Jedi & Sith. Good/Evil or Law/Chaos? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Anecronwashere

2012-02-12, 12:00 AM

Is it just me or are the teachings of the two groups matching Law/Chaos more than Good/Evil?

The Jedi teach cold law-following with it's members unable to express even positive emotions (no marriage rule for instance) and their morality seems to follow utilitarianism and law-following than any sort of goodness.
There is no emotion, there is peace
There is no passion, there is serenity
There is no Chaos there is harmony

"The Jedi shackle themselves in chains of obedience: obedience to the Jedi Council; obedience to their Masters; obedience to the Republic. Those who follow the light side even believe they must submit themselves to the Force. They are merely instruments of its will, slaves to a greater good."
-Darth Bane

The Sith teach that Emotion (any and all) gives power. Passion, Hate, Anger, Joy. It can all be used by a Sith Lord to fuel his powers. They don't follow society's rules and are taught that They can do whatever they want
Peace is a lie, there is only passion
Through passion, I gain strength
through victory my chains are broken
The force shall set me free

The Sith preach Chaos and Freedom, using your Emotions to power yourself
The Jedi teach Order and Restriction, using your chains as weapons

The Sith teach the Rule of Two, one being strong enough to be above rules, and one striving to take that position.
The Jedi preach Community, many beings in layers of restrictions and responsibility with the stronger one is, the more they are restricted.

The Sith represent Total Chaos. Striving to free oneself from one's responsibilities and restrictions (the chains that bind)
The Jedi represent Perfect Order. Using the restrictions one has and adding more rather than less as their strength increases.

Thus: Jedi Teaching = Order
Sith Teaching = Chaos.

Coidzor

2012-02-12, 12:27 AM

The problem being that the Sith, for whatever reason, have a tendency to turn into baby-eating idiots. So if they represent pure chaos, then chaos is naturally going to end up with baby-eating.

And the Jedi go back and forth between being hidebound Order and trying to be good, for a variety of reasons, most of which seem more traceable to the humans doing the writing than the overarching intent of the idea.

Anecronwashere

2012-02-12, 12:48 AM

The Sith can be explained via the "Power Corrupts" saying.
Also, the chains that bind could also be a sense of decency in some people.

Also, if they use their emotions as a power source, people will lose their higher functions, reacting with Emotion, rather than Logic. They have no reason not to fulfill every tiny whim they have and conditioning to do exactly that.
And not every Sith was Evil, Darth Revan wasn't Evil in most depictions (just a Xanatos Gambit-user who wanted to prevent the Galaxy from being weak)

Lord Raziere

2012-02-12, 12:55 AM

Law and Chaos, the writers are just bad and dumb it down to good and evil, when there is far more potential in Law and Chaos to be explored, and lots of questions to be investigated from the conflict.

Pokonic

2012-02-12, 01:13 AM

While it sounds like its a simple LN-CN differance, the cold hard fact's are that none realy show this in the movies and that its split between the good Jedi and the many flavors of evil on the Sith side. Case closed.

thubby

2012-02-12, 01:25 AM

i think its more a case of dark side is evil, the rest of the force just isn't.
jedi tend toward law and being free of emotion because it precludes dark side influence.

Dienekes

2012-02-12, 01:36 AM

Looking at the fluff of both groups I've always felt that the Jedi where Lawful Neutral with good tendencies, the best of the Jedi being Lawful Good themselves. Sith code however just screams always Chaotic Evil to me, which is odd as the I'd always pictured the most successful Sith being Lawful Evil, at least I always assumed Palpatine and Vader were in the original trilogy. I'd have to sit and think about their actions in the whole sextology.

KingofMadCows

2012-02-12, 02:04 AM

The whole idea of the Jedi being a bunch of emotionless celibate creeps with no attachments was just a BS idea thought up in the prequels.

There's nothing in the OT to suggest that the Jedi are devoid of emotions and attachments.

Yoda didn't tell Luke to let go of his attachments to Han and Leia. Yoda didn't want Luke to go because Luke's training wasn't complete and he was vulnerable to the temptation of the dark side.

The only thing that supports the whole rule of no emotions and no attachments was the idea of Force bonds established in KotoR 2 and they've pretty much ignored all that.

tyckspoon

2012-02-12, 02:43 AM

There's nothing in the OT to suggest that the Jedi are devoid of emotions and attachments.

Yoda didn't tell Luke to let go of his attachments to Han and Leia. Yoda didn't want Luke to go because Luke's training wasn't complete and he was vulnerable to the temptation of the dark side.

That was after Yoda got to watch the 'no attachments' philosophy fail completely, tho- it clearly did not bring peace to Anakin, and resulted in the utter destruction of the Jedi Order built on those principles. It's not really a huge stretch to think that maybe, while he spent those years in hermitage on Dagobah, he might have decided that the Jedi of his age were in fact wrong. You know. If you want to try and reconcile the prequels and the original movies. I understand if you prefer to just ignore the prequels entirely.

@ thread topic: More nuanced presentations of the Jedi and Sith philosophies do basically come across as Law and Chaos, yes. But the simpler versions most characters know as 'true'/get communicated to them are along the lines of 'deny yourself to better serve others', which sounds a lot like Good, and 'screw the rules, do whatever you have to do to get your fun' which is.. not exactly Evil, per se, but does tend to attract a less savory sort of person.

KingofMadCows

2012-02-12, 02:57 AM

That was after Yoda got to watch the 'no attachments' philosophy fail completely, tho- it clearly did not bring peace to Anakin, and resulted in the utter destruction of the Jedi Order built on those principles. It's not really a huge stretch to think that maybe, while he spent those years in hermitage on Dagobah, he might have decided that the Jedi of his age were in fact wrong. You know. If you want to try and reconcile the prequels and the original movies. I understand if you prefer to just ignore the prequels entirely.

Except the prequels should have reinforced Yoda's belief in that philosophy since Anakin's fall to the dark side was a result of his attachment to Padme.

Also, the OT was not made with the PT in mind. The whole idea that Lucas planned out the entire story is just a lie.

As for the dark side vs. light side thing. It's much more of a peace vs. conflict or contemplation vs. impulse dichotomy.

Peace brings stability and harmony but it can also lead to stagnation and decay.

Conflict often leads to depravity and unnecessary cruelty but much can be learned from struggle and competition.

Embracing the path of the Sith fully results in wanton destruction and war while embracing the path of the Jedi fully results in a slow decaying death that lasts centuries.

In order to truly thrive, there has to be a balance between the two. There has to be periods of struggle and conflict through which ideas are challenged and tested but there also has to be periods of peace and contemplation so that the fruits of that struggle can be enjoyed.

Zevox

2012-02-12, 03:27 AM

In theory, their respective philosophies are Law/Chaos. In practice though, it always works out as Good/Evil. There are plenty of possible reasons for this: bad writers, writers being constrained to not introduce any real grey morality into the setting (they retconned away the single biggest development that would've allowed that after all, Vergere's explanation of the Force as one, with no dark or light sides, from the New Jedi Order series), the original movies having set up the Jedi and Sith as straight good/evil due to being designed as simple science fantasy stories about unambiguous good and evil characters, and there are other possibilities I'm sure.

In the end, it makes little difference why, the fact simply is that theory and practice don't match up here.

Zevox

Corvus

2012-02-12, 05:04 AM

I'd go with Jedi being Lawful Neutral - they do not strike me at all as being good.

Sith are evil, but it varies. Some are Chaotic, other Lawful.

Gnoman

2012-02-12, 01:11 PM

they retconned away the single biggest development that would've allowed that after all, Vergere's explanation of the Force as one, with no dark or light sides, from the New Jedi Order series

Does it count as a retcon if the entire (out-of-universe) purpose of Vergere's philosophy was to move a certain individual toward the Dark Side?

Axolotl

2012-02-12, 01:24 PM

The only interpretation that ever made sense to me is Good and Evil.

I can see where the others are coming from but they just don't mesh with the actual films, I mean it's all very well saying that the Sith are passionate and emotions are linked to the Dark Side or whatever but this doesn't work because every Sith we see is a complete stoic with the only exception being The Emperor and even he only seems show happyness when he's being evil, he's not exactly a Byronic superman. I mean just look at the visual designs and aesthetics of the Empire, these are not people who think that emotion is good.

Aotrs Commander

2012-02-12, 01:38 PM

I think the truth, as always, is far more complicated than the primative alignment structure of D&D can really cope with.

That said, I would hazard a theory that the Jedi philosophy (era-independant) generally seems to tend more to lawful and good, but that the Jedi Order itself also shows a marked tendancy to ossify into lawful neutral (usually before they get purged...) over time. The Sith seem to tend more to the evil end of the spectrum, and often seem to gravitate away from lawful to just off-the-deep-end insane (which is probably not the same thing as chaotic, D&D's attempt to pidgeon-hole the entirity of one of the most complicated subjects in existance into nine easy categogires notwithstanding...!) on a more personal level.

...

Either than or it's Stupid/Awesome. One of the two...

Xondoure

2012-02-12, 01:58 PM

Jedi are supposed to be good and Sith evil. This is shown by their compassion for all living things and their dedication to mastering their emotions so they themselves are not controlled. Not purging emotion, merely understanding it and not allowing it to consume the bond they share with all life. The Sith ignore this in favor of power. Their power, and no one else's. As has been mentioned look at the Empire's chosen aesthetic. They are a totalitarian war machine. And like all war machines fueled by the darkest excuses human beings give themselves for their actions.

