars, the Jedi talked about the Sith as if they were discussing some ancient boogeyman enemy figures.

focus4chumps
im not trying to pimp the old circular argument of "they were evil because they were enemies of the state" or vice versa. im just suggesting that you're attacking the problem from a poor angle. the sith were in fact enemies of the state, as suggested by the arrest. i dont think moral implications are absolute either way so its a moot point.

SevenShackles
Originally posted by PhoenixSam5
Sith oppression is not a reference to the treasonous clone wars. Here's why.

In TPM, even before the Naboo Invasion and the clone wars, the Jedi talked about the Sith as if they were discussing some ancient boogeyman enemy figures.

Because they were. They didn't think any sith still existed.
Windu didn't reference the clone wars. Hell they didn't even know the clones would betray them and if you mean as a reference to him manipulating the war of course it wasn't. They have no way of knowing all at information. All they know is that sith were involved in the war. Dooku was believed to be head of the serpitist and then suddenly Anakin says that Palpatine was a sith and suddenly all the odd little suspicions they had of him and his motivations made sense and they wanted to arrest him and most likely question him to figure out what was really going on. Why? Because he is a sith a corrupted Jedi. No one knows more what they are capable of than the Jedi so they practiced caution.

Also they don't kill all those who slip into the dark side. They try to redeem them and turn them back to the light side. Killing is a last resort in those cases and often is in self defense. If the threat is a sith lord.. A person who has dedicated their lives to the perversions of the dark side and someone who only seeks power, death and the control of others then they fight them to the death. As Jedi it's their responsability to handle their dark brethren.

SevenShackles
The Hundred-Year Darkness, also known as Second Great Schism, was a conflict that began in 7,003 BBY, and lasted until approximately 6,900 BBY, when a group of Dark Jedi created monstrous armies to battle the Jedi Order and the Galactic Republic. After decades of fighting, the Dark Jedi lost the war, in its final battle, but went on to conquer Korriban, and found the Sith.

There.. The founding of the sith order after a failed attempt to destroy/over throw the Jedi and the galactic republic. Evil roots to a evil way of life.

focus4chumps
meh thats EU. your points have to be based on canon.

SevenShackles
Originally posted by focus4chumps
meh thats EU. your points have to be based on canon.


Figured instead of a list just sharing the blood soaked 'origin' was better.

focus4chumps
sorry. its a nervouse twitch.

SevenShackles
Originally posted by focus4chumps
sorry. its a nervouse twitch.
Lol no problem and understandable big grin

Ushgarak
Ok, this thread was clearly not created with proper discussion in mind, so closed.

Ushgarak
Ok, I've re-opened this on request, on the understanding that I'll close it again if it continues to go nowhere.

Q99
Keep in mind the Sith literally started the entire Clone Wars so that they could take out the Jedi. They were playing both sides.

So, in the PT, they did a heck of a lot. The Jedi didn't know about both sides, but did know the Sith were leading the CIS (via Dooku), and the CIS was not exactly nice in themselves. They also knew Maul had killed one of their more respected masters and appeared to be behind the blockade of Naboo. In short, from their point of view, the Sith were pulling the strings that started a galactic war, and they didn't even realize just how many strings were being pulled.


Their older reputation goes back, obviously, not to the current sith, but prior ones. Which the movies don't talk about too much aside from them using the dark side- which is all about anger and hatred and such. Basically we have no signs that they were any nicer than Sidious, Tyranus, and Vader.

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by Q99
Keep in mind the Sith literally started the entire Clone Wars so that they could take out the Jedi. They were playing both sides.

So, in the PT, they did a heck of a lot. The Jedi didn't know about both sides, but did know the Sith were leading the CIS (via Dooku), and the CIS was not exactly nice in themselves. They also knew Maul had killed one of their more respected masters and appeared to be behind the blockade of Naboo. In short, from their point of view, the Sith were pulling the strings that started a galactic war, and they didn't even realize just how many strings were being pulled.


Their older reputation goes back, obviously, not to the current sith, but prior ones. Which the movies don't talk about too much aside from them using the dark side- which is all about anger and hatred and such. Basically we have no signs that they were any nicer than Sidious, Tyranus, and Vader.

This thread is not just about the evilness of the Sith/the galactic empire, but also about the justness of the rebels waging the Galactic Civil War. It's about the moral and ethical natures of both factions in the star wars saga.

