Originally posted by catmaykate

 

---

Originally posted by madeux
Sith are evil.  Deal with it.
Edit for more clarity:
Sith believe in Slavery.  Jedi do not believe in slavery.
Slavery is evil.  (Go ahead and try to argue otherwise).
Sith are evil.
 

---

The bible says Slavery is ok, is the bible evil?

 

 

Yes

Originally posted by catmaykate

 

---

Originally posted by madeux
Sith are evil.  Deal with it.
Edit for more clarity:
Sith believe in Slavery.  Jedi do not believe in slavery.
Slavery is evil.  (Go ahead and try to argue otherwise).
Sith are evil.
 

---

The bible says Slavery is ok, is the bible evil?

 

 

Yes, it most certainly is.

Originally posted by Xero_Chance

 

---

Originally posted by CymTyr
The sith by their very definition are evil. They are all about the self, with no regard for others unless it benefits the SELF. That is the very definition of evil.
You may not like it, you may say most people are about the self, and that's true, but it's evil. Morality dictates that you have to be aware of others including their emotional state, how they feel, and what they might like. The greater good philosophy says that if I share an apartment with someone and they lost their job, I may help them get by until they find a new one. This would benefit me by helping another individual, but helping the individual benefits them as well, so it's not all about me.
If I were a sith in the Star Wars universe, if I had a roommate that lost their job I would just kick them to the curb and find a new roommate.  Not exactly the best example, but it illustrates the point.

---

That's not the definition of Evil.
Evil is the category a party places actions or people into that conflicts with their desires.

Nevermind.

Originally posted by ZoeMcCloskey

Selfishness is not always evil.  Sometimes it is very necessary otherwise people just trample over all of your rights in the name of the supposed greater good.

Most things in life are relative and situational.  To proclaim much of anything as universally good or evil is very difficult to do, slavery included.  I should note I'd have to work a bit at it to make any example where slavery was not inherently evil :P  But I do think it is likely possible to do so.

Depends on how you approach morality.  If you approach it from a consequentialist standpoint, then it is undoubtedly true that no act in general (at least as far as I am familiar with words in the English Language), is ever always evil.  Murder CAN serve the greater good (though this is EXCEEEDINGLY RARE and more to the point, almost impossible to figure out given that you can't know all the consequences of such an act before doing or not doing it).  If you approach it from a standpoint that MOTIVES matter most, then selfishness could quite easily be evil.

Personally, I'm a consequentialist.  Motives matter in terms of figuring out how someone will behave in the future, but how good or evil an act is makes more sense to determine by ACT.  Given that, it seems silly to me to say if person A saves the innocent child, then it was good, but if person B did it (for selfish reasons) then it was bad.

From that perspective, it is easy to come up with fictional scenarios where slavery is good.  Let's say someone is attached to a doomsday device that will explode if don't do hard labor for the rest of their life or if they are killed.  This device cannot be blocked or removed.  The person does not WANT to do the labor and they don't care if the device goes off and kills people (or don't believe the evidence).  Essentially, then, you have to enslave them lest billions of people die.  Naturally, real life doesn't contain such certainties, and I think it is just about impossible to come up with a realistic scenario that requires enslaving one person and as close to actually impossible as you can get to come up with one that involves a large group of people (there's basically always another way).

Originally posted by CymTyr

Nevermind.

 This about sums up the level of deep thought here, started out good. 

Once the so-called, and slanted understandings of history, we lose objective outlook.  I wont even touch the bible useage. 

This thread was discussed at lenght on the offical boards until it was moved and finally killed.  The basic answer is Jedi are good and Sith are evil because George Lucas said they are.  The writers and fans, who interpret Star Wars,  have changed the ideals.  Lucas did, through Obe Won and "Cantakakin," elude to a much deeper ideal.

---

Originally posted by Drachasor

---

Originally posted by Xero_Chance
Good and Evil are relative.
I see both sides as wrong, the Jedi are too passive and tend to stagnate while the Sith are too aggressive and tend to destroy themselves. True peace comes from Balance.

---

Balance?  Serfdom or indentured servitude is balance of slavery and not slavery, but that's not a good thing.
The Old Jedi Order had its problems, but just because it wasn't Perfect, doesn't mean that you need to somehow average it with the Sith to get "balance" which must be good.
The New Jedi Order is much better, but they've suffered heavily under writers who want to force them into interesting stories (same with the New Republic).  Also note, that the New Jedi improved itself by embracing things the Sith and Old Jedi Order both rejected, like love, marriage, and family.

