And I personally consider most "mental illness" to be nothing more than labels placed upon those who don't conform to popular socienty and morals / ethics.
"this kid won't sit still and listen...he has ADD."
"this person doesn't value emotional bonds or socially accepted values....he's a sociopath."
It's so easy to say that someone outside the bounds of your society is "sick", or defective in some way....while languishing in a diseased and dying society that perpetuates it's cancer by encouraging the weak and worthless to exist.
In my point of view, your society, and your kind are the "mentally ill".
BTW...the "Rule Of Two Sith" are even further beyond your understanding, by the sounds of it. The whole point is to perpetuate the Sith line, while avoiding the traditional pitfalls of the philosophy, and avoiding notice by the Republic (popular society). It has nothing to do with narcissism at all. It's about survival, and evolution through selective succession.
Eh, you don't know what a sociopath is. Look it up.
So what definition are you working with? It seems everyone else in this thread isn't able to match your definition. I identify with the Sith, yet i don't consider myself a psyco or sociopath.
Acvivm and Wharg0ul i think have done a fine job explaining it already and i agree with them.
How they identify themselves is sociopathic. I don't think they actually are in real life, mind you, as very, very, very few people are like that, and fewer still are the exact sort of sociopaths like the Sith are. They clearly idealize the idea of independence among other things though. However, I suppose it is useful since Rule of Two (and some other) Sith demonstrate similar hypocrisy in declaring they only care about themselves and then going on to have pupils or others that they "teach." This is actually best viewed as mental illness. Rule of Two Sith are perhaps a kind of narcissist (with a bit of psychopathy) whereas the traditional Sith Rules and what constantly destroyed the Sith are the declaration of a system of sociopathy (or psychopathy if you prefer) that valued the self highly and all other things as a means towards advancing the self. As the Star Wars universe correctly demonstrates, on the societal level this is a deeply self-destructive philosophy that repeatedly allowed the Sith to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Of course, everyone has an element of selfishness, but far from being more human than the Jedi the Sith discard many distinctly human attributes such as love and other emotions. Later the Jedi did the same in an ascetic manner (which is far healthier psychological speaking), but for most of the history of the Jedi they were allowed to love, marry, have children, etc. To say nothing of how they were capable of forming friendships and the like and maintaining connections with their family. Indeed, Luke revives these more humanistic traditions of the Jedi in his New Jedi Order. Frankly, outside of superficial flights of fancy the Sith philosophy would not appeal to the vast, vast majority of humanity throughout time. Of course, ToR is a game so it will let some people live out those fantasies in much the same way the Grand Theft Auto games do.
Of course, who knows which ones of you guys actually believe what you saying, actually practice it, and/or are just doing a little role-playing on the forums? Statistically speaking though, the chance that there are three psychopaths in this thread is ludicrously remote, so I remain skeptical.
Anyhow, I define it the same way psychologists and psychiatrists define it. I said that person didn't know what it was because he made a remark indicating he doesn't understand the origin of the kind of sociopathy we are discussing. In fact, I don't think he understands much about mental illness based on what he said and sociopathy is merely one example of that lack of understanding.
More details on the standards I am using:
Factor 1 Psychopathy:
Aggressive narcissism
Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt
Emotionally shallow
Callous/lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
I emphasized the ones that are clearly being advocated here. Of course the Sith pretty much light up the whole list. So primary psychopaths like this characterize the Sith pretty darn well. (As for terms in many, many cases psychopathy and sociopathy are used interchangably. I certainly use them that way though there are some psychologists that disagree with that).
You can believe whatever you want to believe, sure the sith have sociopathic tendencies, who doesnt? they choose to be that way so they can survive and achieve their goals; you do realize the sith are at war right and always have been since the first schism? I would be just as cunning and deceptive too if I was in their position. Whether I know the definition of a word is irelevent to what my response was originally getting at. If you want to play Dr.Phil and go google and copy and paste some small list consisting of traits (which could be argued to apply to just about anyone) and apply them to people like if you've been working as a psychiatrist for years and you know it when you see it...knock yourself out. I think the only roleplaying going on is coming from you Dr. Freud.
And I personally consider most "mental illness" to be nothing more than labels placed upon those who don't conform to popular socienty and morals / ethics.
"this kid won't sit still and listen...he has ADD."
"this person doesn't value emotional bonds or socially accepted values....he's a sociopath."
It's so easy to say that someone outside the bounds of your society is "sick", or defective in some way....while languishing in a diseased and dying society that perpetuates it's cancer by encouraging the weak and worthless to exist.
In my point of view, your society, and your kind are the "mentally ill".
BTW...the "Rule Of Two Sith" are even further beyond your understanding, by the sounds of it. The whole point is to perpetuate the Sith line, while avoiding the traditional pitfalls of the philosophy, and avoiding notice by the Republic (popular society). It has nothing to do with narcissism at all. It's about survival, and evolution through selective succession.
By what criteria is one considered "weak and worthless"? You continue to use these terms but you fail to explain their meaning.
And I personally consider most "mental illness" to be nothing more than labels placed upon those who don't conform to popular socienty and morals / ethics.
"this kid won't sit still and listen...he has ADD."
"this person doesn't value emotional bonds or socially accepted values....he's a sociopath."
It's so easy to say that someone outside the bounds of your society is "sick", or defective in some way....while languishing in a diseased and dying society that perpetuates it's cancer by encouraging the weak and worthless to exist.
In my point of view, your society, and your kind are the "mentally ill".
BTW...the "Rule Of Two Sith" are even further beyond your understanding, by the sounds of it. The whole point is to perpetuate the Sith line, while avoiding the traditional pitfalls of the philosophy, and avoiding notice by the Republic (popular society). It has nothing to do with narcissism at all. It's about survival, and evolution through selective succession.
By what criteria is one considered "weak and worthless"? You continue to use these terms but you fail to explain their meaning.
An exceptionaly written piece of horse crap.
