Jump to content

Home

How do you view sith lords?


Chevron 7 locke

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 316
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Well, to my knowledge there are any number of interpretations of the same thing and its meaning.

 

Given that there are two of anything--no matter how alike, they are not the same by virtue that there are two of it.

 

I will not go into relativistic theories--I just won't. Selective ethics.

 

I will, however, state that a belief can be shared but not practiced in exactly the same way.

 

Situational ethics, on the other hand, might be a very loose way. It does not intend to neglect, ignore, or break the laws. While honesty is the right eventual thing to do, it may not always be the best policy at the start. That coming from a detective friend's point of view. Vrook and Katarn have said, it's not the power that is bad, so much as it is in the context which it is used. Sometimes lies on faith is the only way to catch someone in the act of doing a crime. If that technique were to be used to bait the general population for quota sake, on the other hand, that is wrong. Using dishonesty to create more dishonesty and then arresting another for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Jedi are evil. Disprove my statement with fact(s).

eh? uhm... all your posts are about the different types of sith lords and the orbital bombardment of taris... which one are you talking about?

The simple answer is that you cannot. As Sidious mentioned, Good and Evil are points of view, and to say otherwise is to attempt to convert opinion into fact.

the opinion is george lucas' and that is what he made the force on.

 

heres something:

GL said "no person who is evil believes themselves to be evil" (or along the lines of it. i think Empire of Dreams again) i think he was talking about anakin there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither extreme is equitable, and I think Kreia, or Luke Skywalker's New Jedi Order, understood this better than most. The thing about morality is that, for someone enlightened and not wholly blinded by fervorent belief in a religion, it is very hard to break the world down into absolutes. Everyone is different, and everyone has a unique perspective on the world. Thusly, to someone, good may seem good, but to someone else, good may seem evil. No realistic, dimensional villian has ever acted for the sake of being bad. He does it because he believes, with such a sensible reasoning that you begin to see how it could be valid, that he is the hero. We are diverse, and that's one of the many things that make us beautiful. In a world with such fluxuating ideas, values, and viewpoints, how can there ever truly be absolutes?

 

I won't get into religion. I have a feeling people wouldn't like my opinion, and I don't want to cause a ruckus, because that isn't what this thread is about. Instead, I'll outline my thoughts on both the Sith and the Jedi.

 

The Sith are born from a lack of control. They cannot temper their wild, savage, animalistic emotions that make them little more than beasts. Logic, reason, and sense is absent. A value invested in creation and peace is destroyed by a need to fill a thoughtless lust for blood. They grow strong in a power far too immense for any one sentient to control without suffering both mental and physical corruption, changing and mutating who they are. They are selfish, and care for nothing but the pursuit of their own self-serving ambitions. Their irrationality, and lack of intellect in manners of organisation and societal survival, leads inevitably to their self-destruction.

 

Inversely, the Jedi of the Old Republic ways maintain too much control over their students. The search for knowledge and growth in power is limited by a mantra desperate to contain and deny a side of the self best confronted and challenged. They are stable, and they are intelligent, but they fail to recognise that human emotions are a natural part of life, and cannot be contained forever. This is why most Sith are born of the Jedi Order: because the stifling, constricting hold the Jedi mantra holds over their students causes those with stronger feelings than others to break free: violently. The Jedi are in many ways ignorant of the Force: they fail to see what must be done to control the emotions, but not surpress them.

 

To me, a proper Force user disciplines both his body and mind to the ravaging effects of his emotional outbursts, and bolsters himself against the corrupting damage to his identity caused by excessive Dark Side use, so that he maintains control. However, he then does not forgo knowledge of any perspective, leaving both Jedi and Sith philosophies, and the grey areas in between, open to him. He faces his emotions directly, and conquers them, so he is at peace with their presence and may utilise them as he sees fit, in a docile, regulated manner. Maintaining a delicate balance of freedom and control is probably the most stable manner of training which a Force user can take, yet both the Jedi and the Sith do it to two sides of the spectrum, two extremes that both cause failure in the religious branches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A prior post mentioned that anyone has the right to redeem themselves. I disagree with that.

 

Character like the Emperor, Malak, and Vader were all out for themselves. They enjoyed proving their dominance to those they consider weak. Vader was not a tragic chacter in my opinion. He chose to grab power for himself and didn't hesitate to kill anyone just for being in the way. Sadists and those that wage genocide don't deserve anyone's sympathy because they showed none who were innocent.