---

Indentured servitude is the same thing as slavery, they're synonyms.
Also, your example doesn't prove any point whatsoever.

The Jedi are not aggressive enough to fix problems staring them in the face and the Sith are not peaceful enough to preserve systems that work.

Slavery isn't evil. In our eyes and by our society's standards it is, but in other societies in other times and countries, it is/has been seen as necessary and right. This was the case in Ancient Rome when enslaving people from barbarian lands was seen as rescuing them and sex with young boys was acceptable.

Good and Evil mean NOTHING. It's all apples vs oranges.

Originally posted by Xero_Chance

 

---

Originally posted by Drachasor

---

Originally posted by Xero_Chance
Good and Evil are relative.
I see both sides as wrong, the Jedi are too passive and tend to stagnate while the Sith are too aggressive and tend to destroy themselves. True peace comes from Balance.

---

Balance?  Serfdom or indentured servitude is balance of slavery and not slavery, but that's not a good thing.
The Old Jedi Order had its problems, but just because it wasn't Perfect, doesn't mean that you need to somehow average it with the Sith to get "balance" which must be good.
The New Jedi Order is much better, but they've suffered heavily under writers who want to force them into interesting stories (same with the New Republic).  Also note, that the New Jedi improved itself by embracing things the Sith and Old Jedi Order both rejected, like love, marriage, and family.

---

 

Indentured servitude is the same thing as slavery, they're synonyms.
Also, your example doesn't prove any point whatsoever.

The Jedi are not aggressive enough to fix problems staring them in the face and the Sith are not peaceful enough to preserve systems that work.

Slavery isn't evil. In our eyes and by our society's standards it is, but in other societies in other times and countries, it is/has been seen as necessary and right. This was the case in Ancient Rome when enslaving people from barbarian lands was seen as rescuing them and sex with young boys was acceptable.

Good and Evil mean NOTHING. It's all apples vs oranges.

Yeah, germans call it the Zeitgeist.  The morality and ethics of cultures/societies has improved a LOT as time has gone on.  Not that surprising, really, so has our technology and many other things as well.  I think you've made my case very well given your example of young boys.

I understand you are trying to say good and evil don't matter, but ethics DO matter.  They are the rules and principles by which we decide how people should interact with each other.  Now, on the one hand you can say there's no basis for determining what is good or bad there, and from a completely objective perspective that doesn't care about the welfare of the people involved, you are absolutely right.  On the other hand, from a perspective that DOES care about the welfare of society and its members, good and evil (e.g. ethics/morality), DO matter a great deal.  Some rules are just better than others in this regard (such as not allowing slavery).  I think it is pretty clear which perspective is the more useful one to go with, fellow member of society.

Oh, and indentured servitude isn't slavery, since you can earn your freedom.

SW force users have more references to other things then just Buddhists and monks. Campbell made plenty of references to not just the main religious practices. But mythology as well as faith, and other cultures such as the Egyptians, Rome, Greece, and even the American Indians, as well as some of the Medieval times. It is the stories that shape and change are generation.

A hero stands in front of the crowd, they are the ones that lead it. Not the other way around(reference to Campbells Hero With a Thousand Faces). Nietzsche along with other people such as Kant, Freud, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, and many others had influence over Campbells writing of the book which Lucas based SW off of. Then again Philosophy also supports peoples rights to suicide and other personal choices such as self abuse, unlike religious practices(read a book and stop googling shit on SW).

It's nothing more then faith(regardless of the different names people label it). Real issue is over course of 2000 years there has not been anything overly new in the sense of religion to raise up and aspire the masses. That is all the basis of what the force is. Different people have different views on faith(religion) and with that comes conflict(just like with in RL). Making a story about good vs. evil sells(Lucas profiting off another mans work in a simpler sense).

Heh, too many posts to use quotes in a practical way, so let's strip it down to the essentials.

George Lucas made in essence a fairy tale, but then in scifi clothes: it even has the princess, the knights, swords and magic (The Force). And just like with fairy tales and other children's stories, you have the black&white view of good and evil. As some posters already commented, this is how George Lucas intended it to be. But even in this restricted view of Sith and Jedi, Anakin didn't become a Dark Jedi and even a Sith because of a wish to 'do evil', but to bring order to the Galaxy.

