Can the Dark Side be used for good?

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



Nephthys
kU764RI-aVw

Thoughts on this? You don't need to watch the video, I'm just curious about what people think about this topic.

I personally think that it can be used for good, but only as a necessary evil to combat a greater threat. The dark side is corruptive in nature. Even if you try to use it with good intentions, it will warp your thoughts and feed the negative aspects of yourself until you have fallen.

So with the example of say, Revan using dark methods that led to his fall to combat the Mandalorians, I believe that that was him using the dark side in a good way. He saved the Republic. But in doing so he did fall.

psmith81992
As Dennis Prager once said, if it's necessary, it's no longer an evil. Anyways yes, the first Jedi on Tython have shown that using the Dark Side can be positive in some cases.

juyomaster34
I agree with both of you guys,...
Revan did use the dark side with good intensions.
When he and Malak confronted the Emperor and lost...it was time to test the defenses
of the Republic with him (Darth Revan )as a threat but also as a test.

Malak couldn't see or understand the plan or the logic in leaving key planets and people
in place to secure the Republic. He couldn't understand to limit his visiting to and fro
of the Star Forge...

So yes it can be...in some cases...The first Je'daii used both sides of the Force.
So did Revan...I believe even when he was a Dark Lord..Revan was laying the foundation
to a new way to use the Force...

A way that was still under construction when he fought the Emperor for the second time...

Stealth Moose
I think part of the issue is that "Dark Side" is a misnomer; sentients in the SW galaxy have capacity for both good and evil, and the context is largely set not by some higher power, but by the individuals interpreting the actions. The Jedi had no issue with rationalizing the wholesale slaughter of the Sith people on Korriban and the nearby Ancient Sith Empire, but they find it reprehensible to do the same to other species who they feel do not embrace or represent the 'Dark Side'.

The Jedi supported the Republic for thousands of years, even though it persisted in crimes against humanity and war crimes from Belsavis to the breach of peace at Balmorra to the Untouchables living on the lower levels of Coruscant. They even moved their spiritual center to be closer to the heart of the Republic, merging with it utterly.

Compared to this, Sidious' Sith Empire is on similar moral grounds. Oppression, class systems, economic strife, bureaucracy at lower levels being corrupted, etc. is endemic of the Republic as well as all "Dark Side" led empires.

In fact, groups that aren't truly good or evil (but would fail the Jedi purity test) would include the Matukai, the Zeison Sha, the Jal Shey, Potentium 'heretics', and the Followers of Palawa.

Nephthys
"Dark Side" isn't really a misnomer. It is literally an evil force that when you use it amplifies your negative emotions and corrupts your thought process.

Stealth Moose
Except evil is subjective. I even bear a quote on this in your profile, sir.

psmith81992
At least the Sith don't lie about who they are.

Stealth Moose
My biggest issue is that the Jedi don't follow a universal code of behavior based on consistently applied moral values. They just use hocus pocus monk bullshit logic to mask their inability to decide because they fear "falling to the Dark Side", and their phobia of it is so profound they punish, exile, or alienate their students and peers. Hell, look at the Tython questlines; count how many times you see students disbanded from the Order for having teenaged romance, or asking someone else to help them lift a rock or some other stupid test of character.

Then the Jedi have some of their own locked up on Belsavis, being subjected to inhumane behavioral tests, shock collars, cage fights, etc. They previously walked above the impoverished masses below the top levels of Coruscant. And they committed genocide on behalf of the chancellor of the Republic.

I'm not saying all Jedi are inherently horrible creatures; they have some genuinely good people among them. But as a moral collective, they suck bad and they should not be considered paragons to the pure evil that is the Dark Side or its users.

Nephthys
Originally posted by psmith81992
At least the Sith don't lie about who they are.

I'll take being a hypocrite over being a murderous psycho any day.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Except evil is subjective. I even bear a quote on this in your profile, sir.

Riiight, except the darkside does make you into what most people would call a very bad person. The darkside fills you with uncontrollable, murderous rage and intensifies feelings of jealousy, fear and hate.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Nephthys
I'll take being a hypocrite over being a murderous psycho any day.

Just basically implicit in an Order that condones murder and genocide because people happen to be vassals of the wrong side, right?



