How do you view sith lords?

[True_Avery]

The Jedi are a religion as much as the Sith are, and any real world religion. You'll have your Fundamentalists, Followers, Moderates, Rebels, etc.

 

Like any good religion, the Fundamentalists keep the dogma secured (in general), and attempt to turn the rest to their viewpoint. On the whole, the majority are simply followers and some are moderates.

 

The counsel were the Fundamentalists, Jedi the followers, and then you had people like Jolee and Qui-Gon who saw both the extremes to be dangerous.

 

The dogma states that there should be no emotion. Well, the Bible has the 10 commandments and they are broken by any self respecting christian on a daily basis. The laws are set, but they are unreasonable laws that when followed to the book and forced upon others simply create conflict, and the eventual rebels (In this case, the Sith).

 

Is the Jedi Dogma correct? Is the "Dark Side" really an unnatural imbalance? Well, the movies, Jedi Religion, and such would have you believe so. If you were to apply this concept to the real world, it would simply be an opposing power to a existing power.

 

But, take in mind that this is a fictional universe. In the canon, it is clearly written that the dark side is evil, and the light side is good. The dark side is all corrupting, and the light side is the neutral. Trying to apply relativity to the universe ends up making the story odd ball.

 

Look at TSL. It brought D&D style relativity to the scene via Avellone. While the idea that the Force is a neutral seems like an ok idea, it doesn't fit with the already established canon.

 

It could be argued that the angle of the story teller has convinced us, like the Jedi, that the Dark Side is bad. We only ever really see the Dark Side from the perspective of a Jedi. But as far as canon goes, it is so far pretty accepted fact in the verse that, on the whole, the Dark Side is just plain evil.

 

That isn't to say that some Jedi are pricks, but the story more or less accepts them as being on the white side of the black and white system. Stupidity doesn't really scale on a moral compass.

 

It sucks, yeah. If you want someone to blame, talk to George Lucas for establishing the black and white conflict system.

[Feagildin]

I view the Sith as the dark heroes of Star Wars. They may have been evil, but they were at least true to what they believed in. They held to absolutes. They saw things in black and white. To them, right is right and wrong is wrong. To them, their goals were all that mattered, and anything that stood in their way was only in existence as an obstacle to be overcome. I like the Sith.

[Chevron 7 locke]

Thats a view i never thought about...when you think about it...that does seem to fit them pretty well

[JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan]

Well, the Bible has the 10 commandments and they are broken by any self respecting christian on a daily basis. The laws are set, but they are unreasonable laws that when followed to the book and forced upon others simply create conflict, and the eventual rebels

exactly.

which is why the law has been finished with.

the law is God's standard. we're human. it impossible for us to fulfill it.

if the law still applied, i would've been stoned to death long ago

put simply: sin = death.(physical death, and spiritual death, separation from God) breaking the law = sin. because of people's sin, something had to die. the law called for the blood of perfect animals to fulfill that.

people always sinned. the law is impossible to keep. God came to earth as a man (God the Son - Jesus) and had all the sins of every person in history put on him, then he suffered the complete punishment for it all. death physically and spiritually. (remember, spiritual death = separation from God. God the Father forsook Jesus as he was suffering unimaginable agony) so almost literally, Jesus 'went to hell and back' so we wouldnt have to face the sin's punishment - God's wrath. in doing this, Jesus completely fulfilled the requirement of the law. it doesnt apply. the equation has been balanced.

 

It could be argued that the angle of the story teller has convinced us, like the Jedi, that the Dark Side is bad. We only ever really see the Dark Side from the perspective of a Jedi. But as far as canon goes, it is so far pretty accepted fact in the verse that, on the whole, the Dark Side is just plain evil.

i actually like sw the way it is. light = good, dark = evil

[Darth Avlectus]

We all have freedom of choice, however, I'm not sure if there aren't some who are born more predisposed to evil...

 

The sith and the jedi both seem to avoid love. Something jolee and Qui gon notice (about jedi--though as revan you learn it about the sith as well) and act on it.

 

Anakin/Vader turned because he loved too much--lucas himself even states that. He's ultimately a blind pathetic man who has had a very sad life.

 

Traya, as much of a fanatic hag as she is (so says Johnathan7--to a degree myself), I see that she has some kind of love. At some point, I think she even birthed a child of her own--it's just something about her character.

Who she might have been there is two options:

Krynda Draay: lucien Draay's mother--though at this point she is now dead in the comics...

