Views on Sith

[Darth Avlectus]

OK. AS a bit of a response to jedimaster12's views on jedi, I feel that the same in kind should be done for the sith.

 

It's pretty much the same as its counterpart but I want to explore the figures of the dark side in this thread.

 

Facts and fallacies. Debate.

 

Anything that pleases your fancy if you will. Character traits. Their lives. The 5W's and 1H. You get the picture.

 

I don't really expect this one to really last too long, but I would be curious to see how far it really does go.

NO it is not a contest to see if it can get more posts and stuff than jedi views.

 

And thank you moderators for the job you do; for all the thankless hours you have spent cleaning up this one forum. Won't you pitch in here as well? I'd love to have your input as much as anybody else's...

 

At that let us begin.

 

I guess I could start with Darth Andeddu.

 

We know that you get his lightsaber in TSL...

 

We know he made at least 2 holocrons--one holding a red lightsaber crystal discovered by quinlan vos--and vos used the crystal.

 

He made one of himself and his knowledge and wisdom which fell into darth krayt's hands. (SPOILER ALERT: BTW is anybody surprised to see who HE WAS? A'Sharad Hett...I wondered what happened to him!)

 

Andeddu is basically undead with an extra "d". I remember somewhere--I think a star wars insider-- citing that the "Darth" anagram was, contrary to popular belief, not a variation on dark--at least not soely intended...rather it was a word of unknown ancient origin that meant "victory over death".

While not much is known about the "Darth" title, it would really be something if Andeddu were its originator for its use with the sith?

 

It'd be perfect: even though he was...dead...he could use the force and continue to use his body and retain control of it even though it had begun to rot and decay. (ugh--just imagine the SMELL his students had to endure).

IMO Kreia got hold of the knowledge and had some hand in Sion's creation--at least as much as the exile's wound in the force was as well.

 

Andeddu in a way achieved a victory (if only temporarily) over death with his state. I wonder how he died to begin with. I bet it was slaying by a jedi. Imagine the Jedi's surprise--the look on his/her face must have been priceless. (That does assume a lot, maybe he was just old or something.)

 

 

Bane. Hmm. Well, he was a great (terrible) figure because beneath his harsh features atop a mountainous muscular body primed for physical combat, he was cunning and wise. He saw the dark side would not empower a great many --as the light did-- it empowered fewer. it by its very nature invited rivalry. Therefore unity of so many darksiders was impossible.

 

(SPOILAGE: although his mentor had everything with which to assasinate him (bane) by skill experience and power over him, Bane saw that knowledge, aside from that of the force, may be all that can save you--especially in these situations--cunning and tactics).

 

Oh I could go on all night, but I'd like to see what everyone else has to say. Plus its getting late here.

[Masgrtgr]

Imo the Sith philosophy and form of government are both equally stupid and self destructive.

 

"Rule Of The Strongest" is dandy if you ignore how strongest is relative.

 

Look at what happened to Revan's Sith Empire when DS Revan left known space the whole empire collapsed on itself due to massive infighting.

 

Or The Ancient Sith Empire which also collapsed because of infighting.

 

The Republic (and The Jedi) can't go five minutes without being slammed as "corrupt", "incompetent", "stagnant", "disunited" or any combination of the above, but they at least managed to fight major wars/lose leadership without imploding in the process.

[SilentScope001]

The Republic (and The Jedi) can't go five minutes without being slammed as "corrupt", "incompetent", "stagnant", "disunited" or any combination of the above, but they at least managed to fight major wars/lose leadership without imploding in the process.

 

Not really. See the Old Old Jedi Order during TSL. Imploded right after the Jedi Civil War, even with LS Revan's help. In fact, the Jedi Order usually self-implodes gradually, due to stagnation. They have a framework and they follow it, even when the framework really is in need of reform. The Sith explodes violently, but the Jedi Orders dies with a whimper. Guess what I choose?