And the "Light Siders" can do some very bad things too. They can rationalize dehumanizing people, lacking compassion because they stick to ideals. Hence the heavy-handed tests of character on Tython. Then you have the Agricultural Corps, which is basically like the dumb class for Force users who didn't make the cut, perpetually reminded of their inability to make the grade but unable to live on their own as free individuals.

You have Yoda who advocates manipulating Luke and lying to him to fight the Sith he failed to defeat. Yoda and Mace are the two most narrow-minded members of the Jedi council (with the rest being sycophants or simply neutral in most debates) and their handing of Skywalker, the war, and mistrust in Qui-Gon who is a 'rogue' in their ranks pretty much ensures the fall of the Order.

I'm not saying the Jedi are equal to the Sith or Dark Siders in terms of reproachability, but I am saying that they are perpetuating horrible things, either through inaction, inability to relate to others, or misplaced idealism, and are a good example of "good is not nice" trope. The fact that they sometimes do morally questionable things while claiming to follow their Code just proves the point.

Here, read this.

Then reflect on all the times the Jedi violated these tenets they claim to hold dear. Think of how they do not protect the weak who suffer slavery in the Hutt controlled regions of space. On Tattooine, Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan do nothing to help Anakin's mom. And they don't seem overly troubled at the prospect. Yoda, upon learning the situation, doesn't pull from the considerable coffers of the Jedi Order to pay for her release and set her up comfortably even if maintaining the distance factor for Anakin's sake. Instead, she's left to a life of abuse and eventually death.

Think of the economical and social inequality on Coruscant and other Core worlds, where people are treated unequally, without common respect belonging to all sentients. In fact, whether or not the world is a Republic possession seems irrelevant when the Jedi only seem to intervene when the Council and/or Senate approves of it. In this, they're really a pseudo-holy order mercenary group, and any individualism is considered wrong.

Work with me here.

juyomaster34
Really?
I thought it was the other way around?
Kyle Katarn said it best...I'll have his quote on this soon...

I agree with nephthys on this one...

Nephthys
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Just basically implicit in an Order that condones murder and genocide because people happen to be vassals of the wrong side, right?

A genocide that only took place because the Sith Empire launched an unprovoked war of conquest on the Republic and showed no signs of being willing to negotiate. Hell, Naga Sadow showed just how dangerous a single Sith could be, arguably justifying that attempt to wipe them out. And the Jedi condone murder only in self-defense or against beings who are clearly a threat to life and freedom i.e. monsters like the Sith who enslave entire species and kill people for giggles. Even then the policy of the Jedi is to preserve life if they can:

"The Jedi do not believe in killing their prisoners. No one deserves execution, no matter what their crimes." - Bastila Shan.

Hell, even in TOR multiple Jedi say that they'd be more than willing to work towards a peace with the Empire if the Sith were cooperative.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
And the "Light Siders" can do some very bad things too.

True, but those are failings of judgement, not because the Light Side corrupts their thoughts and feelings to make them do those things. The Dark Side does. It makes you "evil", meaning a psychopath who doesn't care about the lives of others, even enjoys killing and is consumed by the most destructive emotions people have.

I'm not talking about Jedi vs Sith, I'm arguing about why the dark side isn't a force for good in the long term. Sure, sometimes a Jedi does evil things, but they are the exception. The ones who fail to live up to the ideals that the Jedi believe in. The Sith commit the crimes you're accusing the Jedi of on a daily basis, because they don't ****ing care about the lives of other people other than as vehicles for their own glorification. Because the Dark Side is capital E evil.

Stealth Moose
Well, the point is that a binary explanation of "act is light or dark, good or bad" again doesn't have any universal moral standard to be applied here. The Jedi view morality as relative to their fear of the dark side and their lot with the Republic. The Sith view morality as relative to their personal ambition and their ability to self-actualize. The former is collectivistic, and hates individualism; the latter is the exact opposite. The former prefers order and stability, bordering on stagnation and lack of innovation, while the latter is chaotic, with the status quo rapidly changing and new things being discovered constantly.

Your average Sith is more evil than your average Jedi, but to say that all Sith are Evil, is as fallacy-ridden as saying all Jedi are Good, and that's because both have the capability to be either, to varying degrees. A lot of times the Slippery Slope idea is applied to use of the Dark Side, and GL is quite frankly to blame for this idea. EU has been less obedient to the concept, because different writers think different ways on the same moral problem.