 

At the end of KOTOR, Malak admitted he was inferior to Revan and almost renounced his darkside persona at the end. That wasn't because he wanted to redeem himself... it was because he wasn't devoted or brave enough to die as a sith. He was truly evil and enjoyed taking lives, but was very hypocritical when he got the short end of the stick. Anyone who abandons the darkside out of fear don't really redeem themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say Sith Lords are evil and i say they are not. anyone is capable of doing good. even sith lords

 

I take it you mean that

 

All people capable of doing good are good people.

All Sith Lords are people capable of doing good.

Therefore, all Sith Lords are good people.

 

By the same token

 

All people capable of doing good are good people.

All Hitlers are people capable of doing good.

Therefore, all Hitlers are good people.

 

:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure...whatever you say Endo...

*grabs the strait jacket and the tranquilizer*

 

... o_O

 

Despite his obvious mental instabilities, Chevron does in fact have a point. Vader proved that there is good in everyone, even the darkest of Sith Lords. I think, Endy, that you kind of took his comment and kind of exaggerated it a bit. He simply said that even a Sith Lord is capable of returning to the Light. That's certainly not to say that they all will, but the possibility exists for each of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... o_O

 

Despite his obvious mental instabilities, Chevron does in fact have a point. Vader proved that there is good in everyone, even the darkest of Sith Lords. I think, Endy, that you kind of took his comment and kind of exaggerated it a bit. He simply said that even a Sith Lord is capable of returning to the Light. That's certainly not to say that they all will, but the possibility exists for each of them.

 

Yes, I agree that any Sith Lord can turn to the Light. From Chev's comment, I thought he was saying that Sith Lords weren't evil, since he said "You say Sith Lords are evil, and I say they are not". I didn't realize he meant "You say Sith Lords are perpetually evil, and I say they can be redeemed". Sorry 'bout that, Chev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a previous post, I may have given the wrong impression. I'm not saying Sith can't redeem themselves, but if they don't want to, there is no reason for anyone else to try. The Emperor and Malak were driven more by greed than anything else.

 

This seems to contradict with my favorite character being a sith... and a redeemed sith no less. The difference between Yuthura Ban and Malak was that she expressed remorse before attacking Revan while Malak grandstanded against his once-best friend. Yuthura also expressed that she hated what she had become while Malak was arrogant and possessed too much pride.

 

Darth Vader may also have hated himself, but there was nothing that would have driven him back to the light. His wife was dead and he was too crippled to face the Emperor. When Luke came along, everything changed.

 

The point here is that it is possible for a Sith to change for the better, but it requires pursuing something they value more than the Sith. With nothing to drive them, they wouldn't want to turn away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point here is that it is possible for a Sith to change for the better, but it requires pursuing something they value more than the Sith. With nothing to drive them, they wouldn't want to turn away.

 

The sith have also come back to the light becuase they saw that their actions were wrong and that they were hurting their loved ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, wrong, good, bad, light, dark... it's all a matter of one's perspective. In that situation you had given, those Sith valued their loved ones. Even sadists can be decent to certain people, but they are often used to describe one who is truly evil. Just because a sadist or sociopath can care about one or two people doesn't mean it could excuse everything else they did. It just comes down to what s/he valued more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Character like the Emperor, Malak, and Vader were all out for themselves.

Palpatine actually viewed himself as a savior for doing away with the alleged corruption and stagnation of the Republic, so he was not completely out for himself. In fact, one could argue that the galaxy was better off under his Empire than the New Republic and the GFFA.

 

They enjoyed proving their dominance to those they consider weak. Vader was not a tragic chacter in my opinion. He chose to grab power for himself and didn't hesitate to kill anyone just for being in the way. Sadists and those that wage genocide don't deserve anyone's sympathy because they showed none who were innocent.

I find it interesting that in your mind, Revan is apparently completely exempt from this rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revan was an exception to the rule, but not because he 'did it for a greater good,' but because he was given a new identity. Even if his real memories began to return, it would not have been just Revan, but a combination of two personalities... the alias and Revan. It would have made him a completely new individual, not only Revan. At least that's what I think.

 

There really is no telling whether Revan was truly seduced or if he did everything reluctantly. If that were the case, he never was seduced because he could have walked away at any time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...