 

The Sith Philsophy makes some sense, as the main goal is to grow more powerful. Power is relative depending on the other Force Users, and really, would you want a weak person leading you? At the least, the constant in-fighting insures that whomever trimpuhs over their peers has the training necessary to take on the Jedi. Meanwhile, how do the Jedi train? By meaningless meditaition stating that they must stay on the "right path", instead of devoting that time to combat?

 

It is a highly indivdualisitc society, meaning that the Sith Empire as a whole will likely self-implode. But the actual Sith indivudals may become more stronger. In a way, what you want? Unity, with all people following a code in lockstep, or indivudalistic freedom? In a way, the Jedi are like the totalitarian governments and the Sith are the 'Free World'. Of course, the Totalitarin governments are actually the Good Guys/Enlightened Dictators, and the 'Free World' means 'free to enslave everyone else'.

 

I came up with a solution for the Sith Order. Turn it LS. When that happens, George Lucas, in his infinite wisdom, will have the Sith Order remain. After all, good always trimpuh over evil, just make the Sith Order good, and then everything is fine. Also might be a good way to reform the Jedi Order as well, even though I'm an Old Jedi Conservative , and think Emotions=DS.

 

Here's a thread about my propsal, altough it has since gotten off topic and onto other subjects:

 

http://forums.team-gizka.org/viewtopic.php?t=2570

[Sir Vougalot]

At least the Sith are true to themselves. While the Jedi preach peace and tolerance, sometimes they could have been as ruthless as the Sith. At least the Sith, in doing so, are practicing what they preach.

 

The dark side is the true path to power.

[Masgrtgr]

Power is relative depending on the other Force Users, and really, would you want a weak person leading you?

 

If said weak person was competent then sure.

 

Strength does not equal leadership.

 

Ever heard of strength through unity?

 

According to Uther Wynn's old master (I forgot his name) if you see a leader in a vulnerable position you should take it regardless of whether or not said leader was effective or that the guy/gal doing the overthrowing is actually qualified to take the job. So basically if a Sith Lord who has proven himself to be a competent and amazing leader were to suddenly fall ill you would have to find some way to kill said master and take his position regardless of the fact that you would probably have nowhere near his experience and may not actually be decent at leading.

 

Besides I can't ever think of a time the Jedi ever forced anyone outside of their order to follow any specific rules or guidelines. Unlike the Sith who seem to always be trying to force everybody in the Galaxy to submit to their rule (some freedom lovers....).

 

Besides stagnant or not the Jedi are quite effective at keeping the peace. I mean, roughly a few thousand Jedi in the Old Republic achieved what Palpatine and arguably Revan needed a galaxy-wide/system-wide police state to do (and a superweapon that blows up planets) - they kept things stable and comparatively peaceful, and they managed to bring about periods of hundreds or thousands of years without a single galaxy-wide war (see the 1000 years prior to the movies). When you compare that to the frequency with which we fight each other on Earth, I think that's pretty damn impressive.

 

I'd rather have the Republic control control the Galaxy than the Sith. After all The Republuc survived for thousands of years despite numerous wars unlike the Sith who seem to collapse on themselves whenever they lose a war (hell they even collapse during wars) or lose a significant leader.

[Jvstice]

I think you're asking for trouble in giving the policing of the state over to any one religion. Most of the time the republic lucked out, but it doesn't change that it was stupid of them.

[SilentScope001]

If said weak person was competent then sure.

 

But a weak person can never be competent. If a person is competent, how could he be weak? A competent person would know he has a weakness and get rid of that weakness. If he has weakness, then the Jedi can take advantage of that weakness. When that is understood, it is better to have such a Sith killed by another Sith who can remove that weakness than it is to let the Jedi take advantage of the weakness.

 

Strength does not equal leadership.

 

Leadership=Strength, according to the Sith though. If you can inspire a ton of cultists to admire you, that is strength. And a strongman can just gain followers and assistance by stating, "Follow me or else..." Strength in this case does mean leadership.

 

Ever heard of strength through unity?