Take a medieval knight as a worldly example: this individual can use wealth, influence, martial power to do good or bad, or some of both, depending on circumstances, temperament, outside influences, etc. You wouldn't arbitrarily say that his use of the sword is always wrong, in the same way you wouldn't say his refraining from use of his sword is always right. Morality isn't as cut and dry as the Jedi or Sith like to think it is.

Nephthys
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Well, the point is that a binary explanation of "act is light or dark, good or bad" again doesn't have any universal moral standard to be applied here. The Jedi view morality as relative to their fear of the dark side and their lot with the Republic. The Sith view morality as relative to their personal ambition and their ability to self-actualize. The former is collectivistic, and hates individualism; the latter is the exact opposite. The former prefers order and stability, bordering on stagnation and lack of innovation, while the latter is chaotic, with the status quo rapidly changing and new things being discovered constantly.

Your average Sith is more evil than your average Jedi, but to say that all Sith are Evil, is as fallacy-ridden as saying all Jedi are Good, and that's because both have the capability to be either, to varying degrees. A lot of times the Slippery Slope idea is applied to use of the Dark Side, and GL is quite frankly to blame for this idea. EU has been less obedient to the concept, because different writers think different ways on the same moral problem.

Take a medieval knight as a worldly example: this individual can use wealth, influence, martial power to do good or bad, or some of both, depending on circumstances, temperament, outside influences, etc. You wouldn't arbitrarily say that his use of the sword is always wrong, in the same way you wouldn't say his refraining from use of his sword is always right. Morality isn't as cut and dry as the Jedi or Sith like to think it is.

But the Jedi are only so afraid of the dark side because of the destructive potential even one or two darksiders can perform (Exar Kun anyone?). They are extremely restrictive only as a reaction to very real danger and evil of the dark side. You can't truly blame them for their possible overreactions when its the dark side that is the cause of the issue in the first place.

Not all Sith are evil, because not all Sith actually follow the dark side or have turned away from it. The Sith on Oricon is a great example of this if you go there. Of course in an entire race of beings there will be some who inhabit nobler qualities, but those examples are very much the exception. You only have to see the sheer bewilderment that comes from a Light Side Sith Warrior/Inquisitor as proof of that. And still, you're called a light side sith for a reason.

And the Slippery Slope is used because thats actually how the dark side operates. Caedus started out as not being an evil guy but he sure as shit was evil by the end.

As I say, it isn't as cut and dry as you think it is. You can't compare Jedi and Sith to real world Knights because a Knight isn't drawing on a source of power that dramatically increases his aggression and makes him uncaring of morality.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Nephthys
A genocide that only took place because the Sith Empire launched an unprovoked war of conquest on the Republic and showed no signs of being willing to negotiate. Hell, Naga Sadow showed just how dangerous a single Sith could be, arguably justifying that attempt to wipe them out. And the Jedi condone murder only in self-defense or against beings who are clearly a threat to life and freedom i.e. monsters like the Sith who enslave entire species and kill people for giggles.

And yet Sadow was slain, and his successor was slain as well. I think you're missing the point here; the Jedi simply didn't engage in a war to defend themselves up to a certain point where the enemy was no longer able to fight; they actually slaughtered Sith peoples and the lucky ones escaped. Odan-Urr spent the war learning to shut Sith off from the Force, but there's the glaring fact that Korriban in Kun's time (and presumably in Nadd's time before) was a barren land, with no civlization to speak of. Same with Ziost and other Sith planets. This would be like the Allies moving into Fortress Europe and basically making Germany bereft of life, because they feared the war machine that was Nazi Germany, or during the Cold War, the US nuking the USSR and satellite nations out of fear.

Disproportionate retribution, really.



Some are, yes. But this isn't indicative of needing peace so much as being spent by war. The Jedi and Republic were the first ones to break the peace as soon as they felt comfortable in doing so.



But you asked originally could the Dark Side or its powers be used beneficially, and the answer is a resounding "yes", because not all practitioners fall to that extent. There's evidence of the earliest Jedi founders using both sides equally, with only one bad apple out of the bunch. Also, of the millions and millions of Force users in the galaxy, a large majority are grabbed up by the Jedi or Sith and indoctrinated in whatever way that Order sees fit.