And the possible mother of Handmaiden Brianna.

 

Darth Rivan...I don't know much except what I have read about him on wookieepedia. I'd like to find out more than that.

[Jae Onasi]

Be respectful of religious beliefs, please, even if you don't hold to those beliefs. More serious discussion of religion belongs in the Hot Topics section of Kavar's Corner. Thanks.

[jonathan7]

The sith and the jedi both seem to avoid love. Something jolee and Qui gon notice (about jedi--though as revan you learn it about the sith as well) and act on it.

 

Depends what you mean by love - as Anakin points out in Episode 2, its a Jedi's prerogative to love - I'd say it was romantic love that was discouraged/against the code etc not love itself. Yoda said to train yourself to let go of all you fear to loose; not to not love.

 

Anakin/Vader turned because he loved too much--lucas himself even states that. He's ultimately a blind pathetic man who has had a very sad life.

 

I'd argue it was Vader's infatuation, rather than love for Padme that was part of his fall; along with his anger.

 

Traya, as much of a fanatic hag as she is (so says Johnathan7--to a degree myself)

 

I love Kreia, she's the best computer game character ever IMHO; though she is also a fanatic old witch.

 

I see that she has some kind of love. At some point, I think she even birthed a child of her own--it's just something about her character.

 

I'm not convinced of Kreia being the loving type myself.

 

Who she might have been there is two options:

Krynda Draay: lucien Draay's mother--though at this point she is now dead in the comics...

And the possible mother of Handmaiden Brianna.

 

I subscribe to the latter theory myself...

[The Doctor]

The Jedi and their teachings are not based on Christianity, but rather on Buddhism - George Lucas has even said as much. The Christian Bible has no bearing on this conversation. Believe it or not, Christianity didn't invent morality.

 

Unfortunate as it may be, things just aren't as black and white as the Star Wars trilogy makes them out to be. In reality, there is no such thing as 100% absolute evil, nor 100% absolute good. I found only one allusion to this fact in the whole of G-level cannon, that being the line from Obi-Wan that truth depends greatly on one's point of view. Palpatine and even Vader are simply unrealistic villains, as awesome and badass as they may be.

 

The thing about the Sith is that each time they return to the Galactic stage, it's in a completely different form. The Sith of the Old Republic are not the Sith seen during the Galactic Civil War. With each return, they either bring fresh new ideas and ways of doing things into the game, or they fizzle out and die without much of a struggle.

 

That means that no two Sith Lords can be viewed in the same light. Exar Kun cannot feasibly be said to be of the same breed as Darth Sidious, or even as Revan and Malak, only forty years after him. There are many kinds of Sith. I don't see how one can have a single view or opinion on them.

 

In my eyes, the best Sith Lords are the ones who aren't really all that "evil", but have been forced to take extreme measures for the greater good of the Galaxy. No, I'm not talking about Revan - that opens a whole can of worms regarding Kreia's honestly or reliability as a source, that I don't feel is necessary to delve into in this thread. I'm simply saying that the Sith Lords who battle the Jedi solely because they want to crush the Light and conquer the Galaxy are incredibly cliché - as are most villains that aren't given a true twist to their character. Malak, for instance, or even Sidious.

 

The ideal villain is one who, once his motives are revealed, the audience (whether they be a viewer or a reader) can identify and possibly even sympathise with. It brings a whole new sense of reality and believability to the character, as well as the story itself. A villain with proper reasons for doing what they're doing, who is able to rationally justify themselves in both their own mind and the mind of the average protagonist-biased audience member, takes so much more talent and ability on the part of the writer to craft than a villain bent on destroying everything simply because they want to. The diabolical quest for power bit has been beaten to death.

 

And madness just isn't enough. Sometimes, writers will create a villain, give him ludicrous goals and ambitions, and simply say "he's like that because he's insane" - or, as is more often the case with Star Wars, "he's like that because the Dark Side is cool that way". Ok, that's all well and good, but it's not really that interesting, much less entertaining or gripping. Now, if you begin with a rational villain who is slowly driven to madness throughout the course of the story, that makes for good reading/watching.