If you take a look at the larger Star Wars universe, with all the books, comics, games etc that 'expanded' upon Lucas' original stories, then you see a deeper, more complex view of Sith and Jedi, and it isn't just automatically good vs evil. Mind you, this 'Expanded Universe' is something that was still approved by George Lucas and his people at Lucasfilm, George Lucas has ultimate creative control over the Star Wars universe, the 'Expanded Universe' included.

Now, if SW:ToR took place in the era of the movies, like SWG, then I'd say follow the black&white idea of Sith being evil and Jedi being good. But it isn't, SW:TOR takes place 4,000 years before the movies, in the Expanded Universe of Star Wars where things are more grey and Sith and Sith society aren't plainly evil.

Furthermore, it's not about our view of the Sith and the Jedi, but about Bioware's when it comes to SW:TOR, and Bioware people have clearly stated that the Sith aren't merely about evil, but that they have a legitimate view and cause (see post 6 at the end). And note that they implement SW:TOR like this with the full approval of Lucasfilm.

So, the reasons why Sith vs Jedi in SW:TOR won't be just evil vs good:

- SW:TOR takes place in the Expanded Universe of Star Wars, that allows a more complex, 'realistic' view of Jedi/Sith societies

- Bioware stated that the Sith in SW:TOR aren't just about evil

Looking at real life and history, I think that like someone already said our perception of good and evil up to a point are subjective and time and culture dependent. People can be evil, but that doesn't mean that whole societies and civilisations and the people in it are evil. As Bioware dev Erickson stated, the majority of people were just 'trying to do their thing'.

To give a few examples:

- even among its top people and generals there will have been Nazis that weren't evil, but just going around living their life.

- our forefathers in former centuries have committed atrocities that equal and surpass that of regimes like the Nazis. If in some way the indigenous civilisations of other continents had managed to strike back in the way of the Allied Forces did towards Nazi Germany, and managed to drive off the colonial settlements and conquer Europe, a lot of our historic figures up to our nation's leaders would have been condemned as criminals just as the Nazi leaders, and with reason: systematic genocide and mass slaughter, enslavement of the African people, dropping African slaves in sea en route to America when a few proved to be sick, those are only a few examples how our forefathers behaved towards other civilisations and races.

However, we don't regard our forefathers as evil and our nations' histories as one of being evil empires, even if at the same time we regard the Nazi empire as evil.

- if animals in some way could think and reason as humans, they would probably deem humans as a species evil, the way that humankind has no care for nature or animal and planetlife, gobbles up all the planet's resources and only thinks of itself without thought their actions might have for future eras.

Originally posted by ConverseSC

 

Originally posted by Troneas

regardless of the fact that yes, there are two distinct philosophies, they can be interpreted as being "good" and "evil". 

 

it comes down to what you interpret as being "evil" and what not.

 

ben kenobi certainly thought the ways of the empire were "evil".

 

at the same time, the empire (or sidious more specifically) regarded the jedi as myopic and inefficient in the grand scheme of things.

 

for me the greatest difference in both philosophies is that the sith would sustain that the end result justifies the means; whereas the jedi would argue that the means are as important as the end result.

 

its this clear distinction that would categorise the sith as being "evil"; because in their pursuit for quick and effective ways to reach their objectives they might choose war over diplomacy, kill the innocent, destroy whole planets, bombard cities to the dark ages...

 

would you destroy one innocent life to save 1000? 

a jedi wouldn't, and arguably this line of thought cost them the clone wars.

a sith, on the other hand, wouldn't think twice at killing one innocent life and perhaps even the other 1000 if it suited their interests. 

This isn't really accurate.  The Jedi think the Sith are evil, but generally the Sith do not consider the Jedi in the same fashion.  The Sith, as a general rule, aren't concerned with issues of morality.  They are all about indivdual power, passion, ambition, and strength.  They don't bother themselves with silly arguments of morality, because they don't consider it important.  They wouldn't refer to themselves or anyone else as evil.

