Well-Known Member
It depends of your definition of evil of course.
Star Wars Roleplay: Chaos
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
- Status
Rexus Drath
Well-Known Member
[member="sabrina"]
The darkside is bad Sabrina, there's no way around that and there is no medicine or good deeds you can do to change that. There's no "lightside sith" no matter how many jobs you make no matter how much money you do set to charity no matter how stellar you are the dark side is a cancer that spreads and decays your body. It's canon, there's literally no way around it and eventually it will take you to dark places
The darkside is bad Sabrina, there's no way around that and there is no medicine or good deeds you can do to change that. There's no "lightside sith" no matter how many jobs you make no matter how much money you do set to charity no matter how stellar you are the dark side is a cancer that spreads and decays your body. It's canon, there's literally no way around it and eventually it will take you to dark places
Darth Ferus
Wanderer
Not exactly what I meant. Sure, that's not evil.sabrina said:
But Sith will eventually go from "Chemo can save them!" to "Put them out of their misery" and eventually to "They don't deserve to live."
All while their body slowly falls apart themselves.
Ludolf Vaas
"Trust me"
Calling the Sith "evil" implies moral objectivism, that that there is a standard moral code that is universally agreed upon. If we buy into that premise (the assumption that things like wanton slaughter, rape, murder, etc.) are objectively evil (which I would agree with) then yes, there are many evil Sith, and the proportion of evil Sith far outweighs the proportion of evil Jedi in the canon.
That being said, I would like to point out that there is nothing inherently evil about the Sith code. It's just Nietzschean philosophy. In fact, I would much rather live under the Sith code than the Jedi code. But consider the source. Star Wars was written by a 20th Century Hollywood filmmaker, along with other 20th Century writers. The zeitgeist of the day is egalitarianism, democracy and a universe of generally friendly aliens who are open to so-called "Western" values and interchangeable with humanity. Star Wars was written from a perspective that assumes liberal modernity is the inevitable way forward for man. Thus, it's no surprise that more "traditional" ideals like hierarchy, Nietzschean will-to-power and other cryptofascist tenets, as embodied by the Sith and Empire, are illustrated in the most evil possible extremes.
So yes, the Sith are evil. They are the "bad guys" - in a universe that was written from a particular cultural perspective. The Sith are fixed to conform to the narrative of modernity, where the heroes and the values they represent are always shown to be right. Star Wars gets away with this by never showing the ideals of the Jedi and the Republic taken to their logical extremes.
That being said, I would like to point out that there is nothing inherently evil about the Sith code. It's just Nietzschean philosophy. In fact, I would much rather live under the Sith code than the Jedi code. But consider the source. Star Wars was written by a 20th Century Hollywood filmmaker, along with other 20th Century writers. The zeitgeist of the day is egalitarianism, democracy and a universe of generally friendly aliens who are open to so-called "Western" values and interchangeable with humanity. Star Wars was written from a perspective that assumes liberal modernity is the inevitable way forward for man. Thus, it's no surprise that more "traditional" ideals like hierarchy, Nietzschean will-to-power and other cryptofascist tenets, as embodied by the Sith and Empire, are illustrated in the most evil possible extremes.
So yes, the Sith are evil. They are the "bad guys" - in a universe that was written from a particular cultural perspective. The Sith are fixed to conform to the narrative of modernity, where the heroes and the values they represent are always shown to be right. Star Wars gets away with this by never showing the ideals of the Jedi and the Republic taken to their logical extremes.
[member="Ven'Rain Sekairo"]
but a sith who protects the weak is not really a sith but a dark jedi ......
but a sith who protects the weak is not really a sith but a dark jedi ......
*ghosty voice* Resurrection is eeeeeviiiiiiiillllll! It breaks the laws of naaaaattuuuuuuureeeeee!sabrina said:
The Dark Side is evil, Sith are evil. And a Sith who says they're not evil isn't a Sith.
Darth Veles
Sweet Avreet
A man who does evil fully knowing it is evil, yet does so only for the sake of evil isn't a Sith, but an idiot...