Society labels those who do not fit within the standard norm.... because they are abnormal and stereotypicaly considered ill. As an intelligent human you should be able to socialize with other humans without a detrimental effect to yourself or others. Those who cannot do this, or cannot fake this are generaly catigorized, and labeled as ill.
I was watching a small child struggleing through his last few breaths a few weeks ago, and I could not imagine a human who could watch that and not feel guilt/sad/remorse, or some sort of deep inner feeling. This sort of individual could not be considered anything but "mentaly ill".
I've taken care of many mentaly ill patients in the past, and you would either have to be a mentaly ill person yourself, or an immature inexpereinced human being to have this opinion.
Sociopath - Unconcerned about the adverse consequences for others of one's actions - Antisocial -Pleasure seeking - Remorseless - Common characteristic of serial killers.
Society labels those who do not fit within the standard norm.... because they are abnormal and stereotypicaly considered ill. As an intelligent human you should be able to socialize with other humans without a detrimental effect to yourself or others. Those who cannot do this, or cannot fake this are generaly catigorized, and labeled as ill.
I was watching a small child struggleing through his last few breaths a few weeks ago, and I could not imagine a human who could watch that and not feel guilt/sad/remorse, or some sort of deep inner feeling. This sort of individual could not be considered anything but "mentaly ill".
I've taken care of many mentaly ill patients in the past, and you would either have to be a mentaly ill person yourself, or an immature inexpereinced human being to have this opinion.
Sociopath - Unconcerned about the adverse consequences for others of one's actions - Antisocial -Pleasure seeking - Remorseless - Common characteristic of serial killers.
Watching a child die is certainly a wrenching experience... but I think that moment which defines two types of people (I guess for some arguement you could say Sith vs Jedi)
One group let the emotion work them, fill them, and embrace it.
The other group would use the emtion to power them, to control it, and expel it.
Sadness is given... but it leads to two paths: Acceptance, and Anger.
Most people would take Sadness -> Anger -> Acceptance which shows the majority live in the grey... we are human and a part of both worlds...
Individuals who go Sadness -> Acceptance or Sadness -> Anger and advance from there are the extremes... sometimes praised, sometimes scorned.
Rightly so, as too much of either would doom humanity. One through the acceptance of our own destruction, the other as the cause of our own destruction.
What is the difference between someone who butchers a child through anger, and someone who will not prevent the butchering of a child through peace?
To be more related to Lore... Without the Sith, the Jedi really have little to no power... nor are they wanted. Seen as dogmatic, meddling, and really have no place telling people what to do. Feared for the power they COULD wield.
Ultimately the people will turn on the Jedi in war in destruction... the Sith merely bring that from the beginning.
And I personally consider most "mental illness" to be nothing more than labels placed upon those who don't conform to popular socienty and morals / ethics.
"this kid won't sit still and listen...he has ADD."
"this person doesn't value emotional bonds or socially accepted values....he's a sociopath."
It's so easy to say that someone outside the bounds of your society is "sick", or defective in some way....while languishing in a diseased and dying society that perpetuates it's cancer by encouraging the weak and worthless to exist.
In my point of view, your society, and your kind are the "mentally ill".
BTW...the "Rule Of Two Sith" are even further beyond your understanding, by the sounds of it. The whole point is to perpetuate the Sith line, while avoiding the traditional pitfalls of the philosophy, and avoiding notice by the Republic (popular society). It has nothing to do with narcissism at all. It's about survival, and evolution through selective succession.
By what criteria is one considered "weak and worthless"? You continue to use these terms but you fail to explain their meaning.
An exceptionaly written piece of horse crap.
Society labels those who do not fit within the standard norm.... because they are abnormal and stereotypicaly considered ill. As an intelligent human you should be able to socialize with other humans without a detrimental effect to yourself or others. Those who cannot do this, or cannot fake this are generaly catigorized, and labeled as ill.
I'd rather be exceptional than "normal" any day. Any socializing I do is simply a means to manipulate someone for my own gain.
Sure, the herd animals of society are all too happy to jump and label one who refuses to conform. But remember....our eyes face forward....we have canine teeth. We are predators by nature, and it is MY opinion that society, in forcing a docile, cow-like mentality upon it's subjects, is really just enforcing a type of mass insanity....a consensual delusion.
I was watching a small child struggleing through his last few breaths a few weeks ago, and I could not imagine a human who could watch that and not feel guilt/sad/remorse, or some sort of deep inner feeling. This sort of individual could not be considered anything but "mentaly ill".
I'm doing my absolute best here to restrain the tasteless jokes. In fact, I won't even go so far as to say "you should have poked it with a stick"......oh wait...I guess I did.
Death is a fact of life. I'm sure your society would have found a way to save this child's life if possible, so that it could grow up miserable and deformed, and become yet one more burden on society. But even an animal will kill or abandon the runts of a litter...it is not natural, healthy, or normal to let such a creature live. Another symptom of humanity's mass insanity.
I've taken care of many mentaly ill patients in the past, and you would either have to be a mentaly ill person yourself, or an immature inexpereinced human being to have this opinion.
These patients should be able to take care of themselves....if they can't, then they are a burden, and not worth your time. Natural selection should apply here.
Sociopath - Unconcerned about the adverse consequences for others of one's actions - Antisocial -Pleasure seeking - Remorseless - Common characteristic of serial killers.
Using examples of Sith Philosophy....so-called "sociopathic behavior", I've responded to your post in the context of the thread topic.
I hope you find it as amusing to read as I found it to write.
And I personally consider most "mental illness" to be nothing more than labels placed upon those who don't conform to popular socienty and morals / ethics.
"this kid won't sit still and listen...he has ADD."
"this person doesn't value emotional bonds or socially accepted values....he's a sociopath."
It's so easy to say that someone outside the bounds of your society is "sick", or defective in some way....while languishing in a diseased and dying society that perpetuates it's cancer by encouraging the weak and worthless to exist.