 

But why would a bunch of people follow one leader, just because that leader says to follow him? That leader would be a coward, leading a bunch of cowards. The group is unified, but they weren't that strong indivudally, and the Sith can attack people indivudally.

 

Besides, I don't waht strength through unity, either by the Jedi or the Sith, or in the galaxy. That will just lead to 'rule by the mob', and I don't want a mob dictating what I should do, that's worse than rule by a dictator...because at least the dictator might be somewhat intelligent to gain power to begin with, the mob may not have that IQ.

===

Lastly, keeping the galaxy at peace may mean nothing because no enemy decided to challenge it during that time of peace, and the Jedi merely lucked out. Maybe nobody attacked the Republic because the Republic has no power to begin with. Or what about Dark Side followers who keep the Republic alive so they can commit evil deeds (Genohardan for instance)?

 

A galaxy too much at peace could easily be corrupt, too stagnat, and unable to deal with any changing situations, such as a huge CIS revolt.

 

{I really think people are forgetting the impact of George Lucas here, since Lucas favors the Jedi over the Sith, the LS over the DS, but eh.}

[Sir Vougalot]

If the Dark Lord of the Sith was weak, he would be quickly overthrown by someone better suited for the title.

[Jvstice]

Which is why the Sith keep losing, because they value strength over competence.

[SilentScope001]

Strength is competence...

 

But hm, any Sith lovers want to engage in a "Sith Reform Movement", like what all the Jedi lovers are doing?

[PoiuyWired]

Which is why the Jedis keep losing, because they value rituals over strength.

 

Below is basically what happens to the majority of Jedi/Sith order incidents:

 

Jedis:

=>(bunch of) powerful lightsiders

=> reform jedi Codes from what they know to go with current times

=> system of councils, ranks and etc

=> pass the seats to nextgen

=> pass the seats to nextgen

...

=> pass the seats to nextgen

=> until the stagnation hurts so bad some incident trashes the order.

=> survivers decides they need to rebuild in a new way finally

=> go to square one.

Granted, each incarnation of the jedi order seems to grow big and may even last for a long time during galactic peace(stagnation) The jedis learn little extra during the stagnation period, barring a few special incidents they face. Also, Jedi quality would probably lower during these periods, as their choice of followers would be bound by the increasingly burdened rules and guidelines.

 

Sith:

=> powerful Darksider acquires Sithy teachings(from master, fallen jedis , relics, whatever)

=> gets more powerful

=> trains others(be it apprentice and/or followers)

=> gets eliminated eventually

=> square one

The cycle of each Sith incarnation is short, since it is almost certain that a master would be slain when he is weakened/etc. But due to this system each new generation of sith(s) is usually stronger than the old, or they would not be successful in their survival, let alone succession. The Sith rarely burdens down with complex sets of rules, and anything not to their needs can be changed in a heartbeat(yes, even the so-called rule of the two)

 

For those who would say that Sith always lose, the same can be said about the jedis. Its just a change of tide, both sides have their glorious moments.

 

On the whole "there are more Jedis than Sith" argument:

It is true, but it is also true that the Sith is much more Eliteist than the Jedi group. Sure, misfits of Jedi Training would be condamned to eternal bantha herdership via agricorps and such, but ther is no unsuccessful sith simply cause they are eliminated. Also the whole rivalry thing does help weeding out the weak.

[Wookiee Rrudolf]

But a weak person can never be competent

Leadership=Strength

Strength is competence...

I don't follow you... ever heard about Thrawn? He was no Sith, no Force powers, no special abilities except for being great tactician, physically he was weak

he was killed with one hit

yet put the Galaxy to his knees. There is no need of strenght if someone has other abilities or talents.

Sith seem not see this and are blinded by "power". I agree with Masgrtgr. Competence is something more than just brutal force.

