How do you view sith lords?

[whatthehell]

everything has an oppisite and without the Sith, the jedi would not exsist simply because they would not have sufficiant reason to.

 

i favor the Sith, not for their brutality, but for the clever ways they use to attain the power they want.

 

most of them have epic looking outfits and like Rev7 said, i like their fight styles

[Chevron 7 locke]

For that answer, take a sociology/psychology class.

 

A pretty much universal rule is that everything people do has a selfish motive behind it. Even if it is a nun helping a homeless child, the nun is doing it for the self knowledge and satisfaction that what she is doing is right, helps her god love her, and will get her heaven points.

 

Selfish motive drives us into doing anything. So, you do something because you think it is "good" or "right" for you in your current situation and will benefit you in some way more than other options.

 

So, a Sith Lord kills a bunch of people. Are they Jedi? Because the Sith religious belief is that Jedi are fools that don't deserve the power they have. By killing them, they believe what they are doing is "right" and have justified it in their mind in a way that personally benefits themselves.

 

Now, if they are killing for the fun of it then it is also deemed "right" in their minds. By killing someone, they are gaining entertainment and a good feeling that personally benefits themselves in either a financial, spiritual, etc way.

 

Same goes for a Jedi, a mother, a nun, etc. They step in and help someone, they are doing it for a motive of self interest. Whether that a feeling of self satisfaction, entertainment, or an escape from a depressed lonely feeling, etc.

 

Without this self interest, people would not kill each other, but mothers would also not take care of their children.

 

Now, there are a few types of people that this rule does not fully apply to: The insane, and Sociopaths/Psychopaths, or rather people with Antisocial personality disorder or Dissocial personality disorder.

 

The legal definition of insanity is someone who mentally have no concept of an action being "right" or "wrong", thus the selfish interest is not always there as the action seemingly has no benefit for themselves as far as they can see.

 

If you do something under the personal knowledge that it is wrong and do it under the personal knowledge that you will gain nothing from it, then the action is an action of a Sociopaths/Psychopaths, or someone with Antisocial or Dissocial disorder. Its only 1 or 2 of them, but I'm not exactly sure which so if anyone knows the clear differences between them you can correct me.

 

I could go into the differences between Sociopaths/Psychopaths, Antisocial personality disorder, and Dissocial personality disorder, but it would take me a few hours to write.

All the Sith Lords and Jedi I have seen thus far have been motivated by some form of self interest. Thus, they are for the most part like every other human being, but now with the ability to move **** with their minds.

 

So, in summary, killing for fun and killing for a purpose are the same thing.

 

That help at all?

 

Yes...that did help a little bit...very detailed by the way

[JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan]

The legal definition of insanity is someone who mentally have no concept of an action being "right" or "wrong", thus the selfish interest is not always there as the action seemingly has no benefit for themselves as far as they can see.

evil is all relative to standards. society has standards. its how you would know something is wrong. example, anyone who tortures a 12 month old to death is considered sickeningly evil and hated by society (in general) but if killing babies was accepted in society, no one has a problem with it, and it was considered completely normal, (the crying was undoubtedly doing damage to your poor ears, and the little runt wouldnt stop, and its your baby anyhow) the person would not be hated at all.

sith have their society, and yes, sith have no problem with killing babies. so its fine for random sith to go and roast a baby for fun.

 

this relativity of evil is what causes society's standards to change. change the standards of society, and you can do things you never could before. stuff we do everyday without a second thought would absolutely shock to people from the 1800s. things people will do 50 years from now may shock us.

 

where did those standards come from? in the case of the US (just an example),

i believe their standards came from the Bible. the pioneers founded that country on the laws found in the Bible. over the years, those standards have been distorted and degenerating, and simply changing, (compared to its original state, much to the dismay of christians . this is the standards of society im talking about, not the laws. though i suspect the same is happening to it.

society always degenerates. its just the way it is. its happened before, and it will happen again.

in this regard, the sw universe differs from ours. the main civilized parts of the galaxy have roughly the same moral standards as current society, and yet it remains that way. it doesnt degenerate. though different civilizations in sw have different standards. i think its also attributed to the standards in our world when the plotlines where made.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I think there are four kinds of sith.

 

1: Darth Malak and Vader are those who thirst for power and people are just in the way. They are brutal needlessly and don't really think of anything other than immediate self-gratification.

 

2: Revan and Palpatine believe they are the dominant ones and should rule over everyone. They are more interested in exploiting others to enhance their power. They are clever and devious more so than brutal and crude.

 

3: Darth Maul and Darth Talon are ones who've been trained to be Sith psychologically like fighting dogs are trained. They are more instinctive than anything else.

 

4: Yuthura Ban and Vader's apprentice are those that are reluctant to act because their better judgment goes against what their masters tell them. They act only because they've been ordered to do so, but are hesitant to act.

 

There are others, but I tend to think the majority of the darkside are either like Yuthura Ban, who simply could never find peace with herself, or they are greedy for power like Malak. The difference between Malak and Revan is mainly that Revan used power over others and Malak just killed them.