In my point of view, your society, and your kind are the "mentally ill".
BTW...the "Rule Of Two Sith" are even further beyond your understanding, by the sounds of it. The whole point is to perpetuate the Sith line, while avoiding the traditional pitfalls of the philosophy, and avoiding notice by the Republic (popular society). It has nothing to do with narcissism at all. It's about survival, and evolution through selective succession.
By what criteria is one considered "weak and worthless"? You continue to use these terms but you fail to explain their meaning.
An exceptionaly written piece of horse crap.
Society labels those who do not fit within the standard norm.... because they are abnormal and stereotypicaly considered ill. As an intelligent human you should be able to socialize with other humans without a detrimental effect to yourself or others. Those who cannot do this, or cannot fake this are generaly catigorized, and labeled as ill.
I'd rather be exceptional than "normal" any day. Any socializing I do is simply a means to manipulate someone for my own gain.
Sure, the herd animals of society are all too happy to jump and label one who refuses to conform. But remember....our eyes face forward....we have canine teeth. We are predators by nature, and it is MY opinion that society, in forcing a docile, cow-like mentality upon it's subjects, is really just enforcing a type of mass insanity....a consensual delusion.
I was watching a small child struggleing through his last few breaths a few weeks ago, and I could not imagine a human who could watch that and not feel guilt/sad/remorse, or some sort of deep inner feeling. This sort of individual could not be considered anything but "mentaly ill".
I'm doing my absolute best here to restrain the tasteless jokes. In fact, I won't even go so far as to say "you should have poked it with a stick"......oh wait...I guess I did.
Death is a fact of life. I'm sure your society would have found a way to save this child's life if possible, so that it could grow up miserable and deformed, and become yet one more burden on society. But even an animal will kill or abandon the runts of a litter...it is not natural, healthy, or normal to let such a creature live. Another symptom of humanity's mass insanity.
I've taken care of many mentaly ill patients in the past, and you would either have to be a mentaly ill person yourself, or an immature inexpereinced human being to have this opinion.
These patients should be able to take care of themselves....if they can't, then they are a burden, and not worth your time. Natural selection should apply here.
Sociopath - Unconcerned about the adverse consequences for others of one's actions - Antisocial -Pleasure seeking - Remorseless - Common characteristic of serial killers.
Using examples of Sith Philosophy....so-called "sociopathic behavior", I've responded to your post in the context of the thread topic.
I hope you find it as amusing to read as I found it to write.
Alright..
However I can't tell if you were joking or not. Either way it's rather disturbing. It's almost in the same mind of Darth Bane, but even he didn't under estimate the little people, because anyone is and could be a threat. If not now, then later. Only foolish people declare people 'weak and worthless', because that is only a state of the moment, things can change. For example, knights of the old Republic, you were weak on the Endar Spire, that dark jedi could've easily killed you. However, by the end of that game, after a few occurances, you find that weak soldier, can now take on multiple dark jedi and defeat them with ease.
The Sith are at war with the jedi. They always will be as that is how their society grew. Basically on being the opposite, the counter arguement to the jedi.
I feel though as we are debating on the state of mind of people. Let's mention Revan.
Revan, was dark lord of the Sith, to Jedi knight and 'redeemer'. Villian to hero, correct? Alright, well, in Kotor 2, it is emplied by his former master that he was of a different mind than either. Maybe there was no fall, perhaps he was always a shade of grey, abit of both. Loyal to himself, but not without compassion. A good Sith? Perhaps?
He is proof that you cannot perfectly label people into classes. Sometimes there are people that just don't fit into either, and people of the selected groups cannot understand them because it's not common. ( Won't say normal. Rarity is more accurate.) So they struggle to understand, and Revan used that to his advantage, apparantly.
I'm intrigued to find out where this will go. Did Revan return to fight and defeat the Emperor? Did he ever meet the Emperor? Perhaps he assumed the power of the dark lord, 'borrowed' the power, to attack key points in the Republic, so they would rebuild stronger in that place later. To protect them from the eventual attack of the Real Sith Empire. Luckily it's been said that we will find out what happened to several if not all of those characters. Any of importance anyway. However I think what happened to Revan will definately play a very large part in this story. Perhaps he is not dead. Anyone seen that picture of the prisoner in the Sith temple? Or tomb.. How do we know he has not been kept there for betraying the Emperor. If this Emperor found a way to prolong his life, perhaps he found a way to do it to others, to prolong their suffering.
I'm curious to what you all think. Which is why I'm off to start a thread..
Oh and I'll play either. Pretty much playing everything except smuggler and agent, though I may even try those. My 'hero' character will likely be a jedi. I like the fact they won't be alpha and I'll get the chance to compete with other jedi to be labeled a 'good' jedi. Kind of like what happened in galaxies.
Sure there were many jedi. However, how many were any good? Less than half.
Longing for Skyrim, The Old Republic and Mass Effect 3
However I can't tell if you were joking or not. Either way it's rather disturbing. It's almost in the same mind of Darth Bane, but even he didn't under estimate the little people, because anyone is and could be a threat. If not now, then later. Only foolish people declare people 'weak and worthless', because that is only a state of the moment, things can change. For example, knights of the old Republic, you were weak on the Endar Spire, that dark jedi could've easily killed you. However, by the end of that game, after a few occurances, you find that weak soldier, can now take on multiple dark jedi and defeat them with ease.
The Sith are at war with the jedi. They always will be as that is how their society grew. Basically on being the opposite, the counter arguement to the jedi.
I feel though as we are debating on the state of mind of people. Let's mention Revan.
Revan, was dark lord of the Sith, to Jedi knight and 'redeemer'. Villian to hero, correct? Alright, well, in Kotor 2, it is emplied by his former master that he was of a different mind than either. Maybe there was no fall, perhaps he was always a shade of grey, abit of both. Loyal to himself, but not without compassion. A good Sith? Perhaps?