The examples we have of Force users not influenced by either of these sects is very small, so the most we have is two sides of the same coin, both capable of good and evil things, with one being noticeably more evil than the other. Grey versus Black morality from an outsider's perspective.



Jedi versus Sith is the largest sample size we have for the debate. So they're relevant to the discussion. Also, some of the ideal violations come from top down.



Right, the Sith Empire does not value individuals who lack strength. I never said they did otherwise. But it would be a sweeping generalization to say that all individuals who use the Dark Side are hopelessly corrupted and cannot possibly use the powers for a more benevolent cause. The Sith Order revolves around the concept that the individual's power matters the uttermost. If you took a Force sensitive individual, taught them to tap both their anger and their serenity, and then molded them to not fight for a Galactic Republic/Empire or themselves but for a small group of people like a Protector, would they inherently be the same by the virtue of tapping the darkness?

Is it an issue of darkness corrupts absolutely or is it more of a nurturing event? Even the ones who fall in the Jedi Order could be attributed to the Jedi's lack of flexibility in dealing with anyone that fails to meet their ideals, rather than being innately flawed and unredeemable.

Nephthys
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
And yet Sadow was slain, and his successor was slain as well. I think you're missing the point here; the Jedi simply didn't engage in a war to defend themselves up to a certain point where the enemy was no longer able to fight; they actually slaughtered Sith peoples and the lucky ones escaped. Odan-Urr spent the war learning to shut Sith off from the Force, but there's the glaring fact that Korriban in Kun's time (and presumably in Nadd's time before) was a barren land, with no civlization to speak of. Same with Ziost and other Sith planets. This would be like the Allies moving into Fortress Europe and basically making Germany bereft of life, because they feared the war machine that was Nazi Germany, or during the Cold War, the US nuking the USSR and satellite nations out of fear.

Disproportionate retribution, really.

I'd agree, if it wasn't for TOR showing why the Sith were too dangerous to let live. The problem isn't that the tried to genocide them, its that they didn't ****ing do a good enough job of it. http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-colbert.gif

Plus, remember that the only reason the Sith exist is because the Jedi showed mercy on the Exiles and, well exiled them. If they'd have cut off Ajunta Palls stupid head and stuck it on a pike the entire Jedi vs Sith conflict would have been averted.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Some are, yes. But this isn't indicative of needing peace so much as being spent by war. The Jedi and Republic were the first ones to break the peace as soon as they felt comfortable in doing so.

Only because of Darth Baras' Plan Zero, where the Sith assassinated most of the Republics foremost generals in preperation for war, on top of several other acts where the Sith purposefully antagonized the Republic into open warfare (Quesh). The Sith really started the war, the Jedi just said the words. Satele even says in the Knight campaign that the Republic really, really doesn't want to go to war at the present time.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
But you asked originally could the Dark Side or its powers be used beneficially, and the answer is a resounding "yes", because not all practitioners fall to that extent. There's evidence of the earliest Jedi founders using both sides equally, with only one bad apple out of the bunch. Also, of the millions and millions of Force users in the galaxy, a large majority are grabbed up by the Jedi or Sith and indoctrinated in whatever way that Order sees fit.

The examples we have of Force users not influenced by either of these sects is very small, so the most we have is two sides of the same coin, both capable of good and evil things, with one being noticeably more evil than the other. Grey versus Black morality from an outsider's perspective.

Yeah, and I agreed that the dark side could be used for good, but not that someone using it would be. This current discussion came about because of your argument that the term dark side isn't truly accurate.

I haven't really seen the Sith do good deeds, but ok.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Jedi versus Sith is the largest sample size we have for the debate. So they're relevant to the discussion. Also, some of the ideal violations come from top down.