 

To them, it's just the weak and the strong. 

i don't see how your reply goes against what i have said.

when you concern yourself with morality you are concerning yourself with the way in which you are working towards an objective. 

power, ambition, etc. are emotional behaviours. relying on these as principles contrasts with the respect for the law, which is based on accepted moral and "logical" behavours. the jedi are bound to the law. the law of the republic as well as their own principles which naturally matches those of the republic.

so again, whilst the sith might not consider themselves "evil", but most people would agree that outlaws might do "evil" deeds (depending on the circumstance and the act of course).

Originally posted by severius

Originally posted by Troneas

regardless of the fact that yes, there are two distinct philosophies, they can be interpreted as being "good" and "evil". 

 

it comes down to what you interpret as being "evil" and what not.

 

ben kenobi certainly thought the ways of the empire were "evil".

 

at the same time, the empire (or sidious more specifically) regarded the jedi as myopic and inefficient in the grand scheme of things.

 

for me the greatest difference in both philosophies is that the sith would sustain that the end result justifies the means; whereas the jedi would argue that the means are as important as the end result.

 

its this clear distinction that would categorise the sith as being "evil"; because in their pursuit for quick and effective ways to reach their objectives they might choose war over diplomacy, kill the innocent, destroy whole planets, bombard cities to the dark ages...

 

would you destroy one innocent life to save 1000? 

a jedi wouldn't, and arguably this line of thought cost them the clone wars.

a sith, on the other hand, wouldn't think twice at killing one innocent life and perhaps even the other 1000 if it suited their interests. 

I couldn't disagree more.  Using the films as reference points here the "light" side is another form of evil.  In the timeline of the movies it has already become a standard for the sith that there cannot be more than 2 or so (I say or so because of the prequels where there was Dooku, Palpatine, and Maul) but they purposefully keep their own numbers low.

first, i don't see how or why being many or just two can be or is not an act of evilness. second, dooku was still a jedi when maul was alive, and not palpatine's apprentice. so technically they followed the rule of two.

 

  The Jedi on the other hand have this huge (during the prequels, before vaders rise) army of jedi.  Now here comes the light-side's hypocrisy: Obi-Wan and Quigonn believe that Anakin is the foretold one. and this prophecy is that Anakin will bring balance to the force.  Anakin goes on a rampage killing everything he can he is sent to Mustafarr where he battles Obi-Wan.  Obi's "whine" and complaint against Anakin is something along the lines of "You were supposed to be the chosen one, you were supposed to bring balance, not kill younglings."  By the time that Anakin and Obi-Wan fought, Anakin had fulfilled the prophecy!  He had brought balance to the force.  By the time of the original trilogy there are 2 jedi Obi and Yoda, there are 2 sith, Palpatine and Vader...... sounds like balance to me.  However for these "light" jedi the idea of "balance" to the force is no Sith, only Jedi.  Hitler thought like this, so did Mao and Stalin, Mary I (bloody Mary), and many many others.

first, in all the novels and other star wars materials i have read, i have found no conclusive information as to what the "balance of the force" is. you are assuming it has to do with equal number of jedi and sith.

second, "hitler thought like this?". so you mean its "fighting evil" to kill hundred of jedi for the sake of repelling the jedi's agenda to exterminate the sith?  i think your comparison of jews, heretics, nationalists or whatever with the sith is a little far stretched. jews, heretics, chinese nationalists were either victims or war enemies, not outlaws.

Besides, the jedi way is to bring them to justice, not kill them unless their lives depend on it. 

 

 

When Windu goes to face Palpatine he promises Anakin that he is going to arrest him that he will be tried.  Yet when it comes down to it what does Windu do?  He forces Anakins hand by trying to assassinate the Emperor.  He says something to the effect of "He controls the senate and the courts, we must kill him."  So, he is willing to forego the ideas of peace, justice, honor, etc for what?  To serve "his own" idea of good.  Palpatine, while engineering the war to bring himself more power, is working for peace in the universe, under Sith rule.  At least with the Sith what you see is what you get, whereas the Jedi obviously do not follow their own doctrines unless it suits them.

you are generalising the jedi for the act of one of them. i recommend you read "shatterpoint", by matthew stover. it describes very well the inner workings and troubles of mace windu's psych; echoed by many jedi during the clone wars.  

mace windu could not bring himself to killing tyrannus in the geo arena precisely for the reasons you mention above; and he later on dwells on the thought that perhaps it would have saved thousands of lives had he done so. 

read it, i recommend it. 