He is proof that you cannot perfectly label people into classes. Sometimes there are people that just don't fit into either, and people of the selected groups cannot understand them because it's not common. ( Won't say normal. Rarity is more accurate.) So they struggle to understand, and Revan used that to his advantage, apparantly.
To address your "shades of grey" bit....
A: "Moderation leads to mediocrity" - Darth Bane
B: "The Dark Side offers power for power's sake. You must crave it. Covet it. You must seek power above all else, without reservation or hesitation. The Force will change you. It will transform you. Some fear this change. The teachings of the jedi are focused on fighting and controlling this transformation. This is why those who serve the light are limited in what they can accomplish. True power can only come to those who embrace the transformation. There can be NO compromise. Mercy, compassion, loyalty: all these things will prevent you from claiming what it rightfully yours. Those who follow the Dark Side must cast aside these conceits. Those who do not--those who try to walk the path of moderation--will fail, dragged down by their own weakness." -Darth Revan
However I can't tell if you were joking or not. Either way it's rather disturbing. It's almost in the same mind of Darth Bane, but even he didn't under estimate the little people, because anyone is and could be a threat. If not now, then later. Only foolish people declare people 'weak and worthless', because that is only a state of the moment, things can change. For example, knights of the old Republic, you were weak on the Endar Spire, that dark jedi could've easily killed you. However, by the end of that game, after a few occurances, you find that weak soldier, can now take on multiple dark jedi and defeat them with ease.
The Sith are at war with the jedi. They always will be as that is how their society grew. Basically on being the opposite, the counter arguement to the jedi.
I feel though as we are debating on the state of mind of people. Let's mention Revan.
Revan, was dark lord of the Sith, to Jedi knight and 'redeemer'. Villian to hero, correct? Alright, well, in Kotor 2, it is emplied by his former master that he was of a different mind than either. Maybe there was no fall, perhaps he was always a shade of grey, abit of both. Loyal to himself, but not without compassion. A good Sith? Perhaps?
He is proof that you cannot perfectly label people into classes. Sometimes there are people that just don't fit into either, and people of the selected groups cannot understand them because it's not common. ( Won't say normal. Rarity is more accurate.) So they struggle to understand, and Revan used that to his advantage, apparantly.
To address your "shades of grey" bit....
A: "Moderation leads to mediocrity" - Darth Bane
B: "The Dark Side offers power for power's sake. You must crave it. Covet it. You must seek power above all else, without reservation or hesitation. The Force will change you. It will transform you. Some fear this change. The teachings of the jedi are focused on fighting and controlling this transformation. This is why those who serve the light are limited in what they can accomplish. True power can only come to those who embrace the transformation. There can be NO compromise. Mercy, compassion, loyalty: all these things will prevent you from claiming what it rightfully yours. Those who follow the Dark Side must cast aside these conceits. Those who do not--those who try to walk the path of moderation--will fail, dragged down by their own weakness." -Darth Revan
I think that summs it up quite nicely.
Quotes like Revans from his holocron there, reinforce my thoughts that he was and is a Sith, just, he only had forgotten it for a time. However, that was the younger version of him.
The older version, the one who experienced the star forge and defeating Malak. Didn't walk that path, or viewed it that way. I feel maybe he is contradictory to his own guidelines. At least, in the example of Revan anyway. I feel Revan wore whatever title suited him best. Perhaps his strengthened the sith because without the Sith, the Jedi would be attacked from outside. People would fear the jedi, like they had no reason to be there.
It's hard to explain, however it's another reason, to look forward to 'The Old Republic'.
Longing for Skyrim, The Old Republic and Mass Effect 3
Personally, I identify with the Sith Code and philosophy. I will always choose Sith.
"Peace is a Lie, there is only passion.
Through passion I gain strength.
Through strength I gain power.
Through power I gain victory.
Through victory my chains are broken."
Guess I should be a sith too then. I am no so into th eorder thing, though I have to say the whoe darthvader and the empire with their emperor was a bit too orderly for me. So maybe a smuggler...or some other kind of outlow.
Every sith I ever saw or read about was evil. Plain and simple. While some like Vader repented and became good, that still doesn't change the evil that they did. If you join the sith, you shouldn't expect to be a do gooder and I hope that the penalties are severe enough in game to make this more in line with the IP. Same goes for the Jedi who chooses to kill the disobeying general.
Sith aren't inherently evil though, as Jedi aren't inherently good though theres a line blur as far as jedi, or dark jedi or sith and variations as such.
If you join the sith faction, you should expect that you can still follow a light path of the sith if you choose, as you can follow the dark path as a jedi.
One example of a flip flopper would be Revan.
I already addressed the flip floppers.
If you join the Sith Empire then you are saying that it is okay to use fear and oppression as a means to maintaining power. That would make your character by definition evil. You might not be so willing to kill that general for disobeying orders, but you are still legitmizing those tactics by wearing that uniform.That makes your character just as guilty. You are either really evil or evil, but you can't be a good character fighting for the Sith Empire. That's an oxymoron.
Totally agree with this. You can just watch the movies and know that Sith = Bad and Jedi = Good, just by observing the morality of their causes and actions. This being said, if someone intentionally chooses to fight for the Empire, they acknowledge their ethics and beliefs. I mean you don't honestly believe those guys building the second Death Star had no idea what it was for do you? I refuse to believe that someone could be that naive or stupid enough to think some good could be done with that much destructive power.
Also you don't join an army during a time of war and practice what the other side is doing. (example: joining the US Army, then running around the Middle East, beheading everyone who criticises you with a dull knife). It's a contradiction and people see that in modern terms as a big problem.
I see the problem here is people want to do bad things and tell themselves that it's okay as long as you can look at it from other perspectives. The fact is, it's not okay and evil isn't always some misunderstood point of view; it's what humanity as a whole perceive as WRONG. No matter how much sugar you put on someone like Saddam Hussein, we all know he was a vile mass murder and those who served under him (including the nameless foot soldier) were just as bad for doing "what they had to do" to stay out of his ruthless radar.