Eternal Father
I think that is what we call, Stupid Evil, [member="Darth Veles"]
Jsc
Disney's Princess
It's not so much trolling as it is the simple realization that these conversations don't go anywhere. I simply noticed in Cardia that two people where banging their heads together and decided to show everybody that saying it out loud just makes it sound exactly like it is. A fictional perspective based on a collaborative opinion. Two blind men arguing about how blue the sky is.Enigma said:
So congrats Enigma. You've just figured out the secret to debating Star Wars on the Internet. ...Which is that you don't.
But...the Sith got me kicked out of the Jedi Fun Club...
The Lion King
I'll just drop this here:
Thurion Heavenshield said:
Seris Vant
The Unsung Hero
If we want to go off the board example. Its a tougher line to find. That being because there are several factions of Sith. There was the Empire, which slowly got eviler as it neared its death. (Look up the Togoria for the extreme). There's The Fringe, which flip flops between war and neutrality. The two new Sith factions. OS being rather evil, vengeful and the like. While the NO I've seen very little of their actions. Ya they invaded the Mando's but the reason was to just take the planet I guess. Then you have the Morose and the CIS with Sith Lords in them. Former being more to the cause of their gods while the latter being in it for the power, influence and perks.
We're like that place with 22 flavors of ice cream cept more when it comes to Sith. You got the evil, you got the pretty normal person by the standard.
Cannon wise. That's a very fan theory thing. I've no doubt 95% + of the Sith were evil. Some say otherwise, some say all. A matter of opinion it is.
We're like that place with 22 flavors of ice cream cept more when it comes to Sith. You got the evil, you got the pretty normal person by the standard.
Cannon wise. That's a very fan theory thing. I've no doubt 95% + of the Sith were evil. Some say otherwise, some say all. A matter of opinion it is.
[member="Thurion Heavenshield"]
I have to agree with you, but only to a certain degree. Sometimes a person's intentions are good, yet their actions are wrong. That's what we already know. While villains are sometimes written as truly evil, having bad intentions and everything, and like you say, goodly written villains have their motives and everything, we shouldn't forget that one's actions determine who they are. While one may not seem evil at first and doesn't think they are evil, badly chosen actions make them evil, even though maybe they wanted to do good. Even Jedi can be evil, but then I must say they have never even been Jedi. (Because Jedi are good.)
So here's the point where all my previous posts come in... morality, utopia, peace, love, everything else I spoke of.
And like I have always said, maybe I am a bit biased because of my own beliefs and personality, but aren't we all like that? Some people believe in the exact opposite of me. They have their own opinion because of that. All I can say is that to me, Sith are evil and not because of the type of love they prefer (passionate love, I would say), but because of their code. They are peace-denying. And the things which aren't written in their code: bad ways to express their intentions, immoral actions...
I would say the Code of the Sith is a stupid thing. And so is the Jedi Code, but I believe it is still better than the text Sith believe in.
I have to agree with you, but only to a certain degree. Sometimes a person's intentions are good, yet their actions are wrong. That's what we already know. While villains are sometimes written as truly evil, having bad intentions and everything, and like you say, goodly written villains have their motives and everything, we shouldn't forget that one's actions determine who they are. While one may not seem evil at first and doesn't think they are evil, badly chosen actions make them evil, even though maybe they wanted to do good. Even Jedi can be evil, but then I must say they have never even been Jedi. (Because Jedi are good.
)So here's the point where all my previous posts come in... morality, utopia, peace, love, everything else I spoke of.
And like I have always said, maybe I am a bit biased because of my own beliefs and personality, but aren't we all like that? Some people believe in the exact opposite of me. They have their own opinion because of that. All I can say is that to me, Sith are evil and not because of the type of love they prefer (passionate love, I would say), but because of their code. They are peace-denying. And the things which aren't written in their code: bad ways to express their intentions, immoral actions...
I would say the Code of the Sith is a stupid thing. And so is the Jedi Code, but I believe it is still better than the text Sith believe in.