 

As for the Jedi and their teachings, I think people in here lack a real understanding of them and the Code. The mantra "there is no emotion, there is peace" is not meant to say that emotion doesn't exist for the Jedi, or that Jedi must strive to be completely free of their emotions. In fact, due to their natural affinity for the Force, and therefore their bond with all forms of life around them, Jedi would most likely feel emotions far deeper than any non-Force User could ever imagine. The Jedi Code teaches not the denial of emotions, but rather the opposite - accepting them for what they truly are, and coming to terms with (or, if you will, making peace with) them. Unchecked emotions can lead to flawed judgement and reasoning, which may lead to rash actions by an individual with a unique form of power over the average sentient. Taking such rash actions would naturally give all but the most serene and mild mannered of Jedi to see themselves as superior, and fit to rule over those who they see as beneath them. The Jedi teach not that emotions are to be ignored, but rather understood and accepted, bringing peace.

[Chevron 7 locke]

Kreia loved the exile enough to sacrifice the entire galaxy for her, i read that on wookipedia i think. i think that sith lords have a softer side then they let on.

 

Kreia may have been a liar but i believe her when she said she would sacrifice the galaxy for the exile.

 

Revan was willing to fall to the darkside for the republic

 

Malak...uh...give me a few minutes to come up with something for Malak

 

Yuthura Ban was willing to come back to the lightside after speaking with revan

 

Dustil was willing to speak with his father after all the war business was done

 

I believe that every sith can be redemed, if they choose to be

[jonathan7]

Kreia loved the exile enough to sacrifice the entire galaxy for her, i read that on wookipedia i think. i think that sith lords have a softer side then they let on.

 

Kreia may have been a liar but i believe her when she said she would sacrifice the galaxy for the exile.

 

Perhaps I'm naive, but I thought love was meant to be pure and beautiful. That. it seems to me is infatuation not love - much as I love certain individuals in my life I would not sacrifice the lives of the entire world (i.e. 7billion people) for them.

[Chevron 7 locke]

That's true...but i always thought Kreia was a little nuts. but it's still the thought that counts

[The Doctor]

Kreia loved the exile enough to sacrifice the entire galaxy for her, i read that on wookipedia i think. i think that sith lords have a softer side then they let on.

Kreia did not love the Exile, Kreia loved what the Exile's unique position within the Force could mean for the advancement of her own goals.

 

Revan was willing to fall to the darkside for the republic

According to whom? Kreia? I'm highly suspect of Kreia's reliability as a source regarding Revan's motives. She was an admitted and obvious master of deceit and manipulation. Besides, even if she was a perfectly honest woman incapable of lying, how could she really know why Revan chose to wear a red shirt the week before his 19th birthday, much less why he became Dark Lord of the Sith? Only Revan can truly understand why he did what he did, or what his intentions were - good or bad.

 

Yuthura Ban was willing to come back to the lightside after speaking with revan

Yuthura's alignment is never made cannonically clear, and is entirely up to the players in the end. Simply because some players have the ability and feel the need to redeem her doesn't mean that Revan was actually able or willing to do so. I don't see her as a redeemed figure, as her motives for falling and allowing herself to be redeemed are foggy to me, at best. But that may just be me.

[Chevron 7 locke]

Call me crazy but I trust Kreia, and I believe that everyone deserves a chance for redemption

[True_Avery]

The Jedi and their teachings are not based on Christianity, but rather on Buddhism - George Lucas has even said as much. The Christian Bible has no bearing on this conversation. Believe it or not, Christianity didn't invent morality.

Never said they did. Fundamentalism extends into every belief system. The 10 commandments are a nice parallel to the Jedi Code because they both ask of things that go against human nature, but if taken as something to aspire to they come in handy.

 

Unfortunate as it may be, things just aren't as black and white as the Star Wars trilogy makes them out to be. In reality, there is no such thing as 100% absolute evil, nor 100% absolute good. I found only one allusion to this fact in the whole of G-level cannon, that being the line from Obi-Wan that truth depends greatly on one's point of view. Palpatine and even Vader are simply unrealistic villains, as awesome and badass as they may be.

The people, no. The Force, however, seems to have been clearly drawn on a good and evil scale. Not to say the people that follow either are good or bad, but the ones on the Light side seem to be on the good side regardless.