In this game you are starting off on one side or the other. Your character's mind is already made up before you begin whether they are good or evil. If it was like SWG and you started off neutral it would be a different story; but, it's not, you are fooling yourself if you think playing it safe will make you the one "good" sith in the bunch or that one renegade Jedi who slices his/her way through every problem. Sure, that would add some new dimensions to the Star Wars universe to have complex characters on both sides; but, this is not how the Star Wars universe is. You are either realize what you are doing is wrong and like it, or you reject that kind of life and choose to do good with your abilities. Even the neutral force weilders use their abilities for good causes in the EU, so, no one is ever truely nuetral when they are forced to make a tough decision. How often do you see Sith running around in the Star Wars universe doing chairty work? You don't; because, it's considered a waste of time and resources, unless there is some sinister arterior motive behind it.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo Galilei
Every sith I ever saw or read about was evil. Plain and simple. While some like Vader repented and became good, that still doesn't change the evil that they did. If you join the sith, you shouldn't expect to be a do gooder and I hope that the penalties are severe enough in game to make this more in line with the IP. Same goes for the Jedi who chooses to kill the disobeying general.
Sith aren't inherently evil though, as Jedi aren't inherently good though theres a line blur as far as jedi, or dark jedi or sith and variations as such.
If you join the sith faction, you should expect that you can still follow a light path of the sith if you choose, as you can follow the dark path as a jedi.
One example of a flip flopper would be Revan.
I already addressed the flip floppers.
If you join the Sith Empire then you are saying that it is okay to use fear and oppression as a means to maintaining power. That would make your character by definition evil. You might not be so willing to kill that general for disobeying orders, but you are still legitmizing those tactics by wearing that uniform.That makes your character just as guilty. You are either really evil or evil, but you can't be a good character fighting for the Sith Empire. That's an oxymoron.
Totally agree with this. You can just watch the movies and know that Sith = Bad and Jedi = Good, just by observing the morality of their causes and actions. This being said, if someone intentionally chooses to fight for the Empire, they acknowledge their ethics and beliefs. I mean you don't honestly believe those guys building the second Death Star had no idea what it was for do you? I refuse to believe that someone could be that naive or stupid enough to think some good could be done with that much destructive power.
Also you don't join an army during a time of war and practice what the other side is doing. (example: joining the US Army, then running around the Middle East, beheading everyone who criticises you with a dull knife). It's a contradiction and people see that in modern terms as a big problem.
I see the problem here is people want to do bad things and tell themselves that it's okay as long as you can look at it from other perspectives. The fact is, it's not okay and evil isn't always some misunderstood point of view; it's what humanity as a whole perceive as WRONG. No matter how much sugar you put on someone like Saddam Hussein, we all know he was a vile mass murder and those who served under him (including the nameless foot soldier) were just as bad for doing "what they had to do" to stay out of his ruthless radar.
In this game you are starting off on one side or the other. Your character's mind is already made up before you begin whether they are good or evil. If it was like SWG and you started off neutral it would be a different story; but, it's not, you are fooling yourself if you think playing it safe will make you the one "good" sith in the bunch or that one renegade Jedi who slices his/her way through every problem. Sure, that would add some new dimensions to the Star Wars universe to have complex characters on both sides; but, this is not how the Star Wars universe is. You are either realize what you are doing is wrong and like it, or you reject that kind of life and choose to do good with your abilities. Even the neutral force weilders use their abilities for good causes in the EU, so, no one is ever truely nuetral when they are forced to make a tough decision. How often do you see Sith running around in the Star Wars universe doing chairty work? You don't; because, it's considered a waste of time and resources, unless there is some sinister arterior motive behind it.
Sorry, but "wrong" is a point of view.
Each side in a war considers themselves to be the "good guys".
Every sith I ever saw or read about was evil. Plain and simple. While some like Vader repented and became good, that still doesn't change the evil that they did. If you join the sith, you shouldn't expect to be a do gooder and I hope that the penalties are severe enough in game to make this more in line with the IP. Same goes for the Jedi who chooses to kill the disobeying general.
Sith aren't inherently evil though, as Jedi aren't inherently good though theres a line blur as far as jedi, or dark jedi or sith and variations as such.
If you join the sith faction, you should expect that you can still follow a light path of the sith if you choose, as you can follow the dark path as a jedi.
One example of a flip flopper would be Revan.
I already addressed the flip floppers.
If you join the Sith Empire then you are saying that it is okay to use fear and oppression as a means to maintaining power. That would make your character by definition evil. You might not be so willing to kill that general for disobeying orders, but you are still legitmizing those tactics by wearing that uniform.That makes your character just as guilty. You are either really evil or evil, but you can't be a good character fighting for the Sith Empire. That's an oxymoron.
Totally agree with this. You can just watch the movies and know that Sith = Bad and Jedi = Good, just by observing the morality of their causes and actions. This being said, if someone intentionally chooses to fight for the Empire, they acknowledge their ethics and beliefs. I mean you don't honestly believe those guys building the second Death Star had no idea what it was for do you? I refuse to believe that someone could be that naive or stupid enough to think some good could be done with that much destructive power.
Also you don't join an army during a time of war and practice what the other side is doing. (example: joining the US Army, then running around the Middle East, beheading everyone who criticises you with a dull knife). It's a contradiction and people see that in modern terms as a big problem.
I see the problem here is people want to do bad things and tell themselves that it's okay as long as you can look at it from other perspectives. The fact is, it's not okay and evil isn't always some misunderstood point of view; it's what humanity as a whole perceive as WRONG. No matter how much sugar you put on someone like Saddam Hussein, we all know he was a vile mass murder and those who served under him (including the nameless foot soldier) were just as bad for doing "what they had to do" to stay out of his ruthless radar.