The whole Jedi are actually bastards thing comes from a western misunderstanding of the decidedly eastern philosophy and the fact that Sith are really cool, so they should be the good guys. I mean that is how it works right?

hamishspence

2012-02-12, 02:09 PM

Does it count as a retcon if the entire (out-of-universe) purpose of Vergere's philosophy was to move a certain individual toward the Dark Side?

Hers wasn't the only one- there was the "full colour rainbow" philosophy of the Aing-Tii monks (that never gets explained) the "White Current" group in Black Fleet Crisis, and others.

The Sith aren't the only "dark philosophy" either- there was the Sorcerers of Rhand, which believe there is only "The Dark"- rather than light and dark sides of the force- and seem dedicated to entropy. The Big Bad in Luke Skywalker and the Shadows of Mindor follows this.

The "Potentium" belief- which says that intent is what defines deeds- and using traditionally "dark" powers is fine if you do so with good intent, was fairly close to Vergere's.

Ironically the Sith are just as disdainful of it as the Jedi are:

Darth Plagueis: page 159

He paused to glance at Sidious. "No doubt the texts I've provided contain references to the so-called Potentium theory - that light and dark depend on the intention of the user. This is yet another perversion of the truth perpetrated by those who would keep us shackled to the Force. The power of water and the power of fire are entirely different. Glaciers and volcanoes both have the power to transform landscapes, but one does so by burying what lies beneath, where the other spews forth new terrain. The Sith are not placid stars but singularities. Rather than burn with muted purpose, we warp time and space to twist the galaxy to our own design."

Zevox

2012-02-12, 03:06 PM

Does it count as a retcon if the entire (out-of-universe) purpose of Vergere's philosophy was to move a certain individual toward the Dark Side?
That's part of the retcon I'm talking about. The whole Darth Caedus thing was not planned that far back - the writers have said that it wasn't even planned during the Dark Nest Crisis. Vergere was retconned to be a Sith pushing Jacen towards the dark side as the last part of the retcon to eliminate her philosophy - or at least, that was a convenient way for them to kill two birds with one stone, both giving a plausible reason to push Jacen towards becoming a Sith and eliminate any remaining doubts about the canonicity of her philosophy. She was originally a Jedi who had left with the Yuuzhan Vong upon first contact with them, in order to delay their invasion. There was even a prequel novel where Obi-Wan and Anakin went looking for her on Zonama Sekot after her disappearance.

(The first part of the retcon took place during the Dark Nest Crisis books, when Luke and Mara rejected Vergere's philosophy on the rather flimsy grounds of "the Force may not have a dark side, but we do" - which was precisely one of the points of her philosophy, yet that was made out to be a reason for them to revert to their previous beliefs, and Vergere's philosophy was never mentioned again after that.)

Zevox

Cikomyr

2012-02-12, 04:09 PM

I always had the feeling that it was not necessarely a matter of morality that was the basis of Sith/Jedi philosophies (the morality aspect was merely a byproduct), but more the duality of Active/Passive.

What we see of the Jedi, they know about things. They read the flow and ebbs of the Force, they become one with it, to understand it. With it, they achieve incredible instinct and prescience, but they have to withdraw from their innermost desire in order to feel the Force entirely. This means they often end up as recluse insensitive pricks.

While the Sith (and the Dark Side) is more about imposing your willpower upon the Force. It's shaping and destroying at your will. To achieve this, they have to become extremely willfull and lose themselves into their feelings. Which means they often end up as egotistic jerkasses.

hamishspence

2012-02-12, 04:30 PM

Sounds about right. Mara's advice in the Hand of Thrawn trilogy is to use the Force less- and listen to the guidance of the Force more.

the novel Darth Plagueis has a great deal to say about Sith philosophy:

"the dark has always preceded the light. The original idea was to capture the power of the Force and make it subservient to the will of sentient life. The ancients - the Celestials, the Rakata - didn't pronounce judgement on their works. They moved planets, organized star systems, conjured dark side devices like the Star Forge as they saw fit. If millions died in the process, so be it. The lives of most beings are of small consequence. The Jedi have failed to understand this. They are so busy saving lives and striving to keep the powers of the Force in balance that they have lost sight of the fact that sentient life is meant to evolve, not simply languish in contented stasis."

and further musings from Plagueis:

It had been theorized by Jedi and Sith alike that balance between the light and dark sides was actually under the guidance of a group of discorporate entities - the ones called Celestials, perhaps - who had merged themselves with the Force thousands of generations earlier, and had continued to guide the fate of the galaxy ever since. In effect, a higher order of intermediaries, whose powers were beyond the understanding of mortal beings.

But many Sith viewed the notion with disdain, for the theoretical existence of such a group had little bearing on the goal of making the force subservient to the will of an enlightened elite. Only the Sith understood that sentient life was on the verge of a transformative leap; that through the manipulation of midi-chlorians - or the overthrow of the Forceful group that supervised them - the divide between organic life and the Force could be bridged, and death could be erased from the continuum.

The Jedi "obey the will of the force" the Sith seek to "make the Force subservient to their will".

McStabbington

2012-02-12, 04:56 PM

While I like your attempts to run interference, HP, the ultimate problem is that the only consistent thing I can find in the Jedi Code is that for some reason is justifies whatever action a bumbling and inept storyteller needs it to in order to tell his stories. Trying to read the tea leaves of the EU and the six Star Wars movies to try and create a coherent sense of the Jedi's view of the Force is only slightly more navigable than watching Star Trek: Voyager to try and get a coherent understanding of the Prime Directive.

There is no coherence, there is only profit.
There is no continuity, there is only creator's license.
There is no correspondance with wisdom, there is only sophistry.
There is no Force, only what George Lucas thinks right now is the Force.

Kish

2012-02-12, 04:59 PM

When Star Wars came out, the Jedi and the Dark Jedi, including the one named Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith, were as archetypal an example of good and evil as you could ever hope to meet (or not to meet, as the case may be). The ambiguities that have been added since say more about the times than about the setting.

The question in the thread title is largely unanswerable without more information: In what source? In the writings of which author?

Coidzor

2012-02-12, 04:59 PM

The Sith can be explained via the "Power Corrupts" saying.
Also, the chains that bind could also be a sense of decency in some people.

If so, that is the same as saying that chaos is ultimately evil.

Gnoman

2012-02-12, 07:32 PM

That's part of the retcon I'm talking about. The whole Darth Caedus thing was not planned that far back - the writers have said that it wasn't even planned during the Dark Nest Crisis. Vergere was retconned to be a Sith pushing Jacen towards the dark side as the last part of the retcon to eliminate her philosophy - or at least, that was a convenient way for them to kill two birds with one stone, both giving a plausible reason to push Jacen towards becoming a Sith and eliminate any remaining doubts about the canonicity of her philosophy. She was originally a Jedi who had left with the Yuuzhan Vong upon first contact with them, in order to delay their invasion. There was even a prequel novel where Obi-Wan and Anakin went looking for her on Zonama Sekot after her disappearance.

(The first part of the retcon took place during the Dark Nest Crisis books, when Luke and Mara rejected Vergere's philosophy on the rather flimsy grounds of "the Force may not have a dark side, but we do" - which was precisely one of the points of her philosophy, yet that was made out to be a reason for them to revert to their previous beliefs, and Vergere's philosophy was never mentioned again after that.)

Zevox

While the details of Caedus were not well planned in the NJO time, the "One Solo dies and the other falls to the dark side" was. That's why Anakin died in the first place, because they didn't want to waste the symbolistic "redeeming the name" concept. In original drafts, Jacen was supposed to die (which was a large part of his philosophical trend; as it was him that was supposed to be on the cusp of a new understanding of the Force.)

(As far as sources go, I'm mainly going by old author interviews that I can't find anymore.)

danzibr

2012-02-12, 07:39 PM

Well... from what I know of Star Wars (less than some, more than most, probably), I'd say the Sith don't just practice what they preach. They're more focused on becoming powerful using any means. While they don't actively seek doing evil deeds (I think), they have absolutely no problem doing them, so I think they're evil. Maybe NE.

The Jedi though, I'd say are LN.

Zevox

2012-02-12, 08:21 PM

While the details of Caedus were not well planned in the NJO time, the "One Solo dies and the other falls to the dark side" was. That's why Anakin died in the first place, because they didn't want to waste the symbolistic "redeeming the name" concept. In original drafts, Jacen was supposed to die (which was a large part of his philosophical trend; as it was him that was supposed to be on the cusp of a new understanding of the Force.)

(As far as sources go, I'm mainly going by old author interviews that I can't find anymore.)
Hm, what I heard was that Jacen was originally supposed to die, but it was changed because Lucas thought that having two different "Anakin" characters active at two different times would confuse the readers.

I know that I read that Jacen's fall wasn't planned even during the Dark Nest Crisis though. Pretty sure it was in an interview included in one of the Legacy of the Force books.

Found it, an interview in the back of Inferno, the sixth book of that series, though it's slightly different than I remember. Troy Denning claims to have first had the idea while writing the Dark Nest trilogy, and that he put it forth as a suggestion to the editors at Lucasfilm and Del Rey when he heard they were looking for ideas for the next series. Aaron Allston even specifically denies any sort of "uber-plot" being in place for the Star Wars novels.