 

As for the Jedi and their teachings, I think people in here lack a real understanding of them and the Code. The mantra "there is no emotion, there is peace" is not meant to say that emotion doesn't exist for the Jedi, or that Jedi must strive to be completely free of their emotions. In fact, due to their natural affinity for the Force, and therefore their bond with all forms of life around them, Jedi would most likely feel emotions far deeper than any non-Force User could ever imagine. The Jedi Code teaches not the denial of emotions, but rather the opposite - accepting them for what they truly are, and coming to terms with (or, if you will, making peace with) them. Unchecked emotions can lead to flawed judgement and reasoning, which may lead to rash actions by an individual with a unique form of power over the average sentient. Taking such rash actions would naturally give all but the most serene and mild mannered of Jedi to see themselves as superior, and fit to rule over those who they see as beneath them. The Jedi teach not that emotions are to be ignored, but rather understood and accepted, bringing peace.

I understand what they mean, and if taken as something to hold hands with and not to follow it seems to be a great ideal.

 

But the fundamentalism of the counsel seems to be the Jedi's undoing every time. They seem to be so strict with their teachings that they drove off Anakin because he was "older" and less able to be completely indoctrinated into their system.

 

The reason the Sith are so different seemingly every generation is because the Jedi council has a new generation of rebels rebelling against their fundamentalist belief system. The counsil has always seemed to see things in black and white when it comes to the Force, and so anyone that questions seems to be quickly alienated.

 

So, the rebels end up falling to the Dark Side due to lack of guidance. Thus, you end up with the next generation of Sith over time.

 

Some of those Rebels make an example, leading many other padawans, apprentices, etc into the Sith ranks.

 

Because of the Council's fundamentalist ideals, they drove off potential padawans into possible future sith ranks, while causing enough alienation to cause many of their own to join the other side.

 

Why do you think so many lower ranking Jedi seem to suddenly give up on the council and switch over every time a war comes along?

 

People are people. Some are looking to be sheep, while others are looking for acceptance, and others power. The ones in power get the sheep, but the ones that want to be accepted tend to be fence jumpers. By exerting too much power, your just basically asking our followers to find a more accepting group. So you get the Sith, in some cases.

[Endorenna]

To start with, I've only read the first post of this thread.

 

Sith Lords aren't all one-dimensional power-mad greed-driven psychopaths, like many people I know seem to think. There are several brands of them.

 

 

 

1. Darth Sidious. As far as I can tell from the movies (since I've never read any books about him), he got billions and billions of people killed, and he used their corpses as stepstools to become King of the Hill. He had no qualms whatsoever.

 

 

 

2. Darth Vader. Ah, the classic emblem of evil. As we all know, he fell to the Dark Side, murdered toddlers, betrayed his mentor/father figure, almost killed his wife, and--need I go on? Vader fell because of his emotional instability, caused by being separated from his mother when he was ten. The instability increased tenfold when his mother was tortured to death, and it increased another tenfold when he started dreaming about his wife dying. He was manipulated, and his weaknesses were exploited to the inth degree. Finally, he threw in his lot with Palpatine and became the heavy-breathin' Goth dude we all know.

 

Okay, now that I've gone through the saga of Ani, I'll come to the point. I never saw Vader as a power-mad dictator like Palpatine. In fact, I'm not quite sure what to think of Vader.

 

There's another brand of Sith. Blends. Like Double-decaf mocha frappucinos.

 

 

 

3. Darth Traya. Wierdo who thought that the Force was a big meany that controlled people's lives and gave them no choice in the matter. So one day, she got up and said to Nihilus and Sion, "I've got an idea! Let's kill the Force!"

 

Of course, we all know how well that mission briefing went.

 

Manipulative bat=Kreia. Another type of Sith--insanity! No, actually, she's beyond insane. She's her own little group.

 

 

 

4. Darth Malak. He talked too much.

 

Malak just sort of squashes people and doesn't even notice. He blindly charges up the quickest and easiest paths to power.

 

 

5. And now we come to the controverisal Yuthura Ban (who was never a Sith Lord, remember). She's looked upon by many as the poor, downtrodden Sith who had every reason and right to turn to the Dark Side because of her traumatic past. I can definitely see this point of view, and I'm inclined to agree with it. Of course, one is responsible for his/her own actions, and Yuthura had undoubtedly killed hundreds or thousands of people after her fall to the Dark Side. She is, most definitely, a sympathetic character, and I usually spare her when I play through KoTOR because of this.

 

 

 

 

I'm sure I can come up with more Sith brands, but I'm tired right now. I might make another post here tomorrow.

 

Comments?

[Chevron 7 locke]

...I thought Vader did kill his wife, when he force-choked her...he killed her on the inside

[Darth Avlectus]

Depends what you mean by love - as Anakin points out in Episode 2, its a Jedi's prerogative to love - I'd say it was romantic love that was discouraged/against the code etc not love itself. Yoda said to train yourself to let go of all you fear to loose; not to not love.