In this game you are starting off on one side or the other. Your character's mind is already made up before you begin whether they are good or evil. If it was like SWG and you started off neutral it would be a different story; but, it's not, you are fooling yourself if you think playing it safe will make you the one "good" sith in the bunch or that one renegade Jedi who slices his/her way through every problem. Sure, that would add some new dimensions to the Star Wars universe to have complex characters on both sides; but, this is not how the Star Wars universe is. You are either realize what you are doing is wrong and like it, or you reject that kind of life and choose to do good with your abilities. Even the neutral force weilders use their abilities for good causes in the EU, so, no one is ever truely nuetral when they are forced to make a tough decision. How often do you see Sith running around in the Star Wars universe doing chairty work? You don't; because, it's considered a waste of time and resources, unless there is some sinister arterior motive behind it.
Sorry, but "wrong" is a point of view.
Each side in a war considers themselves to be the "good guys".
Yeah guess thats why the innocent storm troopers on the 'DEATH' Star and on the Star 'DESTROYERS' had no idea they we're doing wrong. As if they didn't make it obvious.
Longing for Skyrim, The Old Republic and Mass Effect 3
Every sith I ever saw or read about was evil. Plain and simple. While some like Vader repented and became good, that still doesn't change the evil that they did. If you join the sith, you shouldn't expect to be a do gooder and I hope that the penalties are severe enough in game to make this more in line with the IP. Same goes for the Jedi who chooses to kill the disobeying general.
Sith aren't inherently evil though, as Jedi aren't inherently good though theres a line blur as far as jedi, or dark jedi or sith and variations as such.
If you join the sith faction, you should expect that you can still follow a light path of the sith if you choose, as you can follow the dark path as a jedi.
One example of a flip flopper would be Revan.
I already addressed the flip floppers.
If you join the Sith Empire then you are saying that it is okay to use fear and oppression as a means to maintaining power. That would make your character by definition evil. You might not be so willing to kill that general for disobeying orders, but you are still legitmizing those tactics by wearing that uniform.That makes your character just as guilty. You are either really evil or evil, but you can't be a good character fighting for the Sith Empire. That's an oxymoron.
Totally agree with this. You can just watch the movies and know that Sith = Bad and Jedi = Good, just by observing the morality of their causes and actions. This being said, if someone intentionally chooses to fight for the Empire, they acknowledge their ethics and beliefs. I mean you don't honestly believe those guys building the second Death Star had no idea what it was for do you? I refuse to believe that someone could be that naive or stupid enough to think some good could be done with that much destructive power.
Also you don't join an army during a time of war and practice what the other side is doing. (example: joining the US Army, then running around the Middle East, beheading everyone who criticises you with a dull knife). It's a contradiction and people see that in modern terms as a big problem.
I see the problem here is people want to do bad things and tell themselves that it's okay as long as you can look at it from other perspectives. The fact is, it's not okay and evil isn't always some misunderstood point of view; it's what humanity as a whole perceive as WRONG. No matter how much sugar you put on someone like Saddam Hussein, we all know he was a vile mass murder and those who served under him (including the nameless foot soldier) were just as bad for doing "what they had to do" to stay out of his ruthless radar.
In this game you are starting off on one side or the other. Your character's mind is already made up before you begin whether they are good or evil. If it was like SWG and you started off neutral it would be a different story; but, it's not, you are fooling yourself if you think playing it safe will make you the one "good" sith in the bunch or that one renegade Jedi who slices his/her way through every problem. Sure, that would add some new dimensions to the Star Wars universe to have complex characters on both sides; but, this is not how the Star Wars universe is. You are either realize what you are doing is wrong and like it, or you reject that kind of life and choose to do good with your abilities. Even the neutral force weilders use their abilities for good causes in the EU, so, no one is ever truely nuetral when they are forced to make a tough decision. How often do you see Sith running around in the Star Wars universe doing chairty work? You don't; because, it's considered a waste of time and resources, unless there is some sinister arterior motive behind it.
Sorry, but "wrong" is a point of view.
Each side in a war considers themselves to be the "good guys".
Yeah guess thats why the innocent storm troopers on the 'DEATH' Star and on the Star 'DESTROYERS' had no idea they we're doing wrong. As if they didn't make it obvious.
They were eliminating a terrorist force that was trying to destroy the Empire.
By the way....Star "destroyers" are just like the naval destroyers of today....it's a class of ship.
Also, take a look at the names of some of our (the US) war toys some time. Are we an "Evil Empire"??
I guess it all depends on wheather you're the one aiming those war toys, or the one they are aimed at.
They were eliminating a terrorist force that was trying to destroy the Empire.
An empire which gained power thru death and destruction.The rebels were only giving what they had already recieved.
By the way....Star "destroyers" are just like the naval destroyers of today....it's a class of ship.
Also, take a look at the names of some of our (the US) war toys some time. Are we an "Evil Empire"??
I guess it all depends on wheather you're the one aiming those war toys, or the one they are aimed at.
No, it depends on what you choose to do with your war toys. When the U.S starts using it's toys to turn Earth into an Empire then you can draw a comparison. Right now the U.S isn't even the most dominant economic power. China is.
"An empire which gained power thru death and destruction.The rebels were only giving what they had already recieved."
Such is the nature of conquest. The rebels were terrorists, plain and simple. They rebelled against a government designed to bring order and peace to it's subjects. Using your logic, the Roman Empire was "evil" as well. As were several governing bodies through history. It's all a matter of perspective.
"No, it depends on what you choose to do with your war toys. When the U.S starts using it's toys to turn Earth into an Empire then you can draw a comparison. Right now the U.S isn't even the most dominant economic power. China is."
This has nothing to do with economics. Talk to the people on the recieving end of the US's guns today.....ask THEM who the "bad guys" are.
Comments
A story of redemption with some sort of ethical revelation is a popular one and can be a lot of fun to play.
And I personally consider most "mental illness" to be nothing more than labels placed upon those who don't conform to popular socienty and morals / ethics.
"this kid won't sit still and listen...he has ADD."