[SilentScope001]

...But Thrawn could make a perfect Sith, with his competence and all. Strength doesn't mean physical strength, it can also mean mental strength as well. Let be honest, there was a reason why Darth Revan (superb general) led the Sith Order. Even so Malak stole it from him, Darth Revan had the potential to take it back. He canonically chose not to, but he could have taken it back.

 

 

Accidently being recurited in a Sith Order, I actually got 1000 prestige points by posting a scholary issue declaring that the Jedi are in fact Dark Sided, hence why the Jedi always win, since they are more Dark Sided and evil than the Sith. This also showcased that the Sith sees Strength in all things, not just in the phyiscal.

 

 

There was also this one Sith Lord who did abosultey nothing in expanding the Sith Empire, and in fact kept his power by dividing his enemies. He ruled for 80 years, and was the last ruler of the "Golden Era of the Sith", and has TONS of fanboys on the Obisidan Forum. Don't remember his name though.

[jonathan7]

There was also this one Sith Lord who did abosultey nothing in expanding the Sith Empire, and in fact kept his power by dividing his enemies. He ruled for 80 years, and was the last ruler of the "Golden Era of the Sith", and has TONS of fanboys on the Obisidan Forum. Don't remember his name though.

 

Marka Ragnos?

[SilentScope001]

Marka Ragnos?

 

Yeah. That's the guy. I argued that calling him the best Sith Lord ever would be the same as calling Bill Clinton the best President ever because he did nothing. Didn't go down too well.

[Sir Vougalot]

Strength is competence...

 

But hm, any Sith lovers want to engage in a "Sith Reform Movement", like what all the Jedi lovers are doing?

Not me. I'm a lover of the Rule of Two. It was genius and worked flawlessly.

 

Apart from one of the two being redeemed to the light side, of course. You can't think of everything.

[Darth Avlectus]

But a weak person can never be competent. If a person is competent, how could he be weak? A competent person would know he has a weakness and get rid of that weakness. If he has weakness, then the Jedi can take advantage of that weakness. When that is understood, it is better to have such a Sith killed by another Sith who can remove that weakness than it is to let the Jedi take advantage of the weakness.

 

 

 

Leadership=Strength, according to the Sith though. If you can inspire a ton of cultists to admire you, that is strength. And a strongman can just gain followers and assistance by stating, "Follow me or else..." Strength in this case does mean leadership.

 

 

 

But why would a bunch of people follow one leader, just because that leader says to follow him? That leader would be a coward, leading a bunch of cowards. The group is unified, but they weren't that strong indivudally, and the Sith can attack people indivudally.

 

Besides, I don't waht strength through unity, either by the Jedi or the Sith, or in the galaxy. That will just lead to 'rule by the mob', and I don't want a mob dictating what I should do, that's worse than rule by a dictator...because at least the dictator might be somewhat intelligent to gain power to begin with, the mob may not have that IQ.

===

Lastly, keeping the galaxy at peace may mean nothing because no enemy decided to challenge it during that time of peace, and the Jedi merely lucked out. Maybe nobody attacked the Republic because the Republic has no power to begin with. Or what about Dark Side followers who keep the Republic alive so they can commit evil deeds (Genohardan for instance)?

 

A galaxy too much at peace could easily be corrupt, too stagnat, and unable to deal with any changing situations, such as a huge CIS revolt.

 

{I really think people are forgetting the impact of George Lucas here, since Lucas favors the Jedi over the Sith, the LS over the DS, but eh.}

 

(Applause!)

 

 

As for thrawn--his strength was not of the physical type--he was a tactician, a wise (well sort of at least) man, and cunning leader.

He was strong in that sense.

 

Don't underestimate the non physical elements. He was also an embodiment of the knowledge and intellect that could get you ahead. After all there is the force that can convince a weak minded, but for strong minded you need charisma and persuasion techinque and experience--remember mission telling you on manaan "I can be convincing when I have to, but that force persuasion trick is something else"--assuming you have force persuasion facing the docking official on manaan.

 

The most powerful people are often the most successful though not always.

 

Rich has some but is short lived if foolish.