While, yes, I definitley agree with you on this one. Some Sith did many evil things just to gain more p

But, from my POV, bringing justice to Sidious for starting the clone wars and the naboo crisis don't justify a giant galactic civil war that costed millions of lives!

And, besides, the OT never mentions the clone wars being the cause of the rebellion. Hell, the clone wars were a mystery back then, let alone the cause of the main OT's plot-the rebellion!

Why should billions of people suffer from war and why should more violence and suffering and destruction be caused just for the sake of punishing palpatine for invading naboo and starting the clone wars? Two wrongs DONT make a right.

That's vengance. Regardless of how evil a person may be, vengance is always the wrong answer.

Some wars, such as WW2, prevented more future suffering.

focus4chumps
Originally posted by PhoenixSam5

But, from my POV, bringing justice to Sidious for starting the clone wars and the naboo crisis don't justify a giant galactic civil war that costed millions of lives!

you're attempting to rationalize that they should have allowed a mass-murderer to stay in office to avoid further bloodshed?

Originally posted by PhoenixSam5
And, besides, the OT never mentions the clone wars being the cause of the rebellion. Hell, the clone wars were a mystery back then, let alone the cause of the main OT's plot-the rebellion!

Why should billions of people suffer from war and why should more violence and suffering and destruction be caused just for the sake of punishing palpatine for invading naboo and starting the clone wars? Two wrongs DONT make a right.

again you are misrepresenting the issue and being disingenuous. the jedi did not arrest palpatine out of spite or vengeance. he was a war criminal and if allowed to stay in power he would have taken exponentially more lives....which he DID.

Originally posted by PhoenixSam5
That's vengance. Regardless of how evil a person may be, vengance is always the wrong answer.

again, i think you should stop trying to convince people that you are still formulating your understanding of SW characters. its painfully obvious that your mind is made up.

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by focus4chumps
you're attempting to rationalize that they should have allowed a mass-murderer to stay in office to avoid further bloodshed?



again you are misrepresenting the issue and being disingenuous. the jedi did not arrest palpatine out of spite or vengeance. he was a war criminal and if allowed to stay in power he would have taken exponentially more lives....which he DID.



again, i think you should stop trying to convince people that you are still formulating your understanding of SW characters. its painfully obvious that your mind is made up.

Waging war is stop future bloodshed is not evil, it's quite the opposite in fact.

Defeating Hitler saved millions of innocent lives from genocide in the long run, despite the deaths that happened during the war.

It was absolutley worth it in the long run defeating the Nazis, even if it meant putting aside our differences with the evil Soviets, because, despite the fact that Stalin killed more people than Hitler did, much of Stalin's high death tolls happened and what's in the past cannot be changed. Hitler's government would have killed more people had the nazis never been defeated than Stalin's government did after/during WW2. In the long run, defeating Hitler saved more lives than the lives that were lost by allowing Stalin's goverment to still exist. The worst of the Soviet atrocities were done and over with. The worst of the nazi atrocities had yet to come.

Without the heroic Russians, we would have lost ww2!

Palpatine DID exponetionally take more lives, but that was because of the rebels waging a war against him. Which if they never reblled against him, luke's aunt and uncle wouldn't have been killed, and alderaan wouldnt have been blown up.

Retaliation against an evil ruler, regardless of how sick, evil, and depraved he may be, is only justified if that war will prevent more future suffering. That's sorta like how my ww2 analogy works.

focus4chumps
Originally posted by PhoenixSam5

Palpatine DID exponetionally take more lives, but that was because of the rebels waging a war against him.

right so palpatine would have just retired to the galactic version of florida if it wasnt for the rebels.

well that solves the dilemma i've been having over whether or not to take you seriously.

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by focus4chumps
right so palpatine would have just retired to the galactic version of florida if it wasnt for the rebels.

well that solves the dilemma i've been having over whether or not to take you seriously.

Let me ask you some rhetorical questions.

Would Owen and beru lars have been killed if the rebels never stole the death star plans in their fight/war against the Empire?

Would Alderaan have been destroyed if not for Tarkin wanting to spite Princeess Leia?

The answer to both of those questions is no.

focus4chumps
Originally posted by PhoenixSam5

Would Alderaan have been destroyed if not for Tarkin wanting to spite Princeess Leia?

yes yes i get it. it was LEIA's fault alderaan was destroyed, and not the people who destroyed it.

i hope ush is beginning to realize what a dreadful mistake he made by reopening this.