"this person doesn't value emotional bonds or socially accepted values....he's a sociopath."
It's so easy to say that someone outside the bounds of your society is "sick", or defective in some way....while languishing in a diseased and dying society that perpetuates it's cancer by encouraging the weak and worthless to exist.
In my point of view, your society, and your kind are the "mentally ill".
BTW...the "Rule Of Two Sith" are even further beyond your understanding, by the sounds of it. The whole point is to perpetuate the Sith line, while avoiding the traditional pitfalls of the philosophy, and avoiding notice by the Republic (popular society). It has nothing to do with narcissism at all. It's about survival, and evolution through selective succession.
You can believe whatever you want to believe, sure the sith have sociopathic tendencies, who doesnt? they choose to be that way so they can survive and achieve their goals; you do realize the sith are at war right and always have been since the first schism? I would be just as cunning and deceptive too if I was in their position. Whether I know the definition of a word is irelevent to what my response was originally getting at. If you want to play Dr.Phil and go google and copy and paste some small list consisting of traits (which could be argued to apply to just about anyone) and apply them to people like if you've been working as a psychiatrist for years and you know it when you see it...knock yourself out. I think the only roleplaying going on is coming from you Dr. Freud.
HEAVEN OR HELL
Duel 1
Lets ROCK!
Originally posted by Wharg0ul
And I personally consider most "mental illness" to be nothing more than labels placed upon those who don't conform to popular socienty and morals / ethics.
"this kid won't sit still and listen...he has ADD."
"this person doesn't value emotional bonds or socially accepted values....he's a sociopath."
It's so easy to say that someone outside the bounds of your society is "sick", or defective in some way....while languishing in a diseased and dying society that perpetuates it's cancer by encouraging the weak and worthless to exist.
In my point of view, your society, and your kind are the "mentally ill".
BTW...the "Rule Of Two Sith" are even further beyond your understanding, by the sounds of it. The whole point is to perpetuate the Sith line, while avoiding the traditional pitfalls of the philosophy, and avoiding notice by the Republic (popular society). It has nothing to do with narcissism at all. It's about survival, and evolution through selective succession.
By what criteria is one considered "weak and worthless"? You continue to use these terms but you fail to explain their meaning.
An exceptionaly written piece of horse crap.
Society labels those who do not fit within the standard norm.... because they are abnormal and stereotypicaly considered ill. As an intelligent human you should be able to socialize with other humans without a detrimental effect to yourself or others. Those who cannot do this, or cannot fake this are generaly catigorized, and labeled as ill.
I was watching a small child struggleing through his last few breaths a few weeks ago, and I could not imagine a human who could watch that and not feel guilt/sad/remorse, or some sort of deep inner feeling. This sort of individual could not be considered anything but "mentaly ill".
I've taken care of many mentaly ill patients in the past, and you would either have to be a mentaly ill person yourself, or an immature inexpereinced human being to have this opinion.
Sociopath - Unconcerned about the adverse consequences for others of one's actions - Antisocial -Pleasure seeking - Remorseless - Common characteristic of serial killers.
BoB
Watching a child die is certainly a wrenching experience... but I think that moment which defines two types of people (I guess for some arguement you could say Sith vs Jedi)
One group let the emotion work them, fill them, and embrace it.
The other group would use the emtion to power them, to control it, and expel it.
Sadness is given... but it leads to two paths: Acceptance, and Anger.
Most people would take Sadness -> Anger -> Acceptance which shows the majority live in the grey... we are human and a part of both worlds...
Individuals who go Sadness -> Acceptance or Sadness -> Anger and advance from there are the extremes... sometimes praised, sometimes scorned.
Rightly so, as too much of either would doom humanity. One through the acceptance of our own destruction, the other as the cause of our own destruction.
What is the difference between someone who butchers a child through anger, and someone who will not prevent the butchering of a child through peace?
To be more related to Lore... Without the Sith, the Jedi really have little to no power... nor are they wanted. Seen as dogmatic, meddling, and really have no place telling people what to do. Feared for the power they COULD wield.
Ultimately the people will turn on the Jedi in war in destruction... the Sith merely bring that from the beginning.
Jedi: Destruction in the End.
Sith: Destruction in the Beginning.
I would LOVE to explain this here in detail....really I would...but the post would likely get deleted quite quickly.
Can't have the "weak and worthless" have their feelings get hurt, now can we
Using examples of Sith Philosophy....so-called "sociopathic behavior", I've responded to your post in the context of the thread topic.
I hope you find it as amusing to read as I found it to write.
Alright..
However I can't tell if you were joking or not. Either way it's rather disturbing. It's almost in the same mind of Darth Bane, but even he didn't under estimate the little people, because anyone is and could be a threat. If not now, then later. Only foolish people declare people 'weak and worthless', because that is only a state of the moment, things can change. For example, knights of the old Republic, you were weak on the Endar Spire, that dark jedi could've easily killed you. However, by the end of that game, after a few occurances, you find that weak soldier, can now take on multiple dark jedi and defeat them with ease.
The Sith are at war with the jedi. They always will be as that is how their society grew. Basically on being the opposite, the counter arguement to the jedi.
I feel though as we are debating on the state of mind of people. Let's mention Revan.
Revan, was dark lord of the Sith, to Jedi knight and 'redeemer'. Villian to hero, correct? Alright, well, in Kotor 2, it is emplied by his former master that he was of a different mind than either. Maybe there was no fall, perhaps he was always a shade of grey, abit of both. Loyal to himself, but not without compassion. A good Sith? Perhaps?
He is proof that you cannot perfectly label people into classes. Sometimes there are people that just don't fit into either, and people of the selected groups cannot understand them because it's not common. ( Won't say normal. Rarity is more accurate.) So they struggle to understand, and Revan used that to his advantage, apparantly.
