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

Originally posted by cyphers

- the fact that atrocities were being committed under the Nazi regime, doesn't mean that all Nazis were evil (extreme example of a good person: Schindler's List)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Sorry cyphers, you lost. gg.

Originally posted by Falfeir

Originally posted by cyphers

- the fact that atrocities were being committed under the Nazi regime, doesn't mean that all Nazis were evil (extreme example of a good person: Schindler's List)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Sorry cyphers, you lost. gg.

Lol! Nice find, gotta remember that one for other debates, thanks

I didn't lose though, see here:

The law [Godwin's Law] and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering genocide, propaganda, early 20th century eugenics (racial superiority) or other mainstays of Nazi Germany, nor, more debatably, to discussion of other totalitarian regimes, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances is appropriate.

I was talking about totalitarian regimes and genocide, so it was appropriate. Game continues

Originally posted by Drachasor

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).  

It has a lot of similarities, in that both are totalitarian regimes that  have a viewpoint of relishing the strong and regarding weakness as a flaw. The Nazi doctrine was in essence not about doing evil but took its influence from (neo) darwinism and Nietsche. Nazi regime wasn't unique in that 'survival of the fittest' belief, many cultures and civilisations throughout the centuries held similar beliefs, among them Sparta that killed its own young when they were deemed insufficient.

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).

The Dark Side can be very seductive and corrupting, but is it always only leading to evil in SW canon? I can recall examples as Mara Jade who was a Dark Side user in service of a Sith emperor who didn't go over the edge and also ended up at the good side. Or the New Jedi, post-movie era, that used both sides of the Force.

@Troneas: I wasn't referring to Darwin's point of view but to the philosophy called (neo-)-Darwinism that arose as a result of his works, and that favored the idea that 'the strongest and fittest will survive', also when it comes to people and cultures.

Any human with a mature mind know that good and evil are only subjective concepts, and the universal good/evil do not really exists..

I think i am doing the right thing, and does i am good, and who does the opersite is evil, even though he is properly thinking the same thing.

So it absolutely POINTLESS to EVER discuss good and evil, because who you agree with is "good" to you, but some other WILL feel the same way.

Pick your side, and know it is because you agree with them, and drop all that bs about good and evil....

Originally posted by tfwarlord

Any human with a mature mind know that good and evil are only subjective concepts, and the universal good/evil do not really exists..

I think i am doing the right thing, and does i am good, and who does the opersite is evil, even though he is properly thinking the same thing.

So it absolutely POINTLESS to EVER discuss good and evil, because who you agree with is "good" to you, but some other WILL feel the same way.

Pick your side, and know it is because you agree with them, and drop all that bs about good and evil....

yeah...

The concepts of "good" and "evil", which form the basis of morals, are not subjective but are rooted in ideological reasoning.

To say that "everything is relative and one big gray area" is actually false. That statement in of itself is an absolute statement thus making itself false. All ideology is rooted in absolute concepts and form the basis of its ideals thus creating protagonistic and antagonistic values ie "right" and "wrong", "good" and "evil".

but back to the Jedi/Sith thing:

Neither ideology is actually "good" or "evil". It just so happens that a majority of individuals that are Sith tend become "evil" in the classic sense where as Jedi tend to be "good" in the classic sense.

So Sith = bad guys and Jedi = good guys.

Man there are alot of interesting posts lol, didn't read them all but alot of them.  I tend to agree more with what Drachasor and cyphers have said; especially that "consequentialist standpoint" bit.  My personal view is that the "Light & Dark" sides of the force are closer in relation to Yin Yang of Taoism more than anything else.  Some might say the selfless vs. the selfish, and I agree to a large extent, but I think it's false to think that Jedi always equal selfless and Sith always selfish.