Right, but they should only be used as examples for the actual topic, not to start a completely different one about the morality of the two factions. What I'd like to talk about is the dark side, how it works and if it can be used positively, not whether the Jedi are really pure good guys.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Right, the Sith Empire does not value individuals who lack strength. I never said they did otherwise. But it would be a sweeping generalization to say that all individuals who use the Dark Side are hopelessly corrupted and cannot possibly use the powers for a more benevolent cause. The Sith Order revolves around the concept that the individual's power matters the uttermost. If you took a Force sensitive individual, taught them to tap both their anger and their serenity, and then molded them to not fight for a Galactic Republic/Empire or themselves but for a small group of people like a Protector, would they inherently be the same by the virtue of tapping the darkness?

Is it an issue of darkness corrupts absolutely or is it more of a nurturing event? Even the ones who fall in the Jedi Order could be attributed to the Jedi's lack of flexibility in dealing with anyone that fails to meet their ideals, rather than being innately flawed and unredeemable.

Well this is actually something whatshisface brings up in the video, and I agree with his assessment. Its true that the dark side CAN be used in benevolent ways, but the fact is that the nature of the dark side is that those who wield are corrupted to the point where they don't WANT to use it for good.

Caedus WANTED to save the galaxy from falling into chaos etc. I fact, as I recall a large part of the reason he fell was so that Luke wouldn't die. Fast forward a few books and he's changed to the point where he's actually trying to kill Luke. Caedus was an example of a man who actually tried to use the dark side for benevolent ends, but his thought-process and ideals were corrupted by the darkside until he was anything but beneficial to the galaxy.

I do agree with you on some of the Jedi's failings. Jolee said it perfectly that what Jedi need to do is learn how to deal with emotions instead of suppressing them. But they're still falling to the dark side.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Nephthys
I'd agree, if it wasn't for TOR showing why the Sith were too dangerous to let live. The problem isn't that the tried to genocide them, its that they didn't ****ing do a good enough job of it. http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-colbert.gif

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.



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 verified this and I give you this point. I retract my earlier statement in this regard.



Well, it isn't. We see that Revan, for example, uses it without corrupting himself, and that his fall was facilitated by Vitiate's ultra-strong mind-rape. Even Kreia's fall was not because she had non-Jedi-mainstream viewpoints or dabbled, but because she was overcome by energies on Malachor V. Then we have evidence of earlier Jedi using the Dark Side without corruption in the earliest days of the Order on Tython.

The implication is that its not the use of the Force that determines the temperament and future of the user, but their intent and motivations behind its use. For example, consider TK; it's a talent shared by both sides. You could use it in a manner considered "dark" (Force Crush), but this is used by Jedi as well as Sith. It's context-dependent, not side-dependent. Look at the mental suggestion employed by Obi-Wan; if a Sith used it like the Exile potentially can in TSL on Nar Shadaa, you can make someone kill themselves. Or, you can tell them to stop selling deathsticks and rethink their life.

Then think about the Jedi act of mind-wiping Revan. Was this a good thing because it saved him from forced corruption and allowed him to be the hero he was always meant to be? Or was it an equally vicious robbery of free will, merely having the polar opposite effect of what Vitiate had done?

These are difficult moral questions, and writing them off as "Dark makes u bad k" is oversimplifying.



You missed the sidequest for the Sith Inquisitor were you could help an old lady with her groceries.



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.



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.



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?



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.

Stealth Moose
Also:

"Fear leads to the Dark Side".

The idea that they WTFmurdered the Sith people out of fear of war : LOL.

Nephthys
Since when was it fear? The Supreme Chancellor ordered them to do it. They just didn't refuse. I'm just saying that it was arguably a sensible option.

Edit: These holonet videos are awesome.

psmith81992
You know Janus, what I do keep hearing from you are certain key words like "rehabilitation", and a force user being the product of his/her environment. I know this isn't a discussion about personal responsibility and punishment vs. rehabilitation but damn.

The Merchant
Darth Vectivus is supposed to be a "good" guy. And the Jedi aren't that good, the Jedi Covenant IIRC killed their padawans ;_;

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Nephthys
Since when was it fear? The Supreme Chancellor ordered them to do it. They just didn't refuse. I'm just saying that it was arguably a sensible option.

Edit: These holonet videos are awesome.

Sensible and moral aren't the same thing. You seem to be avoiding any moral relevance in the actions on both sides and applying a level of pragmatism and historical fallacy to events instead of analyzing them.