 

My favorite of the list are those like Yuthura Ban. She was born a slave and had a sadistic master who tortured her and killed off all her friends. When she was accepted by the Jedi, she wanted to use her anger and the Force to fight slavery, but she joined the sith because they encouraged such thinking.

 

I think that she was never just a bloodthirsty kind, but did terrible acts, believing it was for a greater cause and she just forgot why she was doing it in the first place. I think she turned because Revan was the first in a long time who took value in her life... opposite of what she's been shown all her life.

[Litofsky]

The Sith Lords, you ask, Chevron? Some were brilliant (Revan and Sidious jump to mind), and some were plain bloodthirsty (Malak pops to mind). Nonetheless, all left their mark on history.

 

Now, I don't specifically agree with the 'classes' of Sith Lords: everyone one of them might've had common elements, but they were also all unique individuals.

 

Darth Sidious, I might dare to say, was the most cunning of the known Sith Lords. He sparked a galaxy-spanning war with few resources, and managed to worm his way to Supreme Chancellor of the Senate, and eventually the Emperor of the Galactic Empire.

 

Malak, on the other hand, vied for blood and destruction, or, more specifically, power. He squashed all opponents in his path, and cared not for the aftermath of his actions. He's almost the antithesis of Darth Sidious or Revan, each of which planned their actions with the utmost care.

 

Some were brighter than others, there's no question, but a Sith Lord was still a Sith Lord, in my opinion. You don't get to that 'rank' by being a simple soldier.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I tend to view certain Sith Lords with utter contempt, but others (Yuthura Ban especially) I perceive only became sith because of an injustice committed against them.

 

Darth Malak only wanted authority and power, but was too stupid to earn it for himself. His lust and greed are one of the main reasons I despise the character. Sidious was clever, but he was still interested in taking power through greed.

 

Darth Vader also qualified for that kind of Sith I hated, but the initial reason was one of losing someone dear to him. Once she was dead, he was only interested in power as well. George Lucas wanted a villain you could feel sympathy for... Darth Vader deserved none because he brought everything upon himself.

[Arcesious]

My veiw of the Sith Lords:

 

Darth Traya has some insecurity problems, what with her wanting the force dead and all...

 

Darth Sion went completely insane because he had no friends.

 

Darth Nilhihus has some sort of wierd eating disorder (He eats jedi or soemthing... wtf is up with that?) and apparently the speech center of his brain got fried by a shot from a blaster to the head when he was a child.

 

And all three of them have Sadistic personality disorder.

[Litofsky]

Darth Malak only wanted authority and power, but was too stupid to earn it for himself. His lust and greed are one of the main reasons I despise the character.

I might agree with you on this, but rather, I suggest that Malak was smart enough (not overly smart, but, once more, morons don't become Sith Lords) to fire on his Master's ship before he could do anything about it. As for lust and greed, I'd say that those two qualities have been present in every Sith Lord, but their other qualities (such as intelligence or cunning) shine brighter.

 

Sidious was clever, but he was still interested in taking power through greed.

I, for one, completely disagree. Darth Sidious exploited the greed that coursed throughout the blood of the Republic (the Senate), and in doing so, was able to manipulate the entire galaxy into war. He was sheer genius: not only did he kill two enemies with one stroke (the Jedi and the Republic), but he was able to do so completely undetected.

 

Darth Vader also qualified for that kind of Sith I hated, but the initial reason was one of losing someone dear to him. Once she was dead, he was only interested in power as well. George Lucas wanted a villain you could feel sympathy for... Darth Vader deserved none because he brought everything upon himself.

I disagree. Darth Vader was permanently scarred by one mistake that he made, and paid for it throughout his life. I propose that he was interested in power, but he was further driven by his rage for the Jedi, and his emotions regarding his late wife.

[whatthehell]

I think there are four kinds of sith.

 

1: Darth Malak and Vader are those who thirst for power and people are just in the way. They are brutal needlessly and don't really think of anything other than immediate self-gratification.

 

2: Revan and Palpatine believe they are the dominant ones and should rule over everyone. They are more interested in exploiting others to enhance their power. They are clever and devious more so than brutal and crude.

 

3: Darth Maul and Darth Talon are ones who've been trained to be Sith psychologically like fighting dogs are trained. They are more instinctive than anything else.

 

4: Yuthura Ban and Vader's apprentice are those that are reluctant to act because their better judgment goes against what their masters tell them. They act only because they've been ordered to do so, but are hesitant to act.

 

 

 

or

 

5. Darth Plagueis the Wise, not neccacarially evil, but still studied the ways of the dark side of the force

[TKA-001]

but others (Yuthura Ban especially) I perceive only became sith because of an injustice committed against them.

By this you mean "because they had an injustice against themselves that they could use as an excuse".

 

Darth Plagueis the Wise, not neccacarially evil, but still studied the ways of the dark side of the force

Nope. Palpatine's recollections about his training under Plagueis definitely places him in the "evil" category.

 

He squashed all opponents in his path, and cared not for the aftermath of his actions. He's almost the antithesis of Darth Sidious or Revan, each of which planned their actions with the utmost care.

Who is to say Malak didn't care for the aftermath? He just didn't plan to have the same sort of aftermath as Revan did. That said, Revan would be doing the exact same thing as Malak if he didn't know about the "True Sith."