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by focus4chumps
yes yes i get it. it was LEIA's fault alderaan was destroyed, and not the people who destroyed it.

i hope ush is beginning to realize what a dreadful mistake he made by reopening this.

ad hominem attacks don't work against my arguements. I'm having a productive discussion, as evident by my below, more detailed arguements. Reopening this thread will work if you do what I'm doing and have a productive discussion.

Your arguement was that even if the rebellion didn't exist, Palps would still commit atroicites against his people. I refuted your claims by giving two examples that proved my point that the rebels provoked imperial atrocities.

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by focus4chumps
yes yes i get it. it was LEIA's fault alderaan was destroyed, and not the people who destroyed it.

i hope ush is beginning to realize what a dreadful mistake he made by reopening this.

Hold on a second, let me find some quotes from the movie dialogue to argue for my position.

PhoenixSam5
Quoted straight from blueharvest.net

TAGGE: The Rebellion will continue to gain a support in the Imperial
Senate as long as....

TARKIN: The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us.
I've just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council
permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept
away.

TAGGE: That's impossible! How will the Emperor maintain control
without the bureaucracy?

TARKIN: The regional governors now have direct control over
territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this
battle station.

TAGGE: And what of the Rebellion?

And from a different movie scene.

TARKIN: Perhaps she would respond to an alternative form of
persuasion.

VADER: What do you mean?

TARKIN: I think it is time we demonstrate the full power of this
station. (to soldier) Set your course for Princess Leia's home planet
of Alderaan.

TARKIN: Princess Leia, before your execution I would like you to be my
guest at a ceremony that will make this battle station operational. No
star system will dare oppose the Emperor now.

LEIA: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems
will slip through your fingers.

TARKIN: Not after we demonstrate the power of this station. In a way,
you have determined the choice of the planet that'll be destroyed
first. Since you are reluctant to provide us with the location of the
Rebel base, I have chosen to test this station's destructive power...
on your home planet of Alderaan.

LEIA: No! Alderaan is peaceful. We have no weapons. You can't
possibly...

TARKIN: You would prefer another target? A military target? Then name
the system!

Tarkin waves menacingly toward Leia.

TARKIN: I grow tired of asking this. So it'll be the last time. Where
is the Rebel base?

Leia overhears an intercom voice announcing the approach to
Alderaan.

LEIA: (softly) Dantooine.

Leia lowers her head.

LEIA: They're on Dantooine.

TARKIN: There. You see Lord Vader, she can be reasonable. (addressing
Motti) Continue with the operation. You may fire when ready.

LEIA: What?

TARKIN: You're far too trusting. Dantooine is too remote to make an
effective demonstration. But don't worry. We will deal with your Rebel
friends soon enough.

All of that dialogue proves that Alderaan's destruction was to spite Leia.

Your earlier arguement that if the rebels allowed Palps to stay in power and they didn't do anything about it, he still would have commited atrocities, is proven false by my quotes/evidence.

focus4chumps
Originally posted by PhoenixSam5

Your earlier arguement that if the rebels allowed Palps to stay in power and they didn't do anything about it, he still would have commited atrocities, is proven false by my quotes/evidence.

you are either logically challenged or just trolling at this point.

focus4chumps
your painfully fallacious logic can be applied to rape and abuse apologist rhetoric.

"if she had just stfu when she was told... i mean just look at her. two black eyes, so she was obviously told twice. she caused this violence"

Imaginary
Originally posted by focus4chumps
your painfully fallacious logic can be applied to rape and abuse apologist rhetoric.

"if she had just stfu when she was told... i mean just look at her. two black eyes, so she was obviously told twice. she caused this violence"

I was actually thinking the same thing reading through this thread and seeing this guy claim that the Rebellion or Jedi 'provoked' a reaction from the, you know, evil dictatorial folk.

That's why the Sith are evil, that is why the Empire is evil. It represents the decision of a handful of people who think that they are so much better than everyone else in the galaxy that they deserve to rule them. Their subjects have no recourse, no say in anything but probably the daily minutiae of life. That is evil.

PhoenixSam5
It's very true that Padme and the Jedi didn't know about the death star, but they knew that Palpatine was a Sith and that the Sith were ancient enemies, with a very bad track record of evil.

Did they know about the death star? No.

Did they know about the Sith (the bad guy's) specific pattern of behavior? Yes.