 

True.

 

I'd argue it was Vader's infatuation, rather than love for Padme that was part of his fall; along with his anger.

Though this is primarily why, there are other factors. I was speaking more to

his blindness and pathetic-ness as a result of his hunger for power. The greed that was etched onto his being without his even realizing it. Seeing palpatine (at least according to the ROTS novel by stover) as a father figure. Until he actually saw luke before him being killed, he pretty much held firm. Save for a few select times.

 

I love Kreia, she's the best computer game character ever IMHO; though she is also a fanatic old witch.

 

Yes.

 

I'm not convinced of Kreia being the loving type myself.

 

I think the operative word is either "barely" or "was". On the maternal side of my family, the women are quite manipulative and ornery. I see shades of them (mother, aunt, grandmother, cousin) in Kreia's character.

 

 

I subscribe to the latter theory myself...

 

I 'would' but... It could be someone else for all I know. Besides her strange comments to male exile about brianna, I know very little else.

 

I mean, I thought Haazen was Darth Nihilus because of his mastermind portrayal, and Lucien Draay was Darth Sion. Now I'm not too sure...

 

 

Be respectful of religious beliefs, please, even if you don't hold to those beliefs. More serious discussion of religion belongs in the Hot Topics section of Kavar's Corner. Thanks.

 

Of course--that's one of my core values as a sort of universalist.

 

I realize it wasn't specifically to me, but If I may, Jae, is there any reason you semi-consistently choose to follow my posts with yours so closely?

 

Competitive spirit? (I mean you DID tell me you were in the SCA)

 

Perhaps I'm naive, but I thought love was meant to be pure and beautiful. That. it seems to me is infatuation not love - much as I love certain individuals in my life I would not sacrifice the lives of the entire world (i.e. 7billion people) for them.

 

Good point. It could also be in the form of Red Foreman's solution to most people's problems. Some people, though you love them, need a good boot where the sun don't shine. Maybe that harshness is ultimately for their own good?

 

Just saying.

[Feagildin]

I always thought Kreia was Brianna's grandmother.

 

I really like the bit about Anakin's emotional instability, never thought of it that way before. Not in that exact light at least.

 

As for him killing her on the inside, I think he killed her on the inside when he looked at her right before choking her to sleep.

[jonathan7]

1. Darth Sidious. As far as I can tell from the movies (since I've never read any books about him), he got billions and billions of people killed, and he used their corpses as stepstools to become King of the Hill. He had no qualms whatsoever.

 

Given Hitler for example did this kind of thing, I fail to see why DS is an unrealistic bad guy as someone said earlier in thread...

[The Doctor]

Sidious is an unrealistic villain because the audience is never given any information on his motives. We're simply left to assume that he wanted power for its own sake, and killing people was a means to achieve such power.

 

Hitler, on the other hand, killed people after coming to power on the grounds that they were inferior, sub-human life forms that he had the right to extinguish. History tells us of his motives, even though the vast majority of the population sees them as unwarranted racism.

[jonathan7]

Sidious is an unrealistic villain because the audience is never given any information on his motives. We're simply left to assume that he wanted power for its own sake, and killing people was a means to achieve such power.

 

Hitler, on the other hand, killed people after coming to power on the grounds that they were inferior, sub-human life forms that he had the right to extinguish. History tells us of his motives, even though the vast majority of the population sees them as unwarranted racism.

 

 

 

When tyrants rise do you think the general populace is aware of their motives and plans? i.e. If Germans had known what Hitler was planning would they have allowed him to take Power. Besides many of Stalins victims had done nothing to arrant their deaths; I think not knowing Sidious motives doesn't make him an unrealistic villain; though you could argue its poor story telling.

[Prime]

I'm still at a loss as to how there can be balance when you have only one of two extremes in the galaxy.

It has nothing to do with extremes, and is more to do with the "natural state". The Sith upset the natural state ("pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural") of the Force by twisting it to their own will. Removing the Sith restores the Force to its natural state. So the Jedi's goal to destroy the Sith will (and did) bring balance to the Force and are not mutually exclusive concepts. If it was a numbers game what the Jedi were trying to do makes no sense.

