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.
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.
__________________ There's a man goin' 'round takin' names.
An' he decides who to free and who to blame.
Everybody won't be treated all the same.
There'll be a golden ladder reaching down.
When the man comes around.
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...
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.
"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.
__________________ There's a man goin' 'round takin' names.
An' he decides who to free and who to blame.
Everybody won't be treated all the same.
There'll be a golden ladder reaching down.
When the man comes around.
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.
I'll take being a hypocrite over being a murderous psycho any day.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
__________________
Last edited by Nephthys on Dec 10th, 2013 at 09:07 PM
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.
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.
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. (please log in to view the image)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
__________________
Last edited by Nephthys on Dec 10th, 2013 at 10:17 PM
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.
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.
__________________ There's a man goin' 'round takin' names.
An' he decides who to free and who to blame.
Everybody won't be treated all the same.
There'll be a golden ladder reaching down.
When the man comes around.
Dec 10th, 2013 05:35 PM