For example, even before Hitler started the Holocaust, people knew that he was a bad guy and that he was going to do more bad stuff in the future because of his very bad track record of invading other countries and taking away people's rights and freedoms and having an autocracy.

Despite the fact that the movie was very vague about this, in TPM, we learn from the Jedi that the Sith are old enemies, even before the naboo invasion. They were an ancient evil that returned, implying that they have a very long bad history as the jedi's enemies.

So, I want a list of EU pre-prequel era sith atrocities that gave them a bad history and made them evil to the Jedi and Padme.

focus4chumps
Originally posted by PhoenixSam5

So, I want a list of EU pre-prequel era sith atrocities that gave them a bad history and made them evil to the Jedi and Padme.

i think you might enjoy this forum more

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by focus4chumps
i think you might enjoy this forum more

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6

Does it violate the forum's rules to make a list of EU Sith atrocities here?

focus4chumps
yes but its also generally accepted etiquette on the interwebs.

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by focus4chumps
yes but its also generally accepted etiquette on the interwebs.

What is?

focus4chumps
not citing licensed spin-off literature in a canon disussion.

Ushgarak
Just to be clear, this thread is not about the morality of both factions in both eras. There's no doubt about that. The Rebels are the good guys and without that basic assumption the entire setup does not work. If you want to make a thread attacking GL's moral simplicity then fine, but there's really nowhere to go with it. And indeed, forget about the EU here.

One last chance for this thread to produce anything interesting about the way the Sith ware portrayed.

Lord Lucien
They were portrayed interestingly, so case closed.

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Just to be clear, this thread is not about the morality of both factions in both eras. There's no doubt about that. The Rebels are the good guys and without that basic assumption the entire setup does not work. If you want to make a thread attacking GL's moral simplicity then fine, but there's really nowhere to go with it. And indeed, forget about the EU here.

One last chance for this thread to produce anything interesting about the way the Sith ware portrayed.

Please, lock this thread. I'm going to create a thread in the EU about Sith atrocities in the pre-prequel era, and yeah, this thread, as you said, is going nowhere.

PhoenixSam5
Before locking this thread, i have one last question. Before the Naboo blockade and the clone wars, what exactly did the Sith do that made them the enemies of the Jedi (no EU involved).

focus4chumps
Originally posted by PhoenixSam5
Before locking this thread, i have one last question. Before the Naboo blockade and the clone wars, what exactly did the Sith do that made them the enemies of the Jedi (no EU involved).

the only evidence is very vague, but we're left to infer that the sith pulled off a military coup a thousand years before and that the events of the PT was simply history repeating itself. again, vague evidence so even that is speculative.

-Pr-
Thank god for the EU, is all I'll say.

Yeah, in the movies, though, the audience got a better explanation of why the Sith were evil than the actual "good" characters did.

focus4chumps
an issue thats always haunted me...


it seems that the jedi order was simply a fail-safe for a sith return. i mean what was their job otherwise? diplomats? since when does one need to perform magic in diplomacy? i have the impression from the PT that the galactic republic saw fit to keep them around for just that reason and kept them busy in civil service (to justify funding them perhaps?)

SevenShackles
Originally posted by focus4chumps
an issue thats always haunted me...


it seems that the jedi order was simply a fail-safe for a sith return. i mean what was their job otherwise? diplomats? since when does one need to perform magic in diplomacy? i have the impression from the PT that the galactic republic saw fit to keep them around for just that reason and kept them busy in civil service (to justify funding them perhaps?)

Now that you mention it that does seem odd.. Also seem like a handy deterrent to those who would seek to cause galactic mayhem by opposing the senate.

Lol when I first saw them as diplomats the first thing i thought was "oh so those guys are causing trouble and they I'll Jedi mind trick their leaders into stopping" but I guess that might make some sort of ethicical issue. But yeah Jedi seemed feared so it was like sending a warhead to talk diplomacy lol.

-Pr-
"Negotiations with a lightsaber".

Honestly though, the movies failed to show us the breadth of their work. Again, it's the EU that gave us that, which is sad, really.

focus4chumps
the only EU i like are the ones divorced from the saga. i dont need my cinema experience corrected by someone else's literature. if its awesome (OT) i will treasure it forever. if not, i will disavow it and look forward to a hopefully bright future with a mickey mouse hat.

Ushgarak
Ok, seems we are done then!

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.