 

Brutal has some but can be overthrown or gets old and decrepit... or off'd "like some sucker"

(if any of you have seen "kill charlie Varrick" a film with a young walter matthau) big bad cowboy bounty hunter named Molly--beats on old people, women, children, prostitutes. Perhaps unbeatable in martial arts. An uncaring man who only wants to be paid---he gets fooled into mowing down the mob boss who hired him and then out of his own greed--instead of killing charlie when he was most vulnerable, decided he wanted all the cash--opens it where charlie told him it was actually hiding only to find it wasnt there but a strange dvice wired to the door.....HO WAIT THAT's a B... (KABOOOOOOOOM!) Bad ass, now, is just a bad stain... in the sand. You can be the toughest MF'er and still be killed in a unceremonious and humiliating way.

 

It's those with the greater *understanding* of their knowledge and also their ability to implement it. I hard press anybody to debate that.

 

 

Bane was right: the dark side by its nature naturally invites rivalry, unity amongst so many darksiders is impossible.

 

 

Tho I tend to want to remain a man of my word, in a game of blame, being the one who openly accepts the fault of his errors is like telling everyone your war strategy. In this case I very much agree that

"honor is a fool's prize".

 

Some could argue bane's belief system was flawed in this way: the above quote about honor, yet he says that only 2 would be worthy of the "honor" of calling themselves sith.

 

What he said basically holds true honor or not--honor should be called priveledge for the latter.

 

It'd probably have to be a semantic argument for both sides. but seeing as how playing with semantics is underhanded regardless its purpose anyway........ (shrugs)

 

Bane was not always so evil, I believe it was his life and then his decisions and conclusions. Had his life been somewhere else, it may have all happened very differently.

 

 

 

Sometimes as far as growth, things need to stop growing or they will die.

Like Andre the Giant. While I am no longer a wrestling fan in the wake of "Benoits family massacre" and that it's all fake anyway (excellent games though), I admired Mr Roussemoff. It's sad that his very gift of being 7'4 and 550lbs also is what killed him--he was a hell of a guy from what I heard.

 

Strength is competence? Perhaps. The strength is relative to what context it is used.

 

Say, scope, are you referrencing what Darth Krayt is doing right now?

I was shocked-yet at the same time it made perfect sense, at who he really was. Hints were practically being heaved at us the whole time. Only die hard fans of his previous form would have caught on I bet.

 

 

You actually have some kind of support for him? Let's hear it.

 

I think he's doing the mob thing but with a bit of CIA and some intellegent manuvering. So he can remain the wise and powerful leader.

 

Palpatine was like hitler--now all we need is moussolini, stalin, nero, gengis khan, and osama and we'll be complete.

[Tengu]

Hi GTA:SWCity and everyone

 

For what's worth, here are my views on the baddies:

 

I don't envy or admire most Sith lords or sundry darksiders (with exceptions, to be sure). With your permission, I would even call them losers.

 

I will justify this mainly with three examples: Darth Sion, Darth Nihilus and Darth Tyrannus.

 

 

DARTH SION.

 

Sion is, to all purposes, immortal. No matter how many times you kill him, he comes back. That is power, right? And yet, I actually pity him.

 

How does he get this power? By living in pain. What's more, as this immortality comes from the Dark Side, I believe somewhere in the TSL it's estated that it only works on Dark Side-infused worlds. So, in practice, he is an ethernal prisoner, suffering from constant pain. Not too appealing, I would say. Not much freedom here.

 

That's why his smartest decision, when confronting the Exile at the Trayus Academy, was to let go. The Exile literally put him out of his misery.

 

He lacks subtlety and cunning: manipulated by Kreia all the way. Just a brute and a poor devil.

 

 

DARTH NIHILUS.

 

Nihilus can destroy all life in a planet, by feeding on it. Even his crew, over time, suffers from this. A bit like a junkie: he gets his fix, goes on for a little while, until the cravings attack again. Again, no freedom.