So no, Vergere was definitely not intended to be pushing Jacen towards becoming a Sith from the start.

Zevox

Zaydos

2012-02-12, 11:02 PM

I'd say it's more consistently Good/Evil than Law/Chaos. In the old EU and the movies Sith are always Evil, the idea of non-Evil Sith originated solely in the games. Jedi, on the other hand, were presented as always good in the movies (though the PT was bad at portraying this) and in the older books they were either Good or no longer truly Jedi for not being good meant not being fully a Jedi any longer.

MLai

2012-02-12, 11:37 PM

In keeping with the whole "the truth is a lot more complex", and also as a sensible way to override the nonsensical and profit-motivated Word Of God (TV Tropes and no I will not link it), I think the best answer is "There are more than two ways to approach various levels of understanding towards The Force. It is up to the individual practitioner."

The whole Jedi are actually bastards thing comes from a western misunderstanding of the decidedly eastern philosophy and the fact that Sith are really cool, so they should be the good guys. I mean that is how it works right?
Eastern philosophy, i.e. Taoism or Buddhism, are actually highly individualized in its true form. It became an "organized religion" in order to more easily propagate. But as a serious practitioner you'd notice that the true word is:

"There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster who will save you and guide you by hand to enlightenment. Joining some church/school/monastery and being physically present at all the gatherings/ceremonies/prayers will not automatically grant you enlightenment or salvation. Ultimately, it is up to yourself."

See my paragraph #1.

While the Sith (and the Dark Side) is more about imposing your willpower upon the Force. It's shaping and destroying at your will. To achieve this, they have to become extremely willfull and lose themselves into their feelings. Which means they often end up as egotistic jerkasses badasses.
Fixed.

Coidzor

2012-02-13, 02:00 AM

Fixed.

The majority that have been featured do not seem to be badasses, but more just baby-eating jerkwads.

Granted, due to the necessity of having people to kill, most of the Sith portrayed are going to be in the games and all...

MLai

2012-02-13, 02:37 AM

Xondoure

2012-02-13, 02:54 AM

In keeping with the whole "the truth is a lot more complex", and also as a sensible way to override the nonsensical and profit-motivated Word Of God (TV Tropes and no I will not link it), I think the best answer is "There are more than two ways to approach various levels of understanding towards The Force. It is up to the individual practitioner."

Eastern philosophy, i.e. Taoism or Buddhism, are actually highly individualized in its true form. It became an "organized religion" in order to more easily propagate. But as a serious practitioner you'd notice that the true word is:

"There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster who will save you and guide you by hand to enlightenment. Joining some church/school/monastery and being physically present at all the gatherings/ceremonies/prayers will not automatically grant you enlightenment or salvation. Ultimately, it is up to yourself."

See my paragraph #1.

Fixed.

Yes but I'm mainly talking about the whole buddhist philosophy of detachment, accepting death, and not becoming tied to physical objects. Basically the important part is the philosophy of compassion. As opposed to one merely of passion. And yes, you can point to numerous Jedi who do not qualify as good. The term is Dark Jedi. All I'm saying is by definition a Jedi must be good and one who is not is not a true Jedi.

Coidzor

2012-02-13, 03:28 AM

I do not understand.

1. Dark Vader is badass from the first seconds he walked onto the screen. And chokes ppl, either with hand or without. Later on he's voiced by James Earl Jones.

2. The Emperor is the emperor, and first to shoot lightning.

3. Maul is Ray Park being motivated.

4. Dooku is Christopher Lee.

5. There is another one I think but I can't recall who that is, due to that person being not badass.

If you're solely going by the movies then the Sith philosophy isn't really fleshed out, certainly not to the point this thread is delving into it. If you're not, then you run into a whole slew of non-badasses, mooks, and poseurs.

KingofMadCows

2012-02-13, 03:45 AM

Maybe light and dark are not defined by themselves but instead by their contrast. Perhaps it is the opposition that give each side their meaning.

"A culture's teachings, and most importantly, the nature of its people, achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves... or find themselves lacking." - Kreia

"The teachings of the Jedi are a shell surrounding the heart of man. You see, the war, the true war, has never been one waged by droids, or warships, or soldiers. They are but crude matter, obstacles against which we test ourselves. The true war is waged in the hearts of all living things, against our own natures, light or dark. That is what shapes and binds this galaxy, not these creations of man." - Kreia

hamishspence

2012-02-13, 05:54 AM

And yes, you can point to numerous Jedi who do not qualify as good. The term is Dark Jedi. All I'm saying is by definition a Jedi must be good and one who is not is not a true Jedi.

Some Jedi seem to lose their "goodness" before they actually qualify as falling to the Dark Side:

C'baoth in Outbound Flight, for example. Or Lucian Draay in the KoTOR comics.

In Clone Wars: No Prisoners the morality of Yoda's Jedi Order gets criticized by a splinter faction.

Avilan the Grey

2012-02-13, 09:31 AM

In the movies (the first three, aka the last three) there were only the four Jedi and two Sith, which at the time was not called Sith but simply "Darth Vader" and "the Emperor". Darth was evil, but he was not the most evil person in the Empire (his boss Tarkin was worse, by far, and he was just a common human). He was just an "Evil Jedi".

Personally I think episodes 1-3 has so much to answer for, on so many levels. On one hand it introduces us to the Chaos / Order dynamic, but then forces all Sith into the EVIL category. It also gives us Mediclorians (or however they are spelled) and other nonsense. Basically your life will be so much better if you only consider episodes 4-6 canon...

As a sidenote: Is anyone but me fed up with the Chaos=Evil that is almost always the case in media? Except when Order=Dictatorship of course.

hamishspence

2012-02-13, 10:18 AM

In the movies (the first three, aka the last three) there were only the four Jedi and two Sith, which at the time was not called Sith but simply "Darth Vader" and "the Emperor".

Vader is called a "Dark Lord of the Sith" in the novelization of the first movie though.

Nerd-o-rama

2012-02-13, 10:27 AM

As I said in the other thread, Jedi and the Force vs. Sith and the Dark Side basically come down to selflessness and the universal good vs. selfishness and personal desire. You can even see that reflected in the KotOR versions of their respective codes posted at the beginning of the thread - where the Jedi talk about the universe and only implicitly how it applies to themselves, the Sith code is all about the self.

There is no...there is
There is no...there is
There is no...there is

...I...
...my...
...me...

The Dark Side is "evil" because it's about using the cosmic power of the entire universe for one's own personal ends and desires, rather than for the good of everything. It's also "chaotic" in the sense of valuing the individual over the whole for exactly the same reason. Likewise, the Force in its balanced state favors harmony, peace, the natural order, and the good of the group, making it both "good" and "lawful".

Now, of course, individuals vary in their philosophies, although the Jedi as a whole tend toward law in their teaching of strict discipline and rote training to keep emotions balanced and in check, and even more so in their status quo-favoring politics (usually seen in spades right before they get mostly wiped out by their own renegade members as in the KotOR series or the prequels). The Sith, working both for the good of the individual and against the established order of the universe, and often in secret, are naturally the opposite.

Friv

2012-02-13, 10:35 AM

It's a difficult one because different writers have different ideas about what qualifies as Light Side or Dark Side. Ultimately, though, I think I could make a strong argument that it is neither good/evil nor law/chaos.

The dichotomy between the Light and Dark is Balance/Imbalance.

The core ideal of the Jedi is to find balance in all things. You don't let your emotions control you, you don't let you attachment to one thing override your compassion for all other things. You consider the world, make yourself a part of it, and are balance. It tends towards Good, because it is more selfless, and it tends towards Law, because it is more interconnected, but a Jedi can still do things that are cruel or chaotic. They just usually won't if they are following their philosophy.

The core ideal of the Sith is to master things, throwing them into chaos only to the degree that doing so lets you control them. You let your emotions run free, and revel in the dissension it causes. If you love one thing, you smash everything else into rubble to protect it. It tends towards Evil, because it is selfish, and it tends towards Chaos because it doesn't care about the bigger picture. Sith can do good, and they can create stable societies, but they do both ultimately without considering how one action affects another.

Xondoure

2012-02-13, 02:00 PM

Gnoman

2012-02-13, 03:14 PM

Xondoure

2012-02-14, 03:12 AM

Dienekes

2012-02-14, 03:32 AM

Vader executes suboridinates for any failure, however minor it is in the grand scheme of tings, and assaults high ranking officers for mere insults. That certainly seems like his emotions get the better of him. As for Palpatine, lust for domination is an emotion.

Actually Vader only is shown to execute 2 subordinates both when displaying what appears to be gross incompetence. Ozzel who failed to organize basic tactical awareness thus leading to the majority of the Rebels being able to escape, and Needa who somehow lost a ship that was literally right next to him.

Not that this is an argument for or against his alignment, just that by all appearances Ozzel and Needa were too dumb to live. And it wasn't just Vader butchering anyone he didn't like.

MLai

2012-02-14, 05:55 AM

And you circle right back to "more than 1 way to skin a cat." As I said before, just as there are different philosophies in Taoism or Buddhism, naturally there are different ways of approaching the Force (including the Dark Side).