The Lion King
[member="Maria Natalja"] - Wouldn't the Sith Code be deemed non-canon by the exclusion of the EU? I don't believe it was ever mentioned in the movies.Maria Natalja said:
Oh, yeah... XDThurion Heavenshield said:[member="Maria Natalja"] - Wouldn't the Sith Code be deemed non-canon by the exclusion of the EU? I don't believe it was ever mentioned in the movies.
Avicus DuSang
The Patron Saint of Heartache
Evil is a truly subjective term. Even if you don't go by the Sith Code because it's deemed "EU" and therefore "non-canon", then all we have to go through are the movies. Anakin turned to the Dark Side for the sole intention of saving the woman he loved. Because the dark side offered the powers of keeping her alive, and a variety of other powers which the Jedi deemed "unnatural" so "evil." Did he do evil shit in order to try to obtain that power? Yes. Did he force choke the woman he loved? Yes.
Did he abandon all hope in trying to bring a shred of good to the Galaxy because he feared he legitimately killed the woman he loved in his fit of anger? Also, yes.
Even as Darth Vader, he wasn't purely evil. In the end, he sacrificed his own body in order to save his son from death at the hands of the Emperor. Even after 20 years of Goddess knows what, because all the timeline between episodes 3 and 4 aren't in the movie, so for a lot of people "non-canon." Hell, he could've maintained a unicorn farm on Dantooine to subsidize the wickedness of his actions he had to partake under direction of the Emperor.
Regardless, even after all that time, there was still an sense of morality within him that caused him to sacrifice himself for his son. A son who he had just learned was alive, what? 4 years prior? And he was the Dark Lord of the Sith, again, if you read into the "non-canon" filler that fills in the gaps of the various movies and series.
So, let us delve into the EU. The non-canon. Because, let's be honest, I hate being restricted by six movies and a few television specials/series. Let's examine the Sith Code.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
To be a Sith isn't just about embracing your hatred and anger. Your sorrow and regret. Sure, a lot of Sith focus on the negatives of their emotional spectrum. But, it's a classic story in which a young hero falls to wicked acts for love, or because of the loss of a loved one. But, does that make them neccesarily evil? Can a person's alignment and predisposition of their moral compass be truly defined by their actions? I don't think so. I'd like to think that it says something of their character, but not of their morality. Sometimes, the "wicked" thing has to be done for the greater good.
Look at a history book. It's a well known phrase that "history is written by the winners." Look at Vlad Tepes. He brutally murdered thousands of people. Had them impaled on sticks, some taking days to die. Most of the world views him as a vicious sociopath, yet you go to Romania, and he's regarded by many as a hero. Because he kept the Ottoman Turks out of their lands for so long. And, a lot of those brutal acts were done so that the majority of the citizens under his realm were free from the expanding empire.
World War 2 is another example. Hitler, and a the people who really ran under him, are regarded as some of the most evil men in history. And rightfully so. His "final solution" for the Jewish, homosexual, Gypsy, basically all non-Aryan populations that fell under Nazi Germany's territiory was terrible. But, what you don't hear anyone talk about is how the United States threw Japanese-Americans into "camps" that really weren't much better than the concentration camps the Nazis were using. Just without the mass genocide. Or about how many civillians died when not one, but two atomic bombs were dropped on Japanese cities.
Perhaps in Star Wars, it's much the same. Yes. Palpatine wasn't exactly a friendly guy, but he brought nearly the entire Galaxy under one banner. Put an end to territorial disputes. Stopped the squabbling and wasted time of debates on galactic politics that went rampant during the days of the Republic. I mean, watch Episode 1. Naboo was under attack from the Seperatists, and although Naboo was under the Republic's jurisdiction, they didn't even bother to send anything more than two Jedi in order to investigate. And with that system wide corruption, is it really surprising that Palpatine was able to usurp command of the Republic and throw out all of those politicians that really weren't doing the Galaxy any good other than collecting a wage in order to sit around and talk?