Which brings me to my point, I believe Nurture and how it influences Perception has alot to do with what is and isn't moral/ethical behaviour.  How we are raised, by not only the society as a whole, but also within a family and community, greatly influences Perception.  Which more than anything, influences the labeling of something as Good/Bad or Righteous/Evil.  True, there is that ever present "concious" that can override even the deepest ingrained Nurture, but that is few and far between, and rarely without some "religious experience" to accompany it.  Looking at it this way you can deduce a way that someone could be within an "evil" society but still be a "good" person.

An example would be a boy raised within the KKK.  That little sentence implies alot, but also not as much as one would think.  Obviously you could assume, without much error, that he would be raised to irrationally hate alot of ethnic groups; an evil thing.  But he could of also been raised to provide for his family, to help others in his community in times of need, to love and care for the environment; all good things.  Now if this boy were real, what would he be?  Evil?  Good? 

One could argue that it depends on what he does in life, whether he goes around lynching blacks, or just avoiding them; and even then what he is is defined by the observer.  And that illustrates the ambiguity of it all, Good/Bad Evil/Righteous are just labels we give to try to sort out the world as We, the individual, see it.  In this sense, Jedi/Sith are just 2 parts to the same coin and it largely depends on where you're standing as how they are defined; or as a wise man once said, "..from a certain point of view".

Which is why to me, I would not only roll a Sith in game, but also in RL if such a choice existed.  Why?  Is it because I'm an evil person who wants to enslave the world(s), blow up puppies with my mind, and/or steal everyone's cookies? ...well maybe that last one >:P  In reality, it's because I believe living by strong emotion is more humane and "right" than living some sterile, overly disciplined, self-righteous lifestyle; something I associate with the Jedi.  In that sense, the Jedi, to me, are the more arrogant and selfish faction.  Alot of that is due to how I was raised; life is a mosh pit, in order to live it you gotta jump in and accept all it's faults and have fun :).  Anyway, I hope that makes some sense as it is very late and I am very tired lol.  Suck it haters.

Side Note:  I'm willing to bet Sith chicks are awesome in bed >:D.

Originally posted by cyphers

The Dark Side can be very seductive and corrupting, but is it always only leading to evil in SW canon? I can recall examples as Mara Jade who was a Dark Side user in service of a Sith emperor who didn't go over the edge and also ended up at the good side. Or the New Jedi, post-movie era, that used both sides of the Force.

I've only read the EU stuff up until the end of the New Jedi Order, but though those 50 or so books, yes the dark side leads to evil.   Not all that fall to the dark side remain there, some (like Mara Jade, etc.) find their way back to the light, but it in finding their way back to the light that they become "good".  

I can't think of any examples where a consistently and permanently Dark Side jedi (or sith) was considered "good".  Sure, they level of corruption varies and some good deeds are done, but i don't remember any "good" characters that were Dark Jedi.  And if there was, it would have a been a major exception to the rule. 

What EU did in terms of adding shades of grey to the star wars universe wasn't really in terms of Dark Side and Light Side of the force, those stayed pretty much the same.  Some better exploration of what it means to fall and come have been provided, but it's been pretty consistent that one you do fall, you tend to do evil things until you come back.  

Some EU writers (Zahn in particular) did a good job delving into the nature of the Galactic Empire and how the Empire in itself wasn't necessarily an evil entity any more than the US or Germany are an evil entity.  It was a nation with an army and with questionable political decisions and some evil people and leaders as well as good people and leaders.  

I really think that - despite the very intelligent posts in this thread - there just isn't enough to argue about with TOR.  The Sith / Jedi and Light / Dark breaks are extemely simplistic and not meant to withstand any kind of close moral or political scrutiny.  It is a poor design choice to draw the battle-lines around these simplistic choices, but it is necessary for the sort of simplistic game that TOR will.  

Remember, BioWare is not trying to build a functioning world where politics and morals make sense.  They're trying to build a fun game with a reason for people to kill each other for fun.  For this purpose, these kinds of battlelines are necessary.  And I honestly call bs on the developer quoted as saying that sith don't get up drinking evil coffee and getting up to evil things, because in the way the game is set up, that's exactly what they do.  Which not something ashamed of, as this is exactly what players will do - they will log in and think "i'm a sick evil sith mofo, let me get my skull mask and rape me some jedi".  