 

and with the sith you "see what you get"? come on man did you just watch star wars yesterday for the first time? darth sidious is the master of deceit and lies. really.......

 

Would the Jedi destroy one life to save thousands?  Obviously Windu will.  And I only say Palpatine is innocent because he had not had his day in court.  If there is a problem with the system itself, well.... you fix the system and going rogue does not bring about that fix.

again, read above. you are miss-judging windu because you clearly have not enough information on the subject.

 

  "for me the greatest difference in both philosophies is that the sith would sustain that the end result justifies the means; whereas the jedi would argue that the means are as important as the end result." I think the jedi forgot all that because they succumbed to their own failings and fears.  Both sides ostensibly want peace and both sides will go to any lengths to reach that end.  Both are equally flawed.

will they? if the jedi would go to "any lengths" to reach that end they would have acted way different during the clone wars. from the Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader novel, by James Luceno. 

"Salvo (clone commando) signaled to his comlink specialist: 'Relay the building coordinates to the Gallant gunnary - '

'Wait on that', Shryne (Jedi Master) said quickly.... ' Targeting the building poses too great a risk for the bridges'...

Salvo considered it briefly: 'A surgical strike, then' 

Shryne shook his head no: 'There's another reason for discretion. That building is a medcenter. Or at least it was the last time I was there.'

Salvo shifted his gaze to Shryne: 'An enemy medcenter, General'. 

Shryne compressed his limps and nodded: 'Even at this point in the war, patients are considered non-combatants'."

 

if the jedi had gone to "any length" to achieve his objective he would have bombarded the damn building from the skies instead of risking his life by scouting it on foot - don't you think?

 

Now, I know that Lucas has stated that the Jedi are good and the Sith are Evil but the stories he created show his own fundamental flaws and his sophmoric understanding of philosophy.  Sure he can take piecemeal from world religions here to suit his own fantasies and he falls into the same traps that those world religions and philosophies have. 

Originally posted by warmaster670

Originally posted by eburn

Originally posted by warmaster670

Originally posted by eburn

Originally posted by warmaster670

Originally posted by eburn

Originally posted by Bama1267

 Meh, its still good vs evil to me no matter how you break it down. One side seems to use the force more responsible while the other seeks ultimate power at any cost.

How in the world is lifting rocks and doing backflips more responsible than bringing law and order to the universe?

How are you comparing training to something that has nothing to do with teh force?

 

Neither of those things are right.

Like you said; it's 'teh force(sic)'. They are related, but if you disagree then elaborate, because I can't phantom how you think they're unrelated.

Simple, the empire isnt built with or on teh force, and palpatine didnt need the force to form the empire.

 

So again, how are either of those showing what that side does with teh force?

Well that's a whole different time period than what TOR will be taking place in, but..

Yes he did.

And he used the force rather well to do so. The force's dark side of course, and he had more to gain than just being all Sithy.

The only thing he used the force to do was fight yoda/mace, everything else he did he could have done without the force.

 

I guess making dipshit there turn to his side would have been alot harder without the force, but he also didnt need vader to accomplish his plans, seeing as hi had a competant army, with a competent right hand man already, hell he had TWO armies.

I don't think you even understand the basic concept of the Force and how he used it to get what he wanted. I recommend reading just about any Star Wars novel because each one usually has a good example of a direct use of the force, and a bit of exploration for the broader things that can be done.

You can manipulate people of power, or you can throw the senate at him.

If you still fail to see how he used the force to gain an empire, read the wikipedia entry about it? I really have no idea what seems so obfuscated about the idea to you.

Originally posted by eburn

Originally posted by warmaster670

Originally posted by eburn

Originally posted by warmaster670

Originally posted by eburn

Originally posted by warmaster670

Originally posted by eburn

Originally posted by Bama1267

 Meh, its still good vs evil to me no matter how you break it down. One side seems to use the force more responsible while the other seeks ultimate power at any cost.

How in the world is lifting rocks and doing backflips more responsible than bringing law and order to the universe?

How are you comparing training to something that has nothing to do with teh force?

 

Neither of those things are right.

Like you said; it's 'teh force(sic)'. They are related, but if you disagree then elaborate, because I can't phantom how you think they're unrelated.

Simple, the empire isnt built with or on teh force, and palpatine didnt need the force to form the empire.