I'm intrigued to find out where this will go. Did Revan return to fight and defeat the Emperor? Did he ever meet the Emperor? Perhaps he assumed the power of the dark lord, 'borrowed' the power, to attack key points in the Republic, so they would rebuild stronger in that place later. To protect them from the eventual attack of the Real Sith Empire. Luckily it's been said that we will find out what happened to several if not all of those characters. Any of importance anyway. However I think what happened to Revan will definately play a very large part in this story. Perhaps he is not dead. Anyone seen that picture of the prisoner in the Sith temple? Or tomb.. How do we know he has not been kept there for betraying the Emperor. If this Emperor found a way to prolong his life, perhaps he found a way to do it to others, to prolong their suffering.
I'm curious to what you all think. Which is why I'm off to start a thread..
Oh and I'll play either. Pretty much playing everything except smuggler and agent, though I may even try those. My 'hero' character will likely be a jedi. I like the fact they won't be alpha and I'll get the chance to compete with other jedi to be labeled a 'good' jedi. Kind of like what happened in galaxies.
Sure there were many jedi. However, how many were any good? Less than half.
Longing for Skyrim, The Old Republic and Mass Effect 3
To address your "shades of grey" bit....
A: "Moderation leads to mediocrity" - Darth Bane
B: "The Dark Side offers power for power's sake. You must crave it. Covet it. You must seek power above all else, without reservation or hesitation. The Force will change you. It will transform you. Some fear this change. The teachings of the jedi are focused on fighting and controlling this transformation. This is why those who serve the light are limited in what they can accomplish. True power can only come to those who embrace the transformation. There can be NO compromise. Mercy, compassion, loyalty: all these things will prevent you from claiming what it rightfully yours. Those who follow the Dark Side must cast aside these conceits. Those who do not--those who try to walk the path of moderation--will fail, dragged down by their own weakness." -Darth Revan
I think that summs it up quite nicely.
Quotes like Revans from his holocron there, reinforce my thoughts that he was and is a Sith, just, he only had forgotten it for a time. However, that was the younger version of him.
The older version, the one who experienced the star forge and defeating Malak. Didn't walk that path, or viewed it that way. I feel maybe he is contradictory to his own guidelines. At least, in the example of Revan anyway. I feel Revan wore whatever title suited him best. Perhaps his strengthened the sith because without the Sith, the Jedi would be attacked from outside. People would fear the jedi, like they had no reason to be there.
It's hard to explain, however it's another reason, to look forward to 'The Old Republic'.
Longing for Skyrim, The Old Republic and Mass Effect 3
Guess I should be a sith too then. I am no so into th eorder thing, though I have to say the whoe darthvader and the empire with their emperor was a bit too orderly for me. So maybe a smuggler...or some other kind of outlow.
Totally agree with this. You can just watch the movies and know that Sith = Bad and Jedi = Good, just by observing the morality of their causes and actions. This being said, if someone intentionally chooses to fight for the Empire, they acknowledge their ethics and beliefs. I mean you don't honestly believe those guys building the second Death Star had no idea what it was for do you? I refuse to believe that someone could be that naive or stupid enough to think some good could be done with that much destructive power.
Also you don't join an army during a time of war and practice what the other side is doing. (example: joining the US Army, then running around the Middle East, beheading everyone who criticises you with a dull knife). It's a contradiction and people see that in modern terms as a big problem.
I see the problem here is people want to do bad things and tell themselves that it's okay as long as you can look at it from other perspectives. The fact is, it's not okay and evil isn't always some misunderstood point of view; it's what humanity as a whole perceive as WRONG. No matter how much sugar you put on someone like Saddam Hussein, we all know he was a vile mass murder and those who served under him (including the nameless foot soldier) were just as bad for doing "what they had to do" to stay out of his ruthless radar.
In this game you are starting off on one side or the other. Your character's mind is already made up before you begin whether they are good or evil. If it was like SWG and you started off neutral it would be a different story; but, it's not, you are fooling yourself if you think playing it safe will make you the one "good" sith in the bunch or that one renegade Jedi who slices his/her way through every problem. Sure, that would add some new dimensions to the Star Wars universe to have complex characters on both sides; but, this is not how the Star Wars universe is. You are either realize what you are doing is wrong and like it, or you reject that kind of life and choose to do good with your abilities. Even the neutral force weilders use their abilities for good causes in the EU, so, no one is ever truely nuetral when they are forced to make a tough decision. How often do you see Sith running around in the Star Wars universe doing chairty work? You don't; because, it's considered a waste of time and resources, unless there is some sinister arterior motive behind it.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo Galilei
Sorry, but "wrong" is a point of view.
Each side in a war considers themselves to be the "good guys".
Yeah guess thats why the innocent storm troopers on the 'DEATH' Star and on the Star 'DESTROYERS' had no idea they we're doing wrong. As if they didn't make it obvious.
Longing for Skyrim, The Old Republic and Mass Effect 3
They were eliminating a terrorist force that was trying to destroy the Empire.
By the way....Star "destroyers" are just like the naval destroyers of today....it's a class of ship.
Also, take a look at the names of some of our (the US) war toys some time. Are we an "Evil Empire"??
I guess it all depends on wheather you're the one aiming those war toys, or the one they are aimed at.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
"An empire which gained power thru death and destruction.The rebels were only giving what they had already recieved."
Such is the nature of conquest. The rebels were terrorists, plain and simple. They rebelled against a government designed to bring order and peace to it's subjects. Using your logic, the Roman Empire was "evil" as well. As were several governing bodies through history. It's all a matter of perspective.
"No, it depends on what you choose to do with your war toys. When the U.S starts using it's toys to turn Earth into an Empire then you can draw a comparison. Right now the U.S isn't even the most dominant economic power. China is."
This has nothing to do with economics. Talk to the people on the recieving end of the US's guns today.....ask THEM who the "bad guys" are.
I propose a question.
Judging from the Sith that have been portrayed throughout the era's of Star Wars. Which mentality will you resemble most?
I think it requires a new level of thinking personally.
Longing for Skyrim, The Old Republic and Mass Effect 3