While you bring up some good points, in the end it's not what our speculations say but what Bioware plans and decides to do with SW:ToR that will be law.

And like with their other games, they're pretty clear in their intent to really build a functioning world where politics and morals makes sense, to add depth and nuance to both sides, and to step away from making things too black&white and 2-dimensional. It's certainly not a game built around simplistic choices, that has never been Bioware's intention with any of their games.

As Bioware people themselves say:

"We have two things, which are faction and morality. I think the people confuse the Dark Side/Lightside alignment. One thing important for us is that the Sith are not cartoons. They cannot wake up in the morning and say "oh lets have some evil cofee and some evil pancakes. They got to be real people with a real culture. They have to have a legitimate point of view.

Again Light Side is a very different thing in our game. People often say "Oh - I'd just switch factions!" No you wouldn't. The Sith were literally chased out of the galaxy by the Jedi, you had an entire culture and people who were pushed out of known space. So you get these guys who come back and have a big chip on their shoulder. If you are playing a lightside Sith, you do NOT jump over to the Republic and join the people that tried to wipe out your entire people.

Being a good man [in the Sith Empire] means trying to change the world from the inside. You're trying to make the Empire a better place. We have to make sure that people understood that every evil regime that's ever existed in history has good people in it. The majority of people were just trying to 'do their thing' "

"Its not a chance to be evil, thats NOT what the Dark Side is about. it's about passion, competition, the thrill of victory. And ofcourse the strongest should rule"

This leads to believe that Dark Side/Lightside is not linked to faction: you can earn Dark Side and Lightside points in both factions. Sure, you can play pure evil as Sith or pure good as Jedi all you like, but Bioware made it clear that they offer a SW universe that has a richer, broader palette of moral colors and choices than the fairy tale black & white from the first movies.

The EU already had more moral nuance, and Bioware only has taken it further.

Originally posted by cyphers

Its not a chance to be evil, thats NOT what the Dark Side is about.

Except that it is.  Like i said, I'm yet to see a single example of a fully dark side character in the star wars universe that was a power for good.   Not someone who switched or fell and returned, but someone that was a fully dark side (or sith) and who was "good" in the moral sense of the word.  

I understand what you've quoted.  Frankly, I just don't believe it and I've seen no precedent to it.  But hey, wait and see.  

Please do not lose sight of the fact that this discussion is based upon books and movies that are created to entertain.

The Sith were used as protagonists in these stories and therefore not the whole focus of the story.  Usually it was about someone overcoming the corruption or desire for the Dark Side of the Force.  The Dark Side phrasee is used in this content to really drive forth the point that it is bad.

However, like BioWare is saying.  That may make a great book or story but, when you are not focused on one individual and the rammifications of what they are doing versus what is going on around them, you can extrapolate quite a variety of situations that fall into the shades of gray.

So, they are giving you options.  if you want to play the Darth PurelyEvilEpicSlayerOfBunnies you can.  But, if you want to be less of a steriotype and try to change the Empire from within, you have that option as well.  They are basically saying that it may unbalance the game by allowing players to switch sides.  In their mind it keeps the overpopulation of the "Drizzt" characters from happening.  ( thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you )   

Originally posted by NovaKayne

However, like BioWare is saying.  That may make a great book or story but, when you are not focused on one individual and the rammifications of what they are doing versus what is going on around them, you can extrapolate quite a variety of situations that fall into the shades of gray.

 So, they are giving you options.  if you want to play the Darth PurelyEvilEpicSlayerOfBunnies you can.  But, if you want to be less of a steriotype and try to change the Empire from within, you have that option as well.  They are basically saying that it may unbalance the game by allowing players to switch sides.  In their mind it keeps the overpopulation of the "Drizzt" characters from happening.  ( thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you )   

I think the reasons that you can't switch sides is a technical one: the forest of branching decision trees is already complex with the choices that players can make that reverberate and have consequences in follow up quests and dialogues. But if you can also switch side at any given time and you have to also take into account in dialogues, plots and quests all the potential choices players could have made on the other side, then the total work of story and plot heavy VO quests becomes daunting and a mission impossible.