 

My favorite of the list are those like Yuthura Ban. She was born a slave and had a sadistic master who tortured her and killed off all her friends. When she was accepted by the Jedi, she wanted to use her anger and the Force to fight slavery, but she joined the sith because they encouraged such thinking.

 

I think that she was never just a bloodthirsty kind, but did terrible acts, believing it was for a greater cause and she just forgot why she was doing it in the first place. I think she turned because Revan was the first in a long time who took value in her life... opposite of what she's been shown all her life.

What is it about Yuthura Ban that makes her so much more sympathetic than all the other Sith? I dare say that she is a textbook Sith character - Force-sensitive, painful/traumatic past, willing to gain power in the dark side, climbs the local Sith hierarchy, and self-righteous enough to justify any evil she commits. Not surprisingly, she also fits into the 50% of dark-siders who are more than willing to turn back to the light once someone threatens to put a lightsaber through their gut. Her character is not any more special nor more sympathetic than anyone else's.

[Chevron 7 locke]

OKay...interesting responses here...I feel that vader did not want power, i feel that in his heart, vader always wanted to redeem himself, but he didn't have the strength to do it until his luke convinced him that he could do it

[Rev7]

^

hence my custom title

[Chevron 7 locke]

To be honest...i really didn't notice that until now.

[Litofsky]

Who is to say Malak didn't care for the aftermath? He just didn't plan to have the same sort of aftermath as Revan did. That said, Revan would be doing the exact same thing as Malak if he didn't know about the "True Sith."

 

I'd refute that with the complete bombardment of Taris, TKA. What you say has merit: I doubt Revan would have been as strict with his attacks had the True Sith never existed. But, knowing his tactical genius (as gathered from Kreia and Canderous), I seriously doubt that he would have destroyed the entirety of the Republic's infrastructure, as opposed to Malak's willingness to destroy an entire an entire planet via orbital bombardment.

[Chevron 7 locke]

Revan was the judge of the sith and Malak was the executioner. Revan deemed who was worthy of surviviing and malak destroyed those who were not worthy

[Fredi]

I need to say that Sith's are the one's with the correct idea (For me). They fallow the law of nature, the stronger will survive the weak will die, and they are more open to the force than Jedi's. Sith studies all aspects of the force, the light and dark. They are the supirior force users.

[Allronix]

The Sith are inmates that take over the insane asylum and terrorize the surrounding area.

 

The Jedi are only marginally better.

 

And anyone not packing a saber is a sheep to be patronized or slaughtered.

[Chevron 7 locke]

Allronix...thats ah....a unique view...

[Darth_Yuthura]

I need to say that Sith's are the one's with the correct idea (For me). They fallow the law of nature, the stronger will survive the weak will die, and they are more open to the force than Jedi's. Sith studies all aspects of the force, the light and dark. They are the supirior force users.

 

I agree to a certain degree.

 

However, the Sith cannot function as a society because of this. When you have no one who can trust others or no means of correcting weaknesses, you are weaker as a whole.

 

Take Darth Malak and Darth Revan: Revan was clearly superior, but in a moment of weakness, Malak sacrificed the Sith's best interests for his own benefit. This would be consistent at every level if you assume you follow nature. Sentience offsets nature and should not be treated as such because everywhere we go, we destroy the ecosystems that we are a part of. Nature alone can sustain itself indefinitely, but not with us as part of the equation.

 

This is an exaggeration, but a society accomplishes much more than what the individuals would if they worked independently. The Jedi are stronger because they stabilize the systems where the Sith are a disturbance. However, when they have too much influence, the system becomes intolerant to disturbances.

[Chevron 7 locke]

So...what your saying is that a society of sith would tear itself apart?

[Darth_Yuthura]

It always has.

 

Like an Empire, the Sith have only a short lifespan before they destroy each other.

[Chevron 7 locke]

What about the first time the sith made contact with the republic? they were a mostly unified body. and the brotherhood of Darkness was destroyed by Bane, not other members of the brotherhood...

 

*Beat*

It appears i shot down my own argument

[Darth_Yuthura]

Well I'm not trying to be the alpha dog or anything, but the Sith are really either very strong or are made weak because they always take the easiest path. Those in the Military are strong because they go through the training and discipline they must have to prepare for unexpected demands. Many sith, like Malak were like that and just took the path of least resistance.

 

The Jedi are stronger in general because they not only can handle themselves, but the demands of others in the process. That is why they help others and are selfless because it's what makes them stronger and more powerful.

[Chevron 7 locke]

Darth Krayt didn't seem to have too much trouble with the jedi...Krayt did not take the easy path

[Rev7]

Well I'm not trying to be the alpha dog or anything, but the Sith are really either very strong or are made weak because they always take the easiest path. Those in the Military are strong because they go through the training and discipline they must have to prepare for unexpected demands. Many sith, like Malak were like that and just took the path of least resistance.

 

The Jedi are stronger in general because they not only can handle themselves, but the demands of others in the process. That is why they help others and are selfless because it's what makes them stronger and more powerful.

Ver well said.