 

So again, how are either of those showing what that side does with teh force?

Well that's a whole different time period than what TOR will be taking place in, but..

Yes he did.

And he used the force rather well to do so. The force's dark side of course, and he had more to gain than just being all Sithy.

The only thing he used the force to do was fight yoda/mace, everything else he did he could have done without the force.

 

I guess making dipshit there turn to his side would have been alot harder without the force, but he also didnt need vader to accomplish his plans, seeing as hi had a competant army, with a competent right hand man already, hell he had TWO armies.

I don't think you even understand the basic concept of the Force and how he used it to get what he wanted. I recommend reading just about any Star Wars novel because each one usually has a good example of a direct use of the force, and a bit of exploration for the broader things that can be done.

You can manipulate people of power, or you can throw the senate at him.

If you still fail to see how he used the force to gain an empire, read the wikipedia entry about it? I really have no idea what seems so obfuscated about the idea to you.

suggesting that palpatine didn't use the Force to orchestrate his way to power and remain in power whilst masking his presence under the noses of the jedi and manipulating everything and everyone, foreseeing what will happen, training 3 apprentices no less is ludicrous.

suggesting that luke's use of the force was limited to lifting rocks is also absurd.  

Less discussing the force and more discussing good/evil and the many shades of morality.  :)

Originally posted by ZoeMcCloskey

Less discussing the force and more discussing good/evil and the many shades of morality.  :)

Good point.

To contribute to that, I repeat a commentary made in a former post:

So, the reasons why Sith vs Jedi in SW:TOR won't be just evil vs good:

- SW:TOR takes place in the Expanded Universe of Star Wars, that allows a more complex, 'realistic' view of Jedi/Sith societies

- Bioware stated that the Sith in SW:TOR aren't just about evil

and to add as a third and fourth

- Sith empires in the Expanded Universe were often not any more evil than some of our 'enlightened' nations in former centuries (genocide, enslavement, extermination)

- Sith doctrine in the Expanded Universe resembles more a 'domination by the strongest and fittest' Darwinist philosophy, and who can claim that Darwinism worldview is pure evil?

And as a funny sidenote:

isn't in the US practical capitalism relished as power of the individual, where the fittest manage to survive and prosper, and where any hint of where you need to hand over a piece of your individualism to the collective or 'the greater good' seen as socialism or communism (ie the healthcare debate)?

Originally posted by cyphers

Originally posted by ZoeMcCloskey

Less discussing the force and more discussing good/evil and the many shades of morality.  :)

 

Good point.

To contribute to that, I repeat a commentary made in a former post:

 

So, the reasons why Sith vs Jedi in SW:TOR won't be just evil vs good:

- SW:TOR takes place in the Expanded Universe of Star Wars, that allows a more complex, 'realistic' view of Jedi/Sith societies

- Bioware stated that the Sith in SW:TOR aren't just about evil

and to add as a third and fourth

- Sith empires in the Expanded Universe were often not any more evil than some of our 'enlightened' nations in former centuries (genocide, enslavement, extermination)

- Sith doctrine in the Expanded Universe resembles more a 'domination by the strongest and fittest' Darwinist philosophy, and who can claim that Darwinism worldview is pure evil?

 

And as a funny sidenote:

isn't in the US practical capitalism relished as power of the individual, where the fittest manage to survive and prosper, and where any hint of where you need to hand over a piece of your individualism to the collective or 'the greater good' seen as socialism or communism (ie the healthcare debate)?

Glad you reposted that, I was about to, hehe.  Very good points imo.

Originally posted by cyphers

Originally posted by ZoeMcCloskey

Less discussing the force and more discussing good/evil and the many shades of morality.  :)

 

Good point.