I agree with the Jedi-Sith thing, it's easy to do in books and such purely focusing on pure good or pure evil.

But Bioware people have stated many times their intent to build believable worlds and cultures with SW:TOR, not 2-dimensionsal, charicature ones.

Originally posted by arieste

Originally posted by cyphers

Its not a chance to be evil, thats NOT what the Dark Side is about.

I understand what you've quoted.  Frankly, I just don't believe it and I've seen no precedent to it.  But hey, wait and see.  

What's there to understand?

Bioware people have said how their vision is for SW:TOR. That's along the lines that they will implement it, with more diversity in morality choices inherent in their MMO world, and the Jedi and Sith cultures having more depth and complexity.

How it'll work out in the end, I guess indeed we'll have to wait and see when the full beta arrives.

Originally posted by cyphers

Something that came up in another SW:TOR thread, the 'good vs evil' thing.

 

A large number of players who're gonna play SW:TOR probably won't give a s**t about it: they'll pick Sith just because they're badass and pick the Jedi because they're  'the good guys', the lore nothing more than background music on the race to level cap and voice over quests something to skip through as fast as the system allows.

 

But for those that care about the lore, the difference between jedi and sith isn't as black & white as 'good' vs 'evil', the same applies to the difference between the 'light' and 'dark' side of the Force, especially if you consider the Expanded Universe (see below in post).

 

Jedi and Sith

The Jedi and Sith doctrines are more like philosophies, like capitalism, communism, gaianism, social darwinism or zen bhuddism: a way of looking at or dealing with the universe and society, not inherently good or evil although the results may be.

The Sith aren't just 2-dimensional evil (although someone can play their char like that ofc): they believe in survival of the strongest/fittest, and that people and civilizations can only grow and evolve through conflict. Conflict is the true challenge, a test for individuals and civilizations: 'might makes right'. Thus their empires throughout the centuries were structured in a very darwinist/Nietschean manner, bearing similarities with totalitarian societies as Sparta, the Roman empire and fascism.

The Sith believed that the avoidance of conflict - like the pacifist teachings of the Jedi - would result in stagnation and decline.

 

The Jedi on the other hand have a doctrine that had a holistic view of the universe, bearing resemblances with Zen Bhuddism. They strive for balance in everything, resulting in them becoming maintainers of peace and justice. Because of the tempting lure of the dark side of the Force Jedi tend to abstain strong emotions, a 'sacrifice of self for the greater good' viewpoint. Where the Sith often sought to rule the galactic civilisations with their powers, the Jedi sought to guide the galactic civilsations with their powers, although throughout the ages that distinction was often not as clear-cut as it sounded.

 

Light Side and Dark Side of the Force

In the same way Light and Dark Side of the Force wasn't just merely Good vs Evil, nor were Light Side users just good and Dark Side users just evil persons.

The aspect of the Force that became later known as the Dark Side of the Force wasn't fueled by evil, but by emotions, especially strong emotions: not only negative emotions as anger and hate, but also strong positive emotions as love and passion. The Dark Side of the Force is all about passion and impulse, the stronger the better.

Due to the addictive traits of the Dark Side of the Force and the longterm destructive, negative impact of it on one's body and psyche, the users of the Light Side of the Force (called the Ashla) like the Jedi try to avoid strong emotions, to the point of clearing themselves completely of emotion via meditation.

Since love and passion also belong to strong emotions, this could often lead to inner conflict within a Jedi: in earlier eras it was still common to be married or otherwise romantically partnered up among Jedi, but in the time the movies take place in that was prohibited among Jedi to avoid potential conflict and temptation from the Dark Side of the Force. 