 

Besides, what kind of victory is this? To conquer a graveyard?

 

I don't think it needs any more reasoning: to win this way has no meaning. Kreia would argue this point much better than I possibly ever could.

 

Another poor devil.

 

 

DARTH TYRANNUS.

 

Tyrannus is a cultured man, sophisticated, good-mannered. In many ways, the kind of guy one could admire. And yet, in the ROTS novelization, which gives more details on his personality, he is shown to be a sychopath with pathologically ego-centric tendencies. In other words, and using a rather loose language, a bit of a kook.

 

And, for all his sophistication, he fell in Sidious's trap: used, exploited and when he was of no more use, discarded. All his sophistication and he was still basically a naive and an old fool.

 

Pathetic, isn't it? Yet another poor devil. Again, no freedom.

 

 

OTHER SITH AND THEIR MINIONS

 

Pretty much the same can be said of Vader, Malak and most other Sith Lords of which we know more about.

 

But the minions are really a pearl. Take the old-hermit living in the tomb (Korriban, KOTOR). If you have an underling who is always efficient, loyal (you know, the works), but makes a mistake, what do you do? Kill him! MWAHAHA! Like, come on. Leaving aside the morality aspect of this (which the Sith would disregard anyway), there are two practical reasons why this is foolish:

 

(1) Your other underlings would have a very good reason to believe this could happen to them and, at the first chance, would leave you, in your white bride-dress, in front of the celebrant, with your guests, after paying for the party.

 

(2) Like Kreia says: power can be achieved by means other than the Force. Through influence, for example. A good underling, one who is loyal and efficient, increases my power. To discard this underling for a feeble reason is plain silly.

 

 

AFTERTHOUGHTS

 

The Sith Code asserts that "Through victory, my chains are broken". It didn't work for these guys. In fact, in Sion's and Nihilus's cases, I would say that they were prisoners of their own power.

 

Kreia, Palpy and Bane seem to be more the exception than the rule. I wonder, maybe the problem lies in the notion that the Force has two sides: the Light and the Dark Sides. If the two sides are diametrically opposed and antagonistic, then it may make sense for Lightsiders and Darksiders to adopt diametrically opposed behaviours. One is all-forgiving, the other never forgives, for instance. What I doubt is that either strategy works well all the time.

 

It may well be that Bane, although a thoughful fellow (and head and shoulders above most other Sith in terms of brain-power) was wrong after all.

 

Cheers

[JediMaster12]

I can assure you I see neither light nor dark and frankly both extremes annoy me.

 

With the Sith, it is merely another side of the same story. Both the Jedi and the Sith want power. The Jedi claim to use it for good when we all know that there have been times when some of their acts could consitute as evil. The Sith claim they wield ultimate power to achieve what is their by might.

 

The Sith believe in gaining and using their power to gain more power and control by what they think is theirs. Is that evil in of itself? No. Selfish maybe but then we are all selfish. Like Kreia said, Jedi and Sith are merely titles. No one is inherently evil and no one is inherently good. We can be taught what is right and wrong but we aren't born with it. The Sith think that what they are doing is right. They believe they are justified in that by conquering worlds and obtaining power is the right thing.

 

Perhaps it is best put by how Kyle Katarn says it. No Force power is inherently good or evils, it's how you use it.

 

I realize that I may have said the same thing in the Views on Jedi thread but that is how I see it. As an anthropologist, we have a code of ethics but mostly it is a judgment call. Morality maybe.

[Darth Avlectus]

JM12--nice to see you. Too extreme in either direction and you have imbalance.

 

As far as bane's personal traits, they didn't make him dead to feelings. It's what sentience is all about. Also, he found that arrogance, regardless of alignment, is a sure fire way of underestimating one another, or plans philosophy, etc, etc.

 

 

I.E. anybody out there praciced more than one martial art/science and fond that there are those out there who scoff at nearly all other disciplines but their own and what they know? Those who like to stick to just one or two, or some group--not necessarily out of wise training; it's arrogance of assuming that the other teachings are simply unworthy... or incapable of beating yours.