The fact that the Jedi felt the need to drive the Sith to what they believed was extinction at the behest of the chancellor implies that they feared the existence of Sith regardless of their actual threat level to the Republic. And we know that the threat level was null because the Republic had the strategic advantage, much of the Sith lords of the Council and their fleets were destroyed, and the people leaderless (as if they weren't already fractured normally). This is like sandblasting a soupcracker.

Even if you say they aren't reasonably afraid and this stemmed from instead some passionless idea of following a mandate, please allow me to re-educate you:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8lfNr9JNodI/TqAjlO7ThlI/AAAAAAAAAfk/FQYSSJIyuC4/s1600I+was+only+following+orders2.png

Originally posted by psmith81992
You know Janus, what I do keep hearing from you are certain key words like "rehabilitation", and a force user being the product of his/her environment. I know this isn't a discussion about personal responsibility and punishment vs. rehabilitation but damn.

I'm not saying the Sith could actually be rehabilitated, but it seems like a more logical thing to do than simply murder them outright. We already know that they could neutralize the Force powers of the more potent offenders, rather quickly I might add. And they had tactical/strategic/numerical superiority. So their genocide has no moral defense from what I can see, unless it's a kind of retribution for the brief losses they had during Sadow's For Me It Was Tuesday Afternoon invasion.

Also, regarding the environment, I'm not making a definitive argument here, but I am starting to see correlations between Sith doctrine and the classic megalomaniac Dark Sider. We know that both the Sith and the Jedi routinely round up Force users, basically impress them into their service, fill their heads with ideals, tenets and laws, and tell them what is right and wrong. The idea of questioning either viewpoint is never approved on either side.

There's a difference between conventional and post-conventional moral reasoning, and both the Jedi and the Sith aren't past the conventional level at all.

--

Merchant, kudos on the reference. I have never before heard of this guy. Also, your sig image is broken. You may want to download the image to your PC and then upload it to KMC's signature image system so it'll host.

psmith81992
Well, what we know from Vectivus comes from Lumiya. Apparently he was just a business man.

Stealth Moose
Darth Trump.

Nephthys
I personally don't buy into what Lumiya was selling. All we know about Vectivus comes from her and shes a known liar and has good reason not to be truthful.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Nephthys
I personally don't buy into what Lumiya was selling. All we know about Vectivus comes from her and shes a known liar and has good reason not to be truthful.

Well, if there were amiable, or relatively ambivalent Sith, of a more secular or scholarly bent, who would have heard of them? They don't erect monuments, build tombs, and burn holocrons for the underachievers.

juyomaster34
I found it...Kyle Katarn (quote)
No Force power is inherently dark or light,but that it fully depends on how and for what one uses
it . I agree with all of you.

You all have some interesting replies....no agruments here...on my end....

Allankles
Originally posted by Nephthys
"Dark Side" isn't really a misnomer. It is literally an evil force that when you use it amplifies your negative emotions and corrupts your thought process.

Evil is subjective as someone pointed out, the dark side can lead to evil because it is the very fulcrum of the concept of destruction. But one can destroy to rebuild, like breaking a fractured bone to set it right. So yeas plenty of Jedi use the dark side for Good - Celeste Morne, Kyle Katarn, Jaden Kor and even Luke occasionally have used it in the service of the light i.e. the preservation of free thinking life.

Nephthys
Evil is subjective..... in real life. In Star Wars though it is a thing that actually exists.

Allankles
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Well, if there were amiable, or relatively ambivalent Sith, of a more secular or scholarly bent, who would have heard of them? They don't erect monuments, build tombs, and burn holocrons for the underachievers.

I wouldn't call them underachievers, merely less egocentric.

Allankles
Originally posted by Nephthys
Evil is subjective..... in real life. In Star Wars though it is a thing that actually exists.

Evil exists here as well - racism, rape, murder, blind conformity etc. Just under different titles.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Nephthys
Evil is subjective..... in real life. In Star Wars though it is a thing that actually exists.

You kind of ignored my earlier post, Neph. You're applying absolute definitions of evil based not on EU, but on GL's own interpretations, which I might add are entirely limited to the scope of Jedi versus Sith in G-Canon. The reason why I am harping on this is because you've introduced the topic and then decided apparently to not engage in the discussion beyond assuming a preconceived position of absolutist morality. The least you could do is contribute to the discussion with an open-mind, since this isn't a versus match.