While the Dark Side of the Force is about passion, the Light Side of the Force is all about balance.

 

 

The Expanded Universe

Besides the movies an enormous heap of books, tv series, games and comics have been released regarding Star Wars. To maintain consistency there are people at Lucas Arts that are keeping a sharp eye on every new release, and every addition to the larger Star Wars story throughout the millennia has to be approved, so that everything together would form a continuous unity: this larger continuity is called the Expanded Universe.

Since SW:TOR takes place in this Expanded Universe, 4,000 before the movies and not like SWG in the time of the movies, there can be differences in how the Jedi and Sith act and how their societies operate compared to how it was like in the movies.

 

Ok, that was lorewise. Some links that dive deeper into the stuff in this post:

Sith wikia and Dark Side of the Force

 

Jedi Order and Light Side of the Force

 

SW Expanded Universe

 I'm a pretty huge Star Wars fan obviously seen all the films and read all the novels up until they started the whole "Jedi kids" thing and while I was a bit intimidated to even say this for a second I am fairly certain that the Dark Side is evil and the light side is good as the Jedi are good and the Sith are evil.  While I agree that at some point in time it is advantageous to expand the universe with characters not so blatantly one or the other I don't see any reason to make a point that is pretty much wrong.  This is akin to saying "the bad guy may not see his actions as bad"  doesn't change the fact that he is still evil/bad guy.

Real life is full of people who we all know to be evil yet  if asked really wouldn't have a sense of that themselves.  So yeah I think it's obvious this game will be a little bit less black and white than the films were but I think it is ultimately a disservice to the ip to even try to make this distinction, let the megolomaniacal Sith make the distinction that they are not evil (because we all know many of them have and will anyway) but Star Wars much like Tolkiens works are about the struggles between the forces of good and the forces of evil and it is why it also resonates so strongly within us all and I see no reason to take that away.

Originally posted by wardog250

Here we go with this again.  In most civilized cultures around the world, murdering millions of people for a personal agenda is considered evil.  You see the Sith believe in enslaving or killing anyone who stands in their path.  If that seems like "just another viewpoint", then you need some serious counseling sessions.  The Sith are evil, not just because they act like PMSing teenagers; but, because they will do anything to get what they want.  The Jedi on the other hand use a more passive philosphy, "Stop and think about the consequences before you commit to something".

Stop kidding yourself, the Sith are not some misunderstood off shoot of the Jedi, they are corrupted and twisted into evil incarnet by the negative energies they feed off of.  The more of the darkside you use, the more it twists your mind into chaos.  That's why the Jedi are trained to use their powers sparingly.

 Well said and the ultimate truth and why I see this whole post as an afront to the lore that is Star Wars.  Sith can make the argument that they do not think they are evil but that doesn't make it a debatable point, it's like people defending Hitler who I'm fairly certain didn't see his actions as evil either.

I recall one of the first times encountering the op's philosphy was playing old school pen and paper D&D with the alignment system.  If I remember right it was along the lines of a Lawful evil person would not see his actions as evil but the most obvious mena to an end and honestly most of the Sith we have encountered in any SW lore whether from the six films, cartoons, comics most of the Sith do not fit this mold they tend far more towards a chaotic evil aligment which is also why they are so often scarred beyond belief by the use of the dark side.

Again I'm not really disagreeing with the ops point that there are certainly shades of grey but have to say saying the Sith/dark side is not evil while the light side/jedi are good is just plain wrong.

@Cyphers, definately another reason for the not being able to switch sides.  Cannot argue with that either.

I do believe tho, that the option of playing Sith s to be Evil if you want.  However, not HAVING to be the Murderous psycopath is an option.  Or, varying degrees of the Evil persona.

I think where this whole shades of gray comes from is the Vader Saga in the last few movies.  Lucas' idea of making the choice by Vader to go to the Dark Side being more of a frustration with the Jedi than a true chance to be the Ultimate Evil Force Using being in the Universe.  Couple that with the reality that it was his choice that caused the death of the one he loved and I think it just pushed him over the edge of caring any more.