 

Out of the dozens and dozens of times there have been large amounts of Sith and Jedi, and the history of the galaxy... why only create 1 "chosen one"? After Luke took over, more Sith showed up and so did more Jedi. The conflict continued like it had before Anakin.

It isn't really a numbers game, apart from "some" and "none." Whether there is one Sith or a thousand, they are still bringing the Force out of its natural state.

 

But really this is where the issue of the EU comes in. The films and the EU are really separate worlds (or parallel worlds and Lucas puts it). In the film world the Chosen One ultimately destroys the Sith at the end of RotJ, never to return. The Force is finally balanced once again. As far as the films go that is the end of the story. Good conquers evil like all good myths.

 

With the EU some gymnastics are needed to rectify what the prophecy actually means with what authors have done in the various story lines.

[TKA-001]

With the EU some gymnastics are needed to rectify what the prophecy actually means with what authors have done in the various story lines.

Gymnastics? More like some retcons. Get rid of all the garbage that has Sith in the post-ROTJ EU, because it makes a mockery of Anakin's supposed sacrifice and fulfillment of prophecies.

[Darth Avlectus]

exactly.

which is why the law has been finished with.

the law is God's standard. we're human. it impossible for us to fulfill it.

if the law still applied, i would've been stoned to death long ago

put simply: sin = death.(physical death, and spiritual death, separation from God) breaking the law = sin. because of people's sin, something had to die. the law called for the blood of perfect animals to fulfill that.

people always sinned. the law is impossible to keep. God came to earth as a man (God the Son - Jesus) and had all the sins of every person in history put on him, then he suffered the complete punishment for it all. death physically and spiritually. (remember, spiritual death = separation from God. God the Father forsook Jesus as he was suffering unimaginable agony) so almost literally, Jesus 'went to hell and back' so we wouldnt have to face the sin's punishment - God's wrath. in doing this, Jesus completely fulfilled the requirement of the law. it doesnt apply. the equation has been balanced.

 

 

i actually like sw the way it is. light = good, dark = evil

 

(I'm sorry I neglected to answer to this--I just plain spaced it)

 

So far as it has laready been made, yes. I think, however, it is somewhat an oversimplified way of viewing things: whose good, whose bad. That's it.

 

There are those who come back from it. And yet despite repentance (sorry, meant it, and changed their ways), are still refused back.

 

Be respectful of religious beliefs, please, even if you don't hold to those beliefs. More serious discussion of religion belongs in the Hot Topics section of Kavar's Corner. Thanks.

 

My bad.

[JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan]

Be respectful of religious beliefs, please, even if you don't hold to those beliefs. More serious discussion of religion belongs in the Hot Topics section of Kavar's Corner. Thanks.

hmm not sure if this is at me or GTA or True Avery

 

the jedi code is part of the jedi's religion. some (like me) have concluded that it is flawed. true avery's statement suggests that the law is also flawed. (which is totally ok. woot for freedom of opinion! ) i felt i had to put it into context.

if a real jedi were here with a proper understanding of the code, i wouldve liked to here his points against my theory that the jedi code is flawed. since he would have been raised on the jedi code, and have a better, more detailed understanding of jedi principles.

 

The Jedi and their teachings are not based on Christianity, but rather on Buddhism

i beg to differ. the jedi's teachings are a mash of many earth religions, including christianity, hinduism, buddism and islam. (i think that was from Empire of Dreams in the 2004 OT box set)

 

George Lucas was a methodist. click

furthermore:

Lucas's Protestant family background has always been evident to those who have analyzed his films. Lucas has a clearly defined belief in God, and good and evil; Lucas has been described by some as a pantheist. Lucas is a friend of Joseph Campbell, from whom he has derived much of his philosophy. Discussing the development of the idea of the Force, Lucas said: "The Force evolved out of various developments of character and plot. I wanted a concept of religion based on the premise that there is a God and there is good and evil. I began to distill the essence of all religions into what I thought was a basic idea common to all religions and common to primitive thinking. I wanted to develop something that was nondenominational but still had a kind of religious reality. I believe in God and I believe in right and wrong. I also believe that there are basic tenets which through history have developed into certainties, such as 'thou shalt not kill.' I don't want to hurt other people. 'Do unto others...' is the philosophy that permeates my work." [source: Ryder Windham. Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace Scrapbook. Random House (1999), pg. 11.]

i emphasize the latter part of his quote.

the good and evil he based the force on was clearly defined.

that is the standard to which sith lords must be compared.

 

Sith Lords are evil.