If you're going to include EU, then yeah, as you guys have already said there were explicitly different schools/philosophies/factions in regards to the Force. And also all those quotes of different characters expositing their different views on how to master the Force.

hamishspence

2012-02-14, 06:09 AM

Axolotl

2012-02-14, 06:32 AM

I'm wondering where the notion that:

"The light side and the dark side both exist, both are necessary, and the two need to be in balance, for harmony"

first appeared?If you mean in Star Wars then I don't know, but it's a fairly common idea in aklot of genre stuff that gives good and evil specific sides, especially if they aren't explicitly called good and evil. It turned up in Moorcock's stuff, Hellblazer and even Planescape to a lesser extent.

It's just a result of authors who don't want to write a simple good vs evil narrative being handed a setting based around it, the sides get reduced to a more red vs blue conflict with neither being better than the other, at which point saying that balance it the important part is simply the next logical and a fairly reasonable sounding claim. That it should appear in Star Wars shouldn't really be surpriseing given how many different people have written for it and how they have very different interpretations of it.

hamishspence

2012-02-14, 07:43 AM

In this case I'm focusing on Star Wars.

One quote in the same vein comes from Darth Bane: Dynasty of Evil- one of the most recent novels.

"The Jedi and the Sith will always be at war. Their philosophies are mutually uncompromising- they make no provision for the other to exist. But what they fail to realize is that they are opposite sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other."

This came from a Force using healer called Caleb, who rejected both sides during the New Sith Wars, which took place 1000 years before the battle of Yavin.

Tiki Snakes

2012-02-14, 08:21 AM

hamishspence

2012-02-14, 08:43 AM

Not sure- I'm guessing it was because, for example, whenever the Sith apparently go extinct, new Sith arise from the ranks of the Jedi.

That particular character may have simply become jaded from knowledge of just how many times the Jedi and Sith have been battling.

Nerd-o-rama

2012-02-14, 11:05 AM

I'm wondering where the notion that:

"The light side and the dark side both exist, both are necessary, and the two need to be in balance, for harmony"

first appeared?
I think it came from amateurish authors having no idea what the hell they were talking about...

I've seen it at least once- the New Jedi Order novel Edge of Victory I by Greg Keyes- Anakin Solo uses it when attempting to explain the Force to a Vong.

The idea that "the force is a tool- it's what you're doing with it that's moral, or immoral" is also voiced by Anakin Solo in the same book- well before Vergere says similar things.

...and contradicting themselves.

And I do think the guy in the Darth Bane novel, if he had a point, had a point that whenever the Sith are beaten down, they tend to gain strength again from disaffected Jedi. If you don't like whatever the Order's politics are this decade, and you can't keep your perspective on things, what else are you going to do but try to tear down the Order?

Now, technically, this usually ends up being a net gain for the galaxy because it gets rid of a calcified, unchanging, and sedentary Jedi Order, but it also usually involves a lot of mass-murder. Taking the long view, the Sith are a necessary evil to keep the Jedi Order itself in balance, but there really should be a better way than natural selection to do so.

VanBuren

2012-02-14, 09:54 PM

I do not understand.

1. Dark Vader is badass from the first seconds he walked onto the screen. And chokes ppl, either with hand or without. Later on he's voiced by James Earl Jones.

Counter-point:

"I don't like sand! It's coarse and rough and gets everywhere!"

OR

"You're not all-powerful, Annie"

"WELL I SHOULD BE"

2. The Emperor is the emperor, and first to shoot lightning.

blah blah blah something something darkside

3. Maul is Ray Park being motivated.

Ok, I actually liked him. Didn't see him much though.

4. Dooku is Christopher Lee.

LOOK MA NO HANDS

hamishspence

2012-02-15, 02:18 PM

I think it came from amateurish authors having no idea what the hell they were talking about...

...and contradicting themselves.

The philosophy of several Gray Jedi, like maybe Kyle Katarn or possibly Jolee Bindo- was basically this- "light side and dark side exist- but the distinctions are not very important- and the Force as a whole is a tool"
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Gray_Jedi

"The Force is a tool, Jaden. Sometimes a weapon, sometimes a salve. Dark Side, Light Side, these are distinctions of insignificant difference. Do not fall into the trap of classification. Sentience curses us with a desire to categorize and draw lines, to fear that after this be dragons. But that is illusion. After this is not dragons but more knowledge, deeper understanding. Be at peace with that."
―Kyle Katarn to Jaden

Nerd-o-rama

2012-02-15, 02:52 PM

Now see, that sounds more like a feasible "gray" view of the Force. It's probably no more correct than thinking of it as a living thing to be dominated (Sith) or sympathized with (Jedi), but it at least is a pretty sensible philosophy.

"Light side" philosophy: The Force is your ally. Treat it (and by extension everything else) well.
"Gray side" philosophy: The Force is just a tool. Individual people matter, though.
Dark Side philosophy: The Force is an animal to be controlled and set loose for your own gain. Treat it (and everything else) like you personally own it.

hamishspence

2012-02-15, 02:58 PM

A possible explanation why various Jedi or Gray Jedi can use lightning without falling:

Darth Plagueis:

"A Jedi sufficently strong in the Force can be trained to produce a fascimile, but not true Sith lightning, which, unabated, has the power not only to incapacitate or kill, but to physically transform the victim. Force lightning requires a strength of a sort only a Sith can command because we accept consequence and reject compassion. To do so requires a thirst for power that is not easily satisfied. The Force tries to resist the callings of ravenous spirits; therefore it must be broken and made a beast of burden. It must be made to answer to one's will."

"But the Force cannot be treated deferentially," he added as a few final tendrils sparked from his fingertips. "In order to summon and use lightning properly, you will someday have to be on the receiving end of its power, as a means of taking the energy inside yourself."

Some Jedi, like Qui-Gon, seem to go beyond "the Force is your ally" to "obey the will of the Force"- his description of how Jedi are supposed to listen to the midi-chlorians, which constantly speak to them, "telling them the will of the force" (which they're supposed to follow).

A short story from Star Wars Tales, about Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan, also includes this- though that might not be canon until a C-canon source refers to this.

KingofMadCows

2012-02-15, 03:59 PM

So I guess the way to defeat a Jedi or Sith is to make a drug that kills midi-chlorians. I just hope they never meet an enemy with mastery over biotechnology.

Nerd-o-rama

2012-02-15, 04:04 PM

So I guess the way to defeat a Jedi or Sith is to make a drug that kills midi-chlorians. I just hope they never meet an enemy with mastery over biotechnology.

Me too. That series would suck, and they'd probably kill off Chewie or something.

And as for lightning, I always figured there was a difference between raw hate as energy and manipulating the Force to create electrical current, even if they have the same special effect. And Qui-Gon was a hippie even by Jedi standards.

hamishspence

2012-02-15, 04:36 PM

Me too. That series would suck, and they'd probably kill off Chewie or something.

It had its good moments.

Powerful as they were, the Vong never severed the Jedi from the Force through biotech- though they themselves were immune to being directly affected by Force powers, from the very start.

"Sever Force" is a power that Jedi have used to sever other Jedi's ability to access the force- but it's rare and not well understood even by those that have used it.

There's an association between midi-chlorian count and ability to access the Force- but it's not a hard-and-fast one- and the Sith have their own take on it:

What Plagueis thinks of them:
Tenebrous was paralysed and unconscious but not yet dead. Plagueis had no interest in saving him- even if it were possible- but he was interested in observing the behavior of the Bith's midi-chlorians as life ebbed. The Jedi thought of the cellular organelles as symbionts, but to Plagueis midi-chlorians were interlopers, running interference for the Force and standing in the way of a being's ability to contact the Force directly. Through years of experimentation and directed meditation, Plagueis had honed an ability to perceive the actions of midi-chlorians, though not yet the ability to manipulate them.

Manipulate them, say, to prolong Tenebrous's life.

Looking at the Bith through the Force, he perceived that the midi-chlorians were already beginning to die out, as were the neurons that made up Tenebrous's lofty brain and the muscle cells that powered his once-able heart. A common misconception held that midi-chlorians were Force-carrying particles, when in fact they functioned more as translators, interlocutors of the will of the Force.
Can a being actually be strong in the Force, with a low midi-chlorian count?
Standing at the field's shimmering perimeter, 11-4D pivoted his head toward Plagueis. "Congratulations, Magister. At last he responds to your suggestion. You have undermined his resolve."

That resolve, Plagueis had learned after more than two years of experimentation on the Yinchorri, was in fact a kind of Force bubble fashioned by the turtle-like alien's limited number of unusually willful midi-chlorians. This suggested that the Yinchorri was actually strong in the Force, despite his pitifully low count. The discovery had come as a breakthrough, and Plagueis was still grappling with the implications.
On if a high count means Force ability:
"High midi-chlorian counts don't always equate to Force talents. You told me yourself."
On "making something that kills midi-chlorians":
"Their time is coming, Sidious. The signs are in the air. Their order might have already been decimated had it not been for the setback Darth Gravid dealt the Sith. But his apprentice carried the imperative forward, and each successive Sith Lord improved on it, Tenebrous and his Master most of all, though they wasted years trying to create a targeted virus that could be deployed against the Jedi, separating them from the Force. As if there were some organic difference between practicioners of the light and dark sides; as if we communicate with the dark side through a different species of cellular intermediaries! When, in fact, we are animated by the same power that drives the passions of these beings gathered below. Target midi-chlorians and we target life itself."