As outside observers, we can still apply our own moral standards and use non-GL-defined moral arguments to measure actions and motivations in the mythos. This is especially important because the assumption here is that anything relating to the dark side is evil, not just potentially evil or a normal part of the duality that is being a sentient human being.

Case in point - every sentient has the ability to do great good and great evil. With very rare exceptions (Vitiate stands out most), none are predisposed to evil without being exposed to it, as we are ourselves exposed to our own cultural norms. Leaving even Force users aside, "evil", which is relative to the beholder, is possible in all sentients. What makes them unique is how they are raised, how they learn to adapt to their influences, and their ability to reach a higher moral and thinking levels.

A lord or knight in the Middle Ages might think killing in the name of his liege -regardless of the victim- is correct because of conventional moral thinking that basically says "evil is subjective to my culture/lord's view/religion/duty". This is not at all different from what the Jedi and Sith practice. Neither of them recognizes universal sentient rights beyond the strict tenets they already hold, and the Jedi do not exercise doing the right thing if it means violating these traditions. That's why they did nothing during the Mandalorian Wars. Even if, in retrospect that seemed "wise" (which I disagree with, millions were dying due to inaction), their caution-induced apathy is not putting the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the few, nor is it recognizing inherent moral worth of the victims who need protecting.

Or, to avoid being too verbose and losing you with my tangents, let me be clearer:

1. We know that both the Jedi and the Sith, as of the eras in which we have lots of information, pretty much indoctrinate their followers. They have tenets, codes, laws, hierarchies, pecking orders, etc. and they do not care for deviation. Even the Sith, who swap leadership consistently, have an underlying foundation of values that perpetuates their legacy and their teachings.

2. We know that the earliest Jedi, and fringe groups dabble with powers and feelings the Jedi/Sith call the "Dark Side", but they do not appear to be corrupted people beyond reason. If anything, what marks them is a sense of different values and priorities, and equilibrium. This feeds my assumption that the "Dark Side/Light Side" are often used and interpreted by primary groups as extremes rather than equal parts of the same individual. Revan, who uses both without signs of corruption in his novel, identifies himself as both Jedi and Sith; he is in a sense both and neither, suffering a kind of identity confusion since neither idealistic code can mesh with the other. It would be more appropriate to say that he is a good-hearted individual who follows a more neutral path than either the Jedi or the Sith because he is not an extremist.

3. Feelings which lead to the Dark Side, such as anger, fear, jealousy, or even love and attachment are perfectly normal in moderation. The problem becomes that the Jedi stress stoicism and suppressing these emotions while the Sith stress embracing them wholesale, without consideration for moderation, and become emotional individuals without any real moral center.

Evil is subjective IRL and in SW mythos. The question is, should we examine the concept of Dark Side/Light Side outside of the viewpoints of the two primary opposing Orders? And the answer should be "yes". Otherwise, we aren't exercising any critical thinking.

Ushgarak
What a lot of this seems to boil down to is people not liking how the Jedi were portrayed in TOR, which is more a case of uneven writing than anything else.

In pure GL terms, though, this is pretty simple. The Jedi are good guys and the Sith are bad; any story written that tries to break that rule has pretty much missed the point of Star Wars. That being so- no, it's not at all possible to use the Dark Side for good purpose. It's a fundamentally destructive force that buggers up everything involved with it.

The EU has gone down routes subject to other interpretations, though I honestly don't see the point of doing that in Star Wars. There are countless other settings more suited to such explorations and no end of ways to come up with good stories even within a simple moral framework.

psmith81992
But "pure GL terms" apply to the movies, not the EU or anything else, and the terms are pretty god damn retarded. That's why this discussion is proceeding.

Ushgarak
Well if you want to discount the GL view in the EU that's fine. I don't think it should be dismissed, though, and implying that GL's ideas don't apply to the EU is misleading, not only because all of his works are in the highest part of the EU canon, but also simply because he's the spiritual heart of the whole Star Wars concept, and everyone is starting from where GL was at one point when they write Star Wars. I don't think you can address any such fundamental issue in Star Wars without considering his view, even if it is just in commenting how far one interpretation has differed from it.