Then of course, you meet TRUE martial artists who have basically the philosophy of train smart, but learn as much as you possibly can first before excusing a teaching. Use what you can apply and is practical to you.

 

I have found some to be better than others to be sure, but, there is a bit of a complimentary effect mixing them. Not necessarily moderation; a little of some, more of others. Jeet kun doe, Bruce Lee's sorta thang.

 

While sith may have inherently contradictory views, and bane's teachings ultimately helped lead one to an immortality state, and to a revered position during his times.

 

 

There is a bit of positive aspect to the individualistic philosophy. You can think for yourself which may be a saving grace (quite possibly for more than just yourself--a town a nation, a planet or bigger) in a time and place where you have sheeple all around you.

In certain ways there are evils in large groups. Without intent to insult; mainstream religion and even recovery program groups become like cults. Also there are gangs, there are despot sympathizers, there is mafia (organized crime of all areas, citizen, business, government).

Sith in general tend to be individual. Jedi will tend to deny it but it is all too apparent. Sometimes you work for the better of all, but you can only do it if you yourself are prime. Scope001, you have some great points. I skimmed the team gizka thread of yours. A light sided sith order, huh? You mean like a bunch of light sided individuals NOT like jedi?

 

I'll hear it out. Sounds almost like the empire of empress theta, and the empire of the current 100+ABY legacy comics. DO go on.

 

While I am sure most every theme of SW has been thought up in popular circles, there is always new ways to reorganize them--perspective is the most valuable thing you can offer--everybody.

 

So far as Marka Ragnos, maybe what was needed was a bit of stability and stagnation. After all, the infinite empire collapsed--thus not infinite...probably because it grew too big. Networks vs communities. Networks never stop growing but in return are festering with corruption and self destruction. Communities are tight knit and survive if they know when to pull together, and when to seperate--they have to stop growing at some point or they die...they no are longer communities.

 

Power and strength don't have to just be physical or force power. Not only to sith is true leadership power--true leadership is self evident. Though politics muddy those waters.

 

It seems as though the protagonists of SW are misfits often. It was their improvisation that spiced up the stories. All too often, we as sentient beings are bandwagon jumpers.

[Rogue Warrior]

Given how they act there should be a great Sith purge.

[Ben Bryddia]

Let's see, how do I view Sith? Oh, I know.. "The Sith are a blight upon the Galaxy. I kill them wherever I find them." -Revan. (possibly)

 

"The Sith believe in gaining and using their power to gain more power and control by what they think is theirs. Is that evil in of itself? No. Selfish maybe but then we are all selfish."

 

Hmmm. What then is selfishness? It is the promoting, or desiring of your goals above everything else. To me that smacks of evil. (I believe every human is born selfish, and thus is born with an aptitude for evil.) Do I think the Jedi are faultless? NEVER. Do I think the Sith are worse? Most assuredly yes. There have been evil Jedi, hypocritical Jedi, misguided Jedi, and pathetic Jedi, does that mean all are bad? Many were generally good and well meaning in their actions and lifestyle as far as they can be expected to be. However, may I point out that the Sith have ever endeavored to harm and impose their will on others, or to put it more bluntly, they try to become gods.

 

The real problem with a discussion of Star Wars morals is that, if you look at it all logically, there is no base for them to have morals.

Think about it, numerous Star Wars sources (New Essential Guide to Alien Species, New Essential Chronology, Tales of the Jedi Companion etc.) have declared classic, Darwinian, Macro-evolution to be the way the universe and all in it came to be, and the Tales of the Jedi Companion specifically says that it was this developing universe that gave birth to the Force. Thus there was no creator; Nothing to define right and wrong at the absolute level.

 

You may say, ‘the Force defines good and evil in Star Wars’ but this is an incorrect notion. Anyone who has been reading the New Jedi Order, Dark Nest, and Legacy books will be able to testify that the Force no longer is good or evil, it’s the good or evil within a person that stains the Force light or Dark, or something to that effect.