KingofMadCows

2012-02-15, 04:51 PM

Lucas established the casual link between midi-chlorian count and connection with the Force. We can twist it all we want and try to look for loopholes but we have to live with implications. That means defeating Force users by attacking the midi-chlorians through some kind of drug/virus/radiation. That also means Force users trying to become more powerful by artificially increasing midi-chlorian count through cloning/breeding/genetically modification.

hamishspence

2012-02-15, 05:06 PM

In the Star Wars universe, all life needs midi-chlorians to survive (Episode I novelization)

In Death Star, normal human count is "less than half" of that of one of the main characters- which was "over five thousand per cell".

So normal, non-sensitive humans, have maybe two thousand or so per cell.

Though "increasing midi-chlorian count" does get mentioned later in the novel Darth Plagueis which I've been quoting.

Plagueis, after developing the ability to reverse some of the effects of injury and ageing via midi-chlorian manipulation, attempts to achieve even more:

Drunk on newfound power, then, he had attempted an even more unthinkable act: to bring into being a creation of his own. Not merely the impregnation of some hapless, mindless creature, but the birth of a Forceful being. The ability to dominate death had been a step in the right direction, but it wasn't equivalent to pure creation. And so he had stretched out- indeed, as if invisible, transubstantiated- to inform every being of his existence, and impact all of them, Muunoid or insectoid, secure or dispossessed, free or enslaved. A warrior waving a banner in triumph on a battlefield. A ghost infiltrating a dream.

But ultimately to no end.

The Force grew silent, as if in flight from him, and many of the animals in his laboratory succumbed to horrifying diseases.

Regardless, eight long years later, Plagueis remained convinced that he was on the verge of absolute success. The evidence was in his own increased midi-chlorian count, and in the power he sensed in Sidious when he had finally returned to Sojourn.

Wookieepedia goes into some depth on the subject:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Midi-chlorians

Tiki Snakes

2012-02-15, 05:22 PM

The whole idea of 'Grey Jedi' repulses me quite strongly. Somehow, I am not suprised to learn that Kyle Katarn is a character described as such, too.

Also, just because a being's force potential can be gauged by midi-chlorian counts doesn't mean that altering their midi-chlorian count would in any way at all affect their force potential. I'm sure that's some kind of logical fallacy.

And the Vong being immune to the force? Yeah, I'm not even going to start on that, it's just not worth getting worked up about at this point.

hamishspence

2012-02-15, 05:27 PM

Even Luke wields the traditionally "dark" power Force Choke, in Return of the Jedi.

So a case could be made that he was at least bordering on being a Gray Jedi.

Nerd-o-rama

2012-02-15, 05:54 PM

I think a tripartite distinction, while useful in some respects, is probably just as misleading as associating two sides specifically with D&D alignments. There are people who use the Force, people who use the Dark Side of the Force, and people who attempt to do the latter with some sense of moderation, living on the edge of gradual corruption by means of immediate gratification. Most Jedi at one time or another slip into the latter habit, in my observation, and anyone is apt to do all three at different moments, though a "Jedi" will normally regret the second. The Prequel-era Jedi Order seemed strongly against the latter practice, but they got so caught up in abstaining from the Dark Side through rule and ritual that they could no longer even see or sense it at work, in their own students or the galaxy at large.

And frankly, while the Jedi and Sith ideologies about the force dominate the setting, there are as many different ways of using the Force as there are Force-users. Applying labels gets almost as tricky as it does in real life, despite the general precepts of absolute morality presented in the films.

MLai

2012-02-15, 10:19 PM

Well put, Nerd-o-rama!

However, in contrast to Force alignments, nothing at all can ever save the abomination that is the concept of midi-chlorians. An actual not-tongue-in-cheek discussion of it (a couple posts back)? Made me want to leave this thread. I just don't care about how writers tried to make it less stupid.

When the movie introduced the concept, the entire fanbase (including Wookiepedia) should have simply pretended that it doesn't exist. Never discuss it, never wiki it, never wiki-edit it. Like Type_Moon's first nonexistent anime. Show Lucas_Arts by non-action, how human beings completely reject the notion. Then we would have been freeeeee of it. :smallsigh:

Mewtarthio

2012-02-16, 12:04 AM

Lucas established the casual link between midi-chlorian count and connection with the Force. We can twist it all we want and try to look for loopholes but we have to live with implications.

Strictly speaking, Lucas established a positive correlation between midichlorian count and Force abilities. We could easily just pretend that Qui-Gon, heterodox as always, simply thought midichlorians conveyed the will of the Force. In actuality, having a strong Force potential leads to healthy midichlorians, not the other way around.

I don't care what else the EU says about it. I use the above explanation as a mental band-aid to patch over that ridiculous concept and actively ignore anything that says otherwise.

KingofMadCows

2012-02-16, 03:51 AM

Strictly speaking, Lucas established a positive correlation between midichlorian count and Force abilities. We could easily just pretend that Qui-Gon, heterodox as always, simply thought midichlorians conveyed the will of the Force. In actuality, having a strong Force potential leads to healthy midichlorians, not the other way around.

I don't care what else the EU says about it. I use the above explanation as a mental band-aid to patch over that ridiculous concept and actively ignore anything that says otherwise.

Except Palpatine's story about Plagueis contradicts that idea. He said that Plagueis could manipulate the midi-chlorians to create life, which suggests that it is the midi-chlorians that give people their connection with the Force.

There is also the fact that if people thought that this microscopic lifeform can give them super powers then they're going to study it and try to exploit it. If midi-chlorians are simply creatures that are attracted to people with strong connections with the Force then they'd know about it by now.

1dominator

2012-02-16, 03:53 AM

-ORIGINAL POST-

Both it seems to me. Jedi are lawful good (good but with abstract rules and logic rather then just love for all). The Sith on the other hand (at least the ones in the movies) are chaotic evil (or maybe neutral doing evil?) are the opposite caring for nothing but themselves and possibly their order.

Nerd-o-rama

2012-02-16, 10:31 AM

On midichlorians (http://xkcd.com/552/)

hamishspence

2012-02-16, 02:23 PM

I think a tripartite distinction, while useful in some respects, is probably just as misleading as associating two sides specifically with D&D alignments.

Aside from Jolee Bindo, most "Gray Jedi" tend to have the label applied to them by others, typically the Jedi Order.

Some, like the Jensaari, strongly object to the label.

"Darksiders, lightsiders, and miscellaneous" might be a bit more accurate and all-encompassing than "Sith, Jedi and Gray Jedi"- with the caveat that "lightsider" simply refers to a Force User who actively avoids using the dark side, and subscribes to compassion, mercy, and altruism as ideals to follow.

So far, I can only think of one Star Wars author who has actively lampshaded the fact that Yoda and Ben never use the phrase "light side" - and that's Matt Stover, in Luke Skywalker and the Shadows of Mindor, possibly inspired by Yoda's "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."
After Luke has been shown a vision of the heat death of the universe (during the villain's attempt to steal his body), and how The Dark always wins, he begins to get a little depressed, but continues to try to carry on as normal. Later, he has to rescue Leia from the villain's attempt to steal her body- and he returns to that same "vision"

He remembered all too well that terrible void, the endless lack that was deeper than any darkness. If there was only some way he could show her that all the light she'd ever need shone from her own self ... but that was only a metaphor.

Wasn't it?

What Ben and Yoda called the dark side wasn't actually dark; it had nothing at all to do with the visual spectrum. The phrase dark side of the Force was just an expression. An evocative shorthand to express a broad range of negative characteristics.

A metaphor.

They could have called it the evil side, or the death-and-destruction side, or the enslaving-the-whole-galaxy side. But they didn't.

They called it the dark side. But they'd never seen dark like this. Or had they?

Maybe they had been here, at the end of all things- or at least glimpsed it. Maybe they had seen the truth of the Dark. Maybe that's why they never talked about the "light side." Because there wasn't one.

But, Luke thought, gazing upon the brilliant blaze that was his sister, just because there's no "light side" doesn't mean there's no light.

He had thought he was bringing light with him into the darkness, by holding on to the Force. Now he saw that the Force's light didn't shine on him. It shone through him.

He was the light in the darkness.

He saw it now, and it made sense to him at last. That same light shone through Leia, and as soon as he understood that, he began to sense other lights, pinprick stars far off in the dark. Some of them he recognized: Han, and Lando ... Wedge and Tycho, Hobbie and Wes and the rest of the Rogues ... Nick, and Aeona Cantor, Lieutenant Tubrimi and Captain Tirossk and so many, many others, sailors and marines, even the impossibly distant spray of vanishingly faint stars that must have been the stormtroopers, for even they were lights in the darkness. All of them were stars.

And every star, every life, was a thing of beauty.

Also- what exactly does George Lucas say, when he says in the DVD commentaries that there is no light side?

Sotharsyl

2012-02-17, 11:51 AM

I'm wondering where the notion that:

"The light side and the dark side both exist, both are necessary, and the two need to be in balance, for harmony"

first appeared?

I've seen it at least once- the New Jedi Order novel Edge of Victory I by Greg Keyes- Anakin Solo uses it when attempting to explain the Force to a Vong.