More to the point, you have to name an interpretation or the argument fairly much becomes pointless, because different parts of the EU have presented the Jedi in different ways. Furthermore, as I said above, a lot of how the Jedi are shown in TOR is not down to some great philosophical presentation of how the Jedi are but really just down to iffy writing on some quests; it's not consistent with other parts of itself, even.

Nephthys
thumb up Great points Ush.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
You kind of ignored my earlier post, Neph.

I'm not ignoring it, its just a post that would require time to respond to and I didn't want to at that time. I was just firing off a one-line response to Allankles before I went off to play Lara Croft Torture Simulator Tomb Raider.

Based
Originally posted by Nephthys
Evil is subjective..... in real life. In Star Wars though it is a thing that actually exists.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well if you want to discount the GL view in the EU that's fine. I don't think it should be dismissed, though, and implying that GL's ideas don't apply to the EU is misleading, not only because all of his works are in the highest part of the EU canon, but also simply because he's the spiritual heart of the whole Star Wars concept, and everyone is starting from where GL was at one point when they write Star Wars. I don't think you can address any such fundamental issue in Star Wars without considering his view, even if it is just in commenting how far one interpretation has differed from it.

But different authors and writers inject different viewpoints, biases, and meanings into their works. If you are attempting to mesh them all together by simply invalidating anything that doesn't meet one man's vision, that might make a lot of sense from a continuity standpoint (even if it's a sloppy way to manage canon), it does nothing for the analyses of the readers. Again, we're allowed to apply our own interpretations of the evidence we're provided, and using a holistic approach in EU is a lot more sensible than just ignoring whatever doesn't fit GL's ideal.

This is especially key since GL and LFL have explicitly stated before that EU is its own world, subject to the visions of others, goes off on tangents, and cannot be directly managed by the man in charge. If you had to simply resolve the canon issue and involve only C-Canon EU, this argument is still valid.



Right. Marriage is not always forbidden, battle armor was once the norm, one era commits genocide, another simply seeks peace or exiles its foes. But you can't just say "Oh, it's inconsistent. I'll ignore the problem and not analyze it beyond "GL is law"; that's just lazy. If we wanted to reaffirm canon, there's other places to do that.



I'm not sure on your level of EU exposure, but the Jedi are portrayed a lot of different ways, and their core beliefs and moral stances seem to fluctuate, even if slightly. I wouldn't single TOR out any more than TOTJ era, or during the Hundred-Year Darkness, etc.

Originally posted by Nephthys
thumb up Great points Ush.



I'm not ignoring it, its just a post that would require time to respond to and I didn't want to at that time. I was just firing off a one-line response to Allankles before I went off to play Lara Croft Torture Simulator Tomb Raider.


You never want to do it when I want to do it.

Debate I mean.

Nephthys
SM, I doubt anyone is saying "GL is law". But you have to admit that his opinion carries a hell of a lot of weight, since he is the goddamn creator of Star Wars. Its like, you wouldn't dismiss the opinions of the Founding Fathers in regards to the Constitution. Yeah, the world has changed a lot since then and.... I guess you could disagree with their interpretation of the words they ****ing wrote (lol) but they still actually wrote it? So maaaaybe their opinion on it is important?

Stealth Moose
You're ignoring something important here: GL does not make all of EU.

I even said, if GL's works which follow his ideals are too cut and dry, restrict the discussion to C-Canon only. Hell, you can find lots of examples that defy the stereotype. Like the Revanites.

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 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.

juyomaster34
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!!!!

Stealth Moose
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 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.

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:

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.

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

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

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.

Nephthys
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. wink

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.

Nephthys
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.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Nephthys
ahhhhhhh stop writing so much!

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



Hold on, let me redo this for you:



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



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



When specifically? What is the quote?



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



Fair enough.



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...

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



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.



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.



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.



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



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



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



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.

Ushgarak
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.

Nephthys
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

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lp8j0a1sRR1qiqv2o.gif

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).

Stealth Moose
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.

Q99
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."

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. 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.

Stealth Moose
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?



Right, this is moral relativism.



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:

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.

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.

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

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Nephthys
What exactly is so corruptive about Sith Lore other than the dark side itself?

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

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.

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.

"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

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."

Jmanghan
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.

chilled monkey
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.

juyomaster34
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...

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