To contribute to that, I repeat a commentary made in a former post:

 

So, the reasons why Sith vs Jedi in SW:TOR won't be just evil vs good:

- SW:TOR takes place in the Expanded Universe of Star Wars, that allows a more complex, 'realistic' view of Jedi/Sith societies

what is more "realistic" about it?

didn't malak bombard taris to the dark ages to prevent someone from escaping? vs. tarkin blowing up alderaan to collect intel?

didn't sidious preach about and encourage the use of the emotions, believing they were a catalyst to greater power - the ultimate aim for a sith? vs.  the core principles set by ajunta pall when forming the sith organisation which followed every sith lord since - in fact this little detail being why they split from the jedi in the first place?

didn't the jedi of the EU (valenthyne farfalla, nomi sunrider, jaina solo... etc.) try to extend the same respect for life as the jedi in the movies?

didn't we see jedi fall to the dark side  in the EU (such as  ulic qel-droma, kyp durron, jacen solo) in a similar fashion to that of anakin's and for similar reasons?

didn't the jedi serve an organisation during the Old Republic, the Republic, the New Republic, the Gallactic Alliance.... as they did in the movies? vs. didn't the sith serve their own organisation and agenda in the EU (considering that when they took over the republic it became essentially "their government") and in the movies?

didn't the jedi follow the same political structure from the time of the first jedi master all the way to luke's new academy? (ie based on experience, wisdom and knowledge) vs. didn't the sith follow the same political structure (with the "possible" exception of the brotherhood of darkness - possible because lord kaan was still the "unofficial" boss)  to that of the movies (ie based on the strong ruling the weak)?

 

i'm sorry to have to break it to you, but the story keeps repeating itself. the scenario might change, the circumstances might change... but essentially the jedi are jedi are jedi and the sith are sith are sith. and democracy is democracy is democracy and tyranny is tyranny is tyranny. 

 

 

- Bioware stated that the Sith in SW:TOR aren't just about evil

evil is a point of view, dictated by moral standards, ethics and the law. 

 

and to add as a third and fourth

- Sith empires in the Expanded Universe were often not any more evil than some of our 'enlightened' nations in former centuries (genocide, enslavement, extermination)

true this.

curiously, the united nations might consider these "evil" acts against humanity by today's standards.

 

 

- Sith doctrine in the Expanded Universe resembles more a 'domination by the strongest and fittest' Darwinist philosophy, and who can claim that Darwinism worldview is pure evil?

 

ehm, fist it wasn't his "view" (if implying this to be his personal belief of how things are/ought to be), it was a theory which does not apply to the conscious behaviour of species but rather to their natural development and natural survival.

and i think that considering today's social standards right about anyone in their right state of mind or proper education would agree that taking advantages of the weak for personal gratification is not accepted.

your dog eat your sofa's pillow. go kill him. he's defenseless and weak and won't attack you back out of loyalty. see how that feels. 

 

And as a funny sidenote:

isn't in the US practical capitalism relished as power of the individual, where the fittest manage to survive and prosper, and where any hint of where you need to hand over a piece of your individualism to the collective or 'the greater good' seen as socialism or communism (ie the healthcare debate)?

 

yes it is. 

its cultural.

but there are still clear rules which have to be adhered to.

the US also practically became "The Empire" after the 9/11 attacks when the government decided to give up on some individual freedom in exchange for greater security and bombard nations to the dark ages to pursue an agenda (be it foreign freedom, pre-emptive attacks, etc.)

nevertheless, there are solid domestic governmental institutions which try to  provide fair justice, support and freedom to its population. 

Originally posted by cyphers

And as a funny sidenote:

isn't in the US practical capitalism relished as power of the individual, where the fittest manage to survive and prosper, and where any hint of where you need to hand over a piece of your individualism to the collective or 'the greater good' seen as socialism or communism (ie the healthcare debate)?

The U.S. Government or even society is not as good, I think, as the Old Republic.  The U.S. has a lot of real problems at the governmental and news level for one.

Anyhow, the Sith Empire is a bit like Nazi Germany.  Yes, there are good people around in it, here and there, but the State itself is evil and so are the major players (one could argue the Sith Empire is probably worse on an individual level than the Nazis, but figuring that out probably isn't worth the time involved).  One could say the Old Republic is then like the U.S. circa WW2.  It has some evil people and evil acts, but overall it is a massive force for good (same with the Jedi in ToR).  

ToR is certainly a game of Good vs. Evil; but it isn't a game where the Evil Empire is full of Always Chaotic Evil people and the Old Republic is full of Always Lawful Good people.  It's more complicated (and realistic) than that, but that doesn't make morality meaningless or the Sith Empire not evil.  And this only makes sense as the Dark Side is corrupting and makes you more evil, as all Canon states (and the few exceptions have been ret-conned or are given by unreliable narrators).

I'm going to roleplay an evil trooper, "raping and pillaging" every chance that I get to. :D