The idea that "the force is a tool- it's what you're doing with it that's moral, or immoral" is also voiced by Anakin Solo in the same book- well before Vergere says similar things.

I think the seeds were planted there from the start when Lucas named the damn thing Palpatine and Anakin were using as "The Dark Side" side implies it's part of a whole and we've been taught everywhere that we have to see the other side of things that different points are necesarry and valid,that the whole needs balance of it's parts.

It's a very evocative name actualy and I don't blame people for thinking this side people keep yammering about is a side of this force thing people allways metion in the same conversations.

Honestly Lucas's statements that "There is no Light side balance meens destruction of the dark .." have 0 simpathy from me when he named the things so careslessly.

Top cat

2012-02-18, 01:44 PM

ITT: EU authors pretending the star wars universe is sophisticated... it really isn't. The sith could only be more evil if they ran around eating babies... which palpatine probably does.

hamishspence

2012-02-18, 01:49 PM

ITT: EU authors pretending the star wars universe is sophisticated... it really isn't. The sith could only be more evil if they ran around eating babies... which palpatine probably does.

which I'm guessing those EU authors thought boring and oversimplistic- so they introduced characters who blurred the lines.

There's also the argument that, despite what Obi-Wan said about the Jedi being the "guardians of truth and justice" they didn't appear to be doing a very good job in the prequel movies.

So the Jedi aren't "perfectly good" just as the Sith aren't (in some cases) "perfectly evil".

Kish

2012-02-18, 01:59 PM

Even Luke wields the traditionally "dark" power Force Choke, in Return of the Jedi.

So a case could be made that he was at least bordering on being a Gray Jedi.
There's no indication in the original movies that using telekinesis to choke someone is more "dark" than any other means of killing someone...

...Or that Yoda couldn't throw lightning if he wanted to, for that matter.

hamishspence

2012-02-18, 02:43 PM

Not onscreen, no.

In the novelization of Return of the Jedi, here's what's said about the Emperor's lightning:

The Emperor glee turned to a sullen rage. "So be it, Jedi. If you will not be turned, you will be destroyed."

Palpatine raised his spidery arms toward Luke: blinding white bolts of energy coruscated from his fingers, shot across the room like sorcerous lightning, and tore through the boy's insides, looking for ground. The young Jedi was at once confounded and in agony - he'd never heard of such a power, such a corruption of the Force, let alone experienced it

Quite apart from "A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack."

Using the Force to directly attack someone (rather than to enhance your ability to defend yourself) may be crossing the line.

McStabbington

2012-02-18, 04:19 PM

There's no indication in the original movies that using telekinesis to choke someone is more "dark" than any other means of killing someone...

...Or that Yoda couldn't throw lightning if he wanted to, for that matter.

Not technically, no. Nobody ever said explicitly in the movie "Luke, you force-choked those Gamorrean guards? They may have been stupid and brutish, but don't you think that was a tad overkill?" But it was kind of implied from Vader's casual use of the technique and Yoda's admonition that one uses the Force for knowledge and defense that Luke was borderline at the very least.

Mewtarthio

2012-02-18, 05:32 PM

Not technically, no. Nobody ever said explicitly in the movie "Luke, you force-choked those Gamorrean guards? They may have been stupid and brutish, but don't you think that was a tad overkill?" But it was kind of implied from Vader's casual use of the technique and Yoda's admonition that one uses the Force for knowledge and defense that Luke was borderline at the very least.

Plus, Luke's running around in black clothes and sporting a robot arm at that point. The "He's starting down the same path as Vader" implications aren't particularly subtle.

Dark Elf Bard

2012-02-18, 05:41 PM

We haven't seen enough examples of the Sith for them to them to be classified as good or evil. Yes, the few we've seen have been evil, but those are individual people. There could be Chaotic Good Sith in my opinion.

Nerd-o-rama

2012-02-18, 05:55 PM

I was going to point out several logical and statistical fallacies in that, but on the other hand, the Sith tend to redefine themselves every couple generations and/or whenever they get re-established after everyone dies anyway. You can follow some version or interpretation of the "Sith Code" without going out of your way to hurt people, it's just no one's ever actually done that in canon.

Zevox

2012-02-18, 06:01 PM

I was going to point out several logical and statistical fallacies in that, but on the other hand, the Sith tend to redefine themselves every couple generations and/or whenever they get re-established after everyone dies anyway.
I suspect that has more to do with the writers needing to invent new groups of Sith every time they kill off the last one. Like the one in the Fate of the Jedi series, which just happens to have been marooned on a backwater planet whose inhabitants were pre-space-flight technologically for thousands of years.

Zevox

hamishspence

2012-02-18, 06:02 PM

In the movies, we only see four (Maul, Sidious, Tyranus, Vader)

In the books, we see a lot more. As well as details on the Sith Code, the various Sith Empires (of which Palpatine's is merely one of the most recent) and so forth.

In general- the best that can be said is that some Sith are capable of functioning as a society (Lost Tribe of The Sith in particular).

In Darth Plagueis, we hear of a Sith of Bane's Rule of Two tradition, a few centuries before, attempting to import "selflessness" and "compassion" into the Sith Order, in the hope that it might actually make it more successful. He ended up being killed by his apprentice after he went mad and started destroying all the Sith's archives.

That's about as close as it gets. Using the "Vergere was a Sith" interpretation, her sacrificing her own life to save Jacen, and her neutralizing the Galactic Alliance's contingency plan to use bioweapons to exterminate the Vong, might be considered signs that "Even Sith can be opposed to genocide" and "Even Sith can choose to be selfless"

MLai

2012-02-18, 09:40 PM

I'm not big on EU and so I don't remember what comic book this was, but in an old SW comic book (I believe it was set in the Old Republic) I saw this scene:

1. A minor antagonist goes up to a Sith Lord, wanting to become an apprentice.
2. The Sith promptly kills the beseecher, claiming he is unworthy of the Dark Side, because he wanted to learn it to empower himself, rather than to act as a conduit of the Dark Side and to further its will.

At that point I was confused. I thought the whole point of Sith was to be selfish. And even if the dude just wanted Dark Side powers to empower himself, the fact that he's evil just enriches the Dark Side anyways, no?

But eventually I felt that this particular Sith Lord was operating on a more "enlightened" level, i.e. the level of a priest of a dark god rather than just a selfishly evil individual. I felt that when even an evil person works for a goal greater than himself, it makes him larger and more powerful. Just as it does good ppl.

I was young and that was a momentous revelation for me, but yeah I know that such characterization devices are old hat nowadays. My point is, there were Sith who operated on that level, no?

Zevox

2012-02-18, 09:50 PM

My point is, there were Sith who operated on that level, no?
First I've heard of it. Sometimes you find Sith who are devoted to advancing the Sith as a whole, such as Darth Bane, but most are just out for themselves. Never heard of any of them who thought of the Dark Side as something whose "will" they follow - that sort of thing has been strictly Jedi-only in every Star Wars book I've ever read.

Zevox

MLai

2012-02-19, 12:01 AM

I looked up Bane: a white bald human. Ok so yeah that's the guy I remembered. Which explains that scene.

Zevox

2012-02-19, 12:15 AM

I looked up Bane: a white bald human. Ok so yeah that's the guy I remembered. Which explains that scene.
Actually, that doesn't explain anything. Darth Bane was the founder of the Rule of Two branch of the Sith. He destroyed the group of Sith that trained him, the Brotherhood, because he felt that the constant infighting so many Sith inevitably caused merely weakened the group. He only ever had one apprentice, Darth Zannah, whom he selected immediately after destroying his predecessors, and whom eventually killed and replaced him. They were the first of the line that would eventually result in Palpatine and Vader.

He would never have been in a position to take an apprentice besides Zannah. He was not considered a master in the Brotherhood, and had gone rogue from it before he decided to destroy it.

Zevox

MLai

2012-02-19, 01:44 AM

Well, what bits of that scene I can remember (from a print comic book) was:

1. The minor antagonist was female.
2. He was beside some sort of cauldron.
3. It was amidst the ruins of a blasted city, or something.

Coidzor

2012-02-19, 03:18 AM

At that point I was confused. I thought the whole point of Sith was to be selfish. And even if the dude just wanted Dark Side powers to empower himself, the fact that he's evil just enriches the Dark Side anyways, no?

It gets simpler if you just decide that the Sith are all supposed to be crazy idiots(viz. all of the Sith in KOTOR and KOTOR2). Except when they're the rare smart Sith like Palpatine or "Sith" like Revan, in which case they're just crazy like a fox.

hamishspence

2012-02-19, 10:35 AM

Revan's Holocron (in Path of Destruction) does explain to Bane "All who follow the Dark Side, are bound to serve it".

Raimun

2012-02-19, 11:37 AM

It can be both, you know.

If we try to see this in light of D&D alignments, I think the Jedi seem like Lawful Good and the Sith Chaotic Evil.

Jedi value order and self-discipline. They pursue them out of compassion for other beings.

Sith value personal freedom and excellence. They pursue them without regard for other beings.

As for the Lawful Evil-esque Empire at the original trilogy? Where does it say the sovereign has to share the Alignment of his subjects? *cough*Shojo*cough* Especially if the sovereign and his right-hand man happen to be scary psychics with plethora of other vaguely defined supernatural abilities? :smalltongue:

hamishspence

2012-02-19, 11:48 AM

There's Vader's appeal to Luke about "end this conflict and bring order to the galaxy".