There was plenty of evidence in order to support Amadala's claim; but they didn't even bother sending a ship or two in order to investigate. This is the Republic we're talking about. They had enough Star Destroyers to hold off attacks from the Seperatists in Episodes 2 and 3, yet they couldn't send one or two to Naboo to see what the hell the planet's queen was talking about? When Palpatine had what he wanted, the Republic, then Empire, under his full control, he wiped out the remainder of the Seperatists in one blow. Yes, he used them as pawns. But, they were always his enemy. And when they served their purpose, he eradicated them as what would happen to any enemy.
Did he abandon all hope in trying to bring a shred of good to the Galaxy because he feared he legitimately killed the woman he loved in his fit of anger? Also, yes.
Even as Darth Vader, he wasn't purely evil. In the end, he sacrificed his own body in order to save his son from death at the hands of the Emperor. Even after 20 years of Goddess knows what, because all the timeline between episodes 3 and 4 aren't in the movie, so for a lot of people "non-canon." Hell, he could've maintained a unicorn farm on Dantooine to subsidize the wickedness of his actions he had to partake under direction of the Emperor.
Regardless, even after all that time, there was still an sense of morality within him that caused him to sacrifice himself for his son. A son who he had just learned was alive, what? 4 years prior? And he was the Dark Lord of the Sith, again, if you read into the "non-canon" filler that fills in the gaps of the various movies and series.
So, let us delve into the EU. The non-canon. Because, let's be honest, I hate being restricted by six movies and a few television specials/series. Let's examine the Sith Code.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
To be a Sith isn't just about embracing your hatred and anger. Your sorrow and regret. Sure, a lot of Sith focus on the negatives of their emotional spectrum. But, it's a classic story in which a young hero falls to wicked acts for love, or because of the loss of a loved one. But, does that make them neccesarily evil? Can a person's alignment and predisposition of their moral compass be truly defined by their actions? I don't think so. I'd like to think that it says something of their character, but not of their morality. Sometimes, the "wicked" thing has to be done for the greater good.
Look at a history book. It's a well known phrase that "history is written by the winners." Look at Vlad Tepes. He brutally murdered thousands of people. Had them impaled on sticks, some taking days to die. Most of the world views him as a vicious sociopath, yet you go to Romania, and he's regarded by many as a hero. Because he kept the Ottoman Turks out of their lands for so long. And, a lot of those brutal acts were done so that the majority of the citizens under his realm were free from the expanding empire.
World War 2 is another example. Hitler, and a the people who really ran under him, are regarded as some of the most evil men in history. And rightfully so. His "final solution" for the Jewish, homosexual, Gypsy, basically all non-Aryan populations that fell under Nazi Germany's territiory was terrible. But, what you don't hear anyone talk about is how the United States threw Japanese-Americans into "camps" that really weren't much better than the concentration camps the Nazis were using. Just without the mass genocide. Or about how many civillians died when not one, but two atomic bombs were dropped on Japanese cities.
Perhaps in Star Wars, it's much the same. Yes. Palpatine wasn't exactly a friendly guy, but he brought nearly the entire Galaxy under one banner. Put an end to territorial disputes. Stopped the squabbling and wasted time of debates on galactic politics that went rampant during the days of the Republic. I mean, watch Episode 1. Naboo was under attack from the Seperatists, and although Naboo was under the Republic's jurisdiction, they didn't even bother to send anything more than two Jedi in order to investigate. And with that system wide corruption, is it really surprising that Palpatine was able to usurp command of the Republic and throw out all of those politicians that really weren't doing the Galaxy any good other than collecting a wage in order to sit around and talk?
There was plenty of evidence in order to support Amadala's claim; but they didn't even bother sending a ship or two in order to investigate. This is the Republic we're talking about. They had enough Star Destroyers to hold off attacks from the Seperatists in Episodes 2 and 3, yet they couldn't send one or two to Naboo to see what the hell the planet's queen was talking about? When Palpatine had what he wanted, the Republic, then Empire, under his full control, he wiped out the remainder of the Seperatists in one blow. Yes, he used them as pawns. But, they were always his enemy. And when they served their purpose, he eradicated them as what would happen to any enemy.
- Status