 

The worldview Star Wars has had from its outset is cosmic humanism (which holds to pantheism. 'god is in everything and is everything), bonded with Manichean Dualism (The view that the good and evil forces in the world will continue fighting forever.). In more resent years, Manichean Dualism seems to have been reduced in favor of the above mentioned there is no darkside theory. Luke himself has been heard to say, “the Force is more of a flow” thus meaning the ‘will of the Force’ is random, it exists to exist and is only affected by those around it and seems to have taken on more of an instinctual aspect then anything else.

 

In my book, something must define right and wrong in order for right and wrong to have practical existence, thus the random, purposeless Star Wars alternate universe can have no true right and wrong, so all of the fighting of evil in such a context would be folly. Instead, should one in Star Wars not rather, “eat , drink , and be merry because tomorrow we become one with the Force”?

 

ON A LIGHTER NOTE:

We in reality do have a created, purposeful, morally defined universe with a set beginning and end. {Yes, I am a Christian} Thank you for reading this flawed boy’s view on how this might work out in a universe with no GOD. Farewell.

 

-Bearer of the Krijinia.

[Sephira]

 

There was also this one Sith Lord who did abosultey nothing in expanding the Sith Empire, and in fact kept his power by dividing his enemies. He ruled for 80 years, and was the last ruler of the "Golden Era of the Sith", and has TONS of fanboys on the Obisidan Forum. Don't remember his name though.

 

He has done absolutely nothing in his life yet people called him "the greatest or the most powerful sith lord"

 

He needed technology to accomplish some of his feats such as draining the force with his scepter which nihilus and sidious could clearly do without the use of tools.

 

Or blowing up stars with sith alchemy in his ship which even weaklings like aleema could do with it

 

Hi GTA:SWCity and everyone

DARTH SION.

Sion is, to all purposes, immortal. No matter how many times you kill him, he comes back. That is power, right? And yet, I actually pity him.

 

Uh immortal? No, A superior force user can easily crush him with the force, preventing his will from joining his bod back together

 

Secondly, he is "immortal" only on malachor V as he himself states due to the immense dark side energies which a superior dark side force user can get empowered on

[Nancy Allen``]

You look at all the evil they do, all their evil acts, not just committing it simply for evil's sake but actually getting off on the misery they cause, and showing no remorse over their actions...how can anyone like them?

 

No, actually I take that back because I think there is a trend for people to see someone who is 'I'm bad, I'm evil, I hurt others and enjoy it,' basically they're a grade A ******* and people buy into them being cool.

[Tommycat]

Good or evil depends largely on your perspective. For those that follow the Judeo-Christian mores(which even the athiests in this country tend to base many of their judgements on), what is evil to them would be merciful with another set of mores. A prime example of this is the reaction we have to suicide. In the Japanese culture, suicide was considered an honorable way to die. However in the judeo-christian society, suicide is considered wrong and even a sin. Witchcraft is believed to be evil in the judeo christian society, however if you follow the wiccan teachings you learn how such things can be good. In basic American life, we have the differences of meat eaters versus vegitarians, and the more extreme vegan. Eating meat is evil to the vegetarian(aside from the less extreme cases). Pet ownership is another of the things that are considered evil by some extremes. They even go as far as to claim it is animal slavery(though everyone who co-habitates with a cat knows it isn't slavery to them....). So until there is a Universally accepted evil, neither the Jedi NOR the Sith are truly evil. Merely followers of a different set of mores.

 

Think of Anakin. His intentions were to free the slaves. His intentions were to save his wife. He did cruel things in his attempt to save the one he loved. I know that to save my wife from death I would perform any number of "evil" things.

 

Answer this:

Your significant other is sick. You cannot purchase the medicine one person has that would cure that SO. He refuses to sell it to you, and your SO may die because of it. Do you:

Let your SO die.

Steal the cure from the man who refused to sell it to you.