And Darth Krayt's appeals to Cade Skywalker about democracy being inherently chaotic, and doomed to fail, and how one powerful ruler is the only way to maintain order.

It's not that common for a Sith to be overtly focussed on "order" but it does happen.

Conversely there were Jedi who disliked the whole Republic setup and thought it had reached the point of behaving tyrannically.

So I could see Chaotic Good Jedi (and Lawful Evil Sith) existing.

Neutral Sith would probably be a rarity, as would Neutral Jedi. Respecting the rights of others is antithetical to most Sith doctrines, which declare a Sith must throw aside all morality to achieve the intended goal (whatever it is).

Similarly, Jedi are expected to serve others- a "non-altruistic Jedi" would be unconventional in the extreme. Though a "Gray Jedi" committing evil acts for altruistic reasons, might avoid slipping all the way into the dark side, and maintain a Neutral alignment, in D&D terms.

Raimun

2012-02-19, 12:30 PM

Okay, I should have been more clear. I was referring to the Jedi and the Sith seen in the original and the prequel trilogies.

hamishspence

2012-02-19, 02:39 PM

The Sith philosophy could be called "Neutral Evil" (discard all morality to achieve your goals).

The Jedi philosophy could be called "Neutral Good" (Jedi respect all life, in any form. Jedi serve others rather than ruling over them, for the good of the galaxy).

But the individual Sith and Jedi each interpret it their own way.

Vader and Dooku might have a LE slant.
Maul might have a CE slant.
Palpatine might fall between the two.

Qui-Gon might have a CG slant
Yoda might have a LG slant
Other Jedi, like Obi-Wan, might fall between the two.

Just my interpretation though.

Xondoure

2012-02-19, 02:45 PM

Okay, I should have been more clear. I was referring to the Jedi and the Sith seen in the original and the prequel trilogies.

We have rebels as good guys vs. an evil empire. In my mind it doesn't get much more chaotic good / lawful evil than that.

hamishspence

2012-02-19, 03:04 PM

True- but the Rebels weren't the Jedi. Obi-Wan doesn't join the Rebellion until Leia's message is delivered to him.

"Jedi as government enforcers/army leaders" is more prominent in the prequel trilogy.

It's also worth remembering that "rebel" doesn't automatically mean "chaotic". After all, going right back to the novel of the first movie- their goal is not to create a new order of their own, but to "restore the Old Republic".

Nerd-o-rama

2012-02-19, 03:19 PM

Also, you can have a rigid order imposed by a Chaotic Evil-ish leader if it's the strong dominating the weak with few other rules, or if it exists solely to make everyone miserable and prone to violently destroying things. That's not exactly what the Galactic Empire is, but the former might be the Emperor's Sith Ideals Justification for it.

hamishspence

2012-02-19, 03:50 PM

Or the Emperor's Neutral Evil and occasionally acts Chaotic, and occasionally Lawful.

Coidzor

2012-02-19, 05:22 PM

Revan's Holocron (in Path of Destruction) does explain to Bane "All who follow the Dark Side, are bound to serve it".

Which suggests more of an unwitting dupe that's being manipulated by the dark side (see: the dark side making people think they're stronger when they're really just destroying themselves) than that they're willingly subsuming themselves to an external force they call master.

Nerd-o-rama: Problem. Might Makes Right can be used to illustrate any kind of Evil society. Though, I must admit Might Makes Right with no other rules seems more chaotic than it does regimented and hierarchical.

At best your argument is saying that a CE overlord would tolerate an LE hierarchy amongst its underlings so long as they didn't attempt to interfere with his prerogative rather than arguing for a strict ordered evil coming from a CE structure.

hamishspence

2012-02-19, 05:51 PM

In the novel Revan we do find out that Revan had not so much fallen as "been pushed" when he first went into the Unknown Regions.

So Darth Revan's Sith philosophy may be slightly distorted thanks to him not being entirely "himself" but having been mind-influenced.

Other Sith, especially Plagueis, tend to refer to the Force, even the Dark Side, as something that serves them, rather than something that they serve.

And then there's Palpatine's boast in Dark Empire "I AM the Dark Side!"

A more unusual philosophy, from Cronal in Luke Skywalker and the Shadows of Mindor, has The Dark as a power in itself, the power of entropy, transcending the Force, which Palpatine unknowingly served:

In the days of the Old Republic, before he had revealed his Sith identity, Palpatine literally could not fail. Every blind flailing gesture of every Jedi who'd set himself against him he had turned to his advantage, and even the sheerest accidents of fortune had served his goal ... because that goal had been the destruction of the Jedi Order and the death of the Old Republic. He'd served the Dark unknowingly, all the while believing that the Dark was only a means to an end, a tool to destroy his enemies and clear his path to absolute power.

What he'd never understand was that destruction was his power.

As soon as he'd turned his will to rulership, to building instead of destroying, he had forsaken the Way of the Dark ... and everything had began to go wrong for him. Where before he could not fail, now he'd had no chance of succeeding, because when you turn your back on the Dark, the Dark turns its back on you.

Xondoure

2012-02-19, 08:26 PM

Which suggests more of an unwitting dupe that's being manipulated by the dark side (see: the dark side making people think they're stronger when they're really just destroying themselves) than that they're willingly subsuming themselves to an external force they call master.

Nerd-o-rama: Problem. Might Makes Right can be used to illustrate any kind of Evil society. Though, I must admit Might Makes Right with no other rules seems more chaotic than it does regimented and hierarchical.

At best your argument is saying that a CE overlord would tolerate an LE hierarchy amongst its underlings so long as they didn't attempt to interfere with his prerogative rather than arguing for a strict ordered evil coming from a CE structure.

Precisely. Evil dictator has to be the definition of lawful evil, closely followed by single minded fallen paladin crusader types. (Hint: the Emperor and Darth Vader)

Chaotic gets applied to the Sith because they don't like the Jedi's rules, and tend to make their own when they aren't following another Sith's. But to me that says ambition more than it does chaos. The world is a mess and they just need to... rule it.

Basically LG vs. LE. With an important note being that officially recognized or not as soon as a Jedi stops being LG they start being a dark Jedi.

hamishspence

2012-02-20, 05:54 AM

Basically LG vs. LE. With an important note being that officially recognized or not as soon as a Jedi stops being LG they start being a dark Jedi.

I'd call NG and CG, LN, N, and CN Jedi "Gray Jedi": either of the "does not follow the same rules as the rest of the Order" type or the "dabbling in the Dark Side without yet having fallen to it" type.

To be a "Dark Jedi" implies having fallen all the way through Neutral into Evil.

But the general point, that the Jedi are mostly LG and the Sith are mostly LE, does work.

Dr._Demento

2012-02-20, 08:52 PM

I feel like there is a progression around the alignment wheel. Lets just begin with a lawful good Jedi. This lawful good Jedi finds certain situations where the Law/Code don't lead to the greatest good, and so he begins to act more in alignment with his feelings toward the good instead of what the Law/Code prescribes. He is now Neutral Good. However, as time goes on, he sees is fellow Lawful Good Jedi not acting when their help is sorely needed, or something that needs to be done that would break the code altogether (This is normally where tempters step in). Thus he becomes Chaotic Good. From there, what is considered good begins to become fuzzy. Rebelling against the Law/ Code leaves very little guidance on how to act rightly. Over time (or rather quickly under the right influences) what is good becomes entirely based on personal objectives and how to achieve them. This quickly descends into chaotic evil as personal objectives become more and more egocentric, and the recognition of others is denied. However, once a certain amount of gratification or power is assumed, the impulse becomes to consolidate that power, which now moves our Sith towards the lawful spectrum again. Thus the poles of Jedi and Sith are both Lawful, and their distinction is Good/Evil, but the movement between them is facilitated by the Law/Chaos axis.

Note: Jedi are aware of this movement, which is why they keep their strict laws, in order to prevent this slide. However, in doing so they sometimes become so entrenched in rules that they fall from Lawful Good to Lawful Neutral, which almost always precipitates an individuals fall.

Jallorn

2012-02-21, 04:08 PM

Personally, I maintain that the Jedi Code is Lawful Good, and the Sith Code is Chaotic Evil. However, Jedi "Law" is intended to work towards Good, while Sith Evil is a common result of Chaos. That said, many other interpretations can be found:

A LN Jedi could be one who has devoted themself to knowledge of the force above all else. He has no particular aversion to doing good deeds, and indeed, probably does them gladly, but his loyalty is to the Order, knowledge, and the Force, rather than those the Order serves. Can be fairly easily corrupted by the pursuit of knowledge, though less likely to be corrupted by devotion to the Order.

NG and CG Jedi are easier to see, Jedi devoted more to the spirit of the law, willing to bend the law when it gets in the way. Also easy to see how they may fall, as it's only a short distance from breaking rules to breaking morals.

On the other side we have the Sith. Despite the ultimate goal of the Sith being ultimate freedom, that is reserved for whichever Sith is at the very top. Additionally, because of the advantage rational thought provides, the Sith at the top is almost always going to be a more patient, controlled Sith, almost always NE.

We also see a LE Sith in the form of Vader because of the nature of his fall. He desired to impose Order on the Galaxy for it's own good, but found that the Jedi code prevented him from doing this and other acts of good, became NG, and then jumped to LE, willing to do many immoral things in the name of Order, but his Order.