I understand this takes place some time in the future, prior to those stories in the movies.  In this era, BW is trying to build a society around the thinking that is Sith.  Fabricating a whole faction of peoples who would be under the control of this empire and how they are controlled BY that Empire.

The scope of thier construction ( IMHO ) is similar to totalitarian rules of history.  Somewhat reflective of varying Asian Dynesties, Western Fiefdoms, and Middle Eastern Thocracies of the past and present.  With the added mysticism of the Force as the main controlling factor to keep it from being identified with any one of them specifically.

When thinking about it in this concept, it is not so much a Good Vs Evil thing as it is more of a philosophy.  Now, to a "free man" this may seem Black and White.  To one under such rule, our version of this may seem more Chaotic, Anarchistic, and Selfish.  With everyone being out for themselves and no one out to help their society as a whole.

Do not get me wrong, I personally see it as an "Evil" concept of society.  With the false pretense of having the greater good over the individual when it is more about keeping the power within the hands of a select few and at their discretion.  And some can make the same argument about Democracy. 

IMO, this is not a devil versus wholly man thing here.  These are two societies with different ideolgies at conflict.  Meaning not EVERYONE will be the embodiment of evil.  Like saying every Muslim is evil.  It is jut NOT the case.

The first Trilogy was about the good vs evil.  The second trilogy was the story of Vader mainly.  However, the Emperor was still the persona of Evil.  The snake providing Vader the Apple of knowledge type of thing.

Heh, this is a rehash. I've already commented upon those arguments in other posts in this thread, but here it goes:

objectively looking at actions and behaviour, our forefathers were as much evil as Hitler and his Nazi regime: they were also mass murderers, committers of genocide, slavers, that saw other peoples and races that were different from theirs as inferiors and treated them as beings less than human.

You only have to read the reports of the slave transports that went from Africa to all the new lands, the African slaves treated as cattle and traveling often under the most horrible conditions, many dying en route. Or the deceit and slaughter with which the European nations exterminated the civilisations in Middle and South America to carve their own pieces of the pie. Or the many ways the native Americans were deceived and chased and driven off their own lands in North America.

Yet not much negative of this is being said in the history lessons of the countries that committed those actions, and it certainly isn't being compared as being the same as what happened under Hitler and the Nazi regime. Instead people talk about the 'discovery of America' (didn't the native Americans alrdy know where it was?) and the 'exploration of the New World' and often with pride is being spoken by Europan and American people of the history of their countries, giving little thought towards the blood and bones of entire peoples upon which those empires and riches were built.

But to an objective outsider that would merely look at the actions and results, he would conclude that a lot of the actions what the so called enlightened nations, that most of us are part of, did in the preceding centuries was as evil as what Hitler and his companions did in his time.

What do I want to say with this?

- There's evil that can be said to be universal, surpassing cultural or temporal influences, like rape or torture of children, or rape of women.

- Then there's evil that is subjective, subject to your point of view or the time or culture we live in: we're often more forgiving and understanding about the group of people or society we're part  of then towards other different people, cultures and societies.

- And then there's the important difference between action and intent: the action can be the same, but the intent can determine whether the action was evil or not. You can have someone killed by accident via a car crash, but that doesn't make it evil. But if someone kills someone purposely and enjoys it getting satisfaction from it, that's evil. Unless it was an act of vengeance because that person harmed or raped your wife or kids, then there were mitigating circumstances and the act wasn't pure evil.

Same about greed, we can be selfish in our ambition to gather more money or advance our career, but that isn't necessary pure evil. But if our ambition turns to greed and we consciously pursue our hunt for money or power even if we're aware that our actions directly lead to lives being destroyed in whatever way, then that's evil.

So I don't see that much of a problem with the course Bioware is taking, they're only building further upon what was already there in the Expanded Universe, namely a broader spectrum of choices you can make within the side you're from.

edit: and what NovaKayne said, great last post