The reason almost all Sith are Evil is because the nature of their complete and total "Chaos" freedom is so unrestricting, that they don't even have any moral constraints.

Neither Jedi nor Sith can be True Neutral as far as I can tell, as they are both too passionate. Passionate in the sense that they are devoted to their ideals.

hamishspence

2012-02-21, 05:26 PM

Neither Jedi nor Sith can be True Neutral as far as I can tell, as they are both too passionate. Passionate in the sense that they are devoted to their ideals.

I wouldn't entirely rule it out. I could see a Gray Jedi passing through Neutral in a fashion similar to Anakin's passing through Neutral Good- they've started getting disturbingly ruthless, but they maintain enough concern and caring for "ordinary people" that they haven't yet slipped into evil.

On the other side of the coin- that Sith who attempted to import compassion and selflessness into the Sith Order (Darth Gravid, mentioned in the Darth Plagueis novel) might have passed into Neutral alignment- before going crazy.

Vergere is (and will probably always be) hard to pin down. I could see her as a "Gray Sith" or a "Gray Jedi" or something not entirely either who is being wilfully misinterpreted by people like Darth Krayt, or Lumiya.

Coidzor

2012-02-21, 07:22 PM

Dr._Demento

2012-02-21, 11:09 PM

When was Anakin Neutral Good?

He was either a kid(and thus, IIRC, either without alignment or True Neutral), Chaotic Neutral with heavy Evil Tendencies, or full out CE that was deluded enough to think it was LE, then he was LE, LE, and then went out with a last burst of chaos and then was hazily "redeemed."

You know that time between kid and going bat**** crazy?

Yeah, he was Obiwan's apprentice, neutral good (with Obiwan trying to make him lawful good).

Coidzor

2012-02-22, 08:56 AM

You know that time between kid and going bat**** crazy?

Yeah, he was Obiwan's apprentice, neutral good (with Obiwan trying to make him lawful good).

Huh, hadn't really even heard of any EU books covering that period.

Did they ever explain why he was already most of the way to Evil by the second movie then?

Nerd-o-rama

2012-02-22, 09:18 AM

Huh, hadn't really even heard of any EU books covering that period.

Did they ever explain why he was already most of the way to Evil by the second movie then?

Because Lucas is bad at pacing.

Personally I'd say he started young adulthood CG and swung clockwise along the edge of the alignment chart from there, starting with that revenge rampage, but applying D&D alignment to even a poorly-written George Lucas character is a hazy thing.

Coidzor

2012-02-22, 09:24 AM

Because Lucas is bad at pacing.

Personally I'd say he started young adulthood CG and swung clockwise along the edge of the alignment chart from there, starting with that revenge rampage, but applying D&D alignment to even a poorly-written George Lucas character is a hazy thing.

No way. Dude was clearly CN at the start of that movie, not CG and only starting to swing with the murder rampage.

Nerd-o-rama

2012-02-22, 09:31 AM

I'd argue with you, but then I'd have to watch Attack of the Clones again.

Kairaven

2012-02-22, 10:31 AM

Frankly in the whole scheme of things I think both Jedi and Siths are fully in the evil camp.

if you count in the Old republic settings it basically means in over thousands of years, society and technology has barely progressed in the star wars universe. Both under peaceful jedi supported republic or harsh Imperial Sith. Both faction are overly obsessed with the seeking of ancient lost knowledge instead of general progress. The Jedis causes stagnation while the Siths causes general destruction and tyranical suppression. Frankly I think their universe would be better off with out either.

but yea, order vs chaos fits better, though it seems to be the evil aspects of both that is being promoted

Nerd-o-rama

2012-02-22, 10:35 AM

Nah. The evil ones are the EU writers who can't come up with ways to distinguish different eras, or at least not ones that will be accepted by Lucasfilm.

Alternatively, technology plateaued with the proliferation of hyperdrive and sapient AI and there's just no major innovations left to discover, only refinement of the existing tech.

Kairaven

2012-02-22, 10:43 AM

Alternatively, technology plateaued with the proliferation of hyperdrive and sapient AI and there's just no major innovations left to discover, only refinement of the existing tech.

That's the saddest fate ever for a universe of sentient being....

Nerd-o-rama

2012-02-22, 11:18 AM

That's the saddest fate ever for a universe of sentient being....

People in this universe can create life (out of carbon or silicon, doesn't matter), hop to the other side of the Galaxy in a week, communicate to the other side of the Galaxy even faster, see the future, past, or present with mental powers, and with a little bit of focused research casually detonate stars. What else is there within the realm of our Earth-human imagination, short of transhumanism (which is possible, but only select groups seem to want it)?

I mean, research on refining all this technology continues apace - Hyperspace travel gets faster and safer in each new era, for example, and more of the huge Galaxy gets mapped, armor and weapon efficiency goes up and down with each new war depending on resources and new research - but apart from improving what's there, what new quantum leap do you expect?

hamishspence

2012-02-22, 11:24 AM

Huh, hadn't really even heard of any EU books covering that period.

I think it was called Jedi Quest, or something along those lines- and was a series of short books for children.

Rogue Planet (Greg Bear) is set very shortly after Episode I, and Anakin is already a bit of a troublemaker, but not maliciously so. Since Lucas had not yet outlined the idea that Jedi almost never marry, one of the Jedi in that (Thracia Cho Leem, Vergere's master) has been married and has many children. There's a minor Dark-Side incident toward the end of the book.

In Outbound Flight (Timothy Zahn) (midway between Episode I and Episode II) we already have hints that Anakin likes the thought of "Jedi taking charge of situations" a bit too much- in his admiration of C'baoth, who is very overbearing.

Right before Episode II is The Approaching Storm (Alan Dean Foster). Anakin is still reckless, but fairly decent. Master Luminara and her Padawan Barriss Offee are major supporting characters (both appear in the series The Clone Wars later. When at the start of Episode II they're "returning from Ansion"- this book tells what happened on Ansion.

Kairaven

2012-02-22, 02:07 PM

People in this universe can create life (out of carbon or silicon, doesn't matter), hop to the other side of the Galaxy in a week, communicate to the other side of the Galaxy even faster, see the future, past, or present with mental powers, and with a little bit of focused research casually detonate stars. What else is there within the realm of our Earth-human imagination, short of transhumanism (which is possible, but only select groups seem to want it)?

I mean, research on refining all this technology continues apace - Hyperspace travel gets faster and safer in each new era, for example, and more of the huge Galaxy gets mapped, armor and weapon efficiency goes up and down with each new war depending on resources and new research - but apart from improving what's there, what new quantum leap do you expect?

I just think it's sad that they seem to be doomed to an ever repeating cycle of social stagnation and repeated conflict. Technology might be refined but they face the same social problem and technology uses (for war) that has been occuring for thousands of years with no ending in sight. Personally I am starting to wonder if the so called "will of the force" is just the midicholorian's big joke on the universal sentient races. Heck, all they need is some sort of hyperspace travel disruption and they are turned into 40k universe.

Dr._Demento

2012-02-22, 02:57 PM

I think it was called Jedi Quest, or something along those lines- and was a series of short books for children.

Rogue Planet (Greg Bear) is set very shortly after Episode I, and Anakin is already a bit of a troublemaker, but not maliciously so. Since Lucas had not yet outlined the idea that Jedi almost never marry, one of the Jedi in that (Thracia Cho Leem, Vergere's master) has been married and has many children. There's a minor Dark-Side incident toward the end of the book.

In Outbound Flight (Timothy Zahn) (midway between Episode I and Episode II) we already have hints that Anakin likes the thought of "Jedi taking charge of situations" a bit too much- in his admiration of C'baoth, who is very overbearing.

Right before Episode II is The Approaching Storm (Alan Dean Foster). Anakin is still reckless, but fairly decent. Master Luminara and her Padawan Barriss Offee are major supporting characters (both appear in the series The Clone Wars later. When at the start of Episode II they're "returning from Ansion"- this book tells what happened on Ansion.

Ans the cartoon series is technically canon as well, isn't it?

hamishspence

2012-02-22, 04:12 PM

Most things are canon in some way.

The series The Clone Wars is, however, on a "canon tier" midway between the movies (and their novelizations & radio plays) and most of the rest of the EU.

That said, even a G canon source like a novelization can have C canon bits- anything originating with the author, rather than Lucas, for example.

Mace's "shatterpoint" sense is C canon, even though he uses it in the G canon Episode III novel- because it was Matt Stover that invented it in an earlier novel.

Dienekes

2012-02-22, 08:57 PM

I just think it's sad that they seem to be doomed to an ever repeating cycle of social stagnation and repeated conflict. Technology might be refined but they face the same social problem and technology uses (for war) that has been occuring for thousands of years with no ending in sight. Personally I am starting to wonder if the so called "will of the force" is just the midicholorian's big joke on the universal sentient races. Heck, all they need is some sort of hyperspace travel disruption and they are turned into 40k universe.

History is full of war. I believe one study stated that all told there has been near constant warfare since 3000 BC. That is just one planet. To me the fact that war is more or less continuous in a galactic setting just makes sense. More people, more things to fight over.

Also, I'm a little confused how an order of monks who at worst act like a high level police force can be called evil because scientists haven't thought of anything new in awhile.