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?
I dont think I mentioned anything about lifting rocks or doing backflips, I could be mistaken. As far as being more responsible if I must elaborate. A Jedi tends to be more responsible on how he uses the force and when he may use it whereas a sith uses his power because he can and at will. You and everyone who wants to canbreak it down, but it is still simply good vs evil, end of story.
Ill bow out of thsi now though , before I get sucked into someone nerdraging over lore. It's getting almost as bad as LOTRO was.
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?
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling" Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
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.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
When you watched Episode IV for the first time, you knew who the good guys were and who the bad guys were in the first minute of the movie. It was intentional.
Yeah, the "good" guys were the badass in the black armor choking the sissy in the ugly costume, and his minions in the cool white armor. The "bad" guys were the aforementioned sissies in the ugly costumes, the prissy gold droid, the obnoxious girl with bad hair, and the whiny kid who wanted some power converters.
Good and Evil are a matter of perspective. No matter how hard an author tries, he can't force people to agree with his moral opinions.
This isn't really about who is good and who is evil, it's about how simple Lucas (intentionally, since he's selling to kids) made the line. Majority rules, and the majority says that Luke was the good guy and Darth Vader was the bad guy. After the movies, in the expanded universe, we start seeing more distinction in Jedi and Sith and suddenly, there's grey areas. Simply put, the IP has matured (at least in novels and gaming - in movies and TV, well, it's still stuck in kiddy land).
I just wanted to address the delusional who somehow think that the original movies were deep and complex, and the new Trilogy - and everything after it - are dumbed-down and tailored for kids. It was always tailored for kids; the only difference was that in '77, it was unlike anything anyone had ever seen before.
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.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling" Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
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.
That doesn't mean that the Sith aren't evil.
By every sensible definition of morality, the Sith ARE evil (or at least immoral, if you prefer to stick to softer terms).
Utilitarianism states roughly that one should try to maximize group happiness and that is The Good. Obviously the Sith are almost diametrically opposed to this (group happiness only matters as far as it benefits the individual Sith...which as the movies show, it is NOT often).
Kant's Categorical Imperative, in any of its myriad of forms, would not condone using other people or that each person should only be interested in how to benefit themselves.
There have been some attempts to make moral systems where the focus is on the bonds between people, but the Sith are against forming bonds with others generally speaking (that's weakness to them), and manipulate and destroy bonds they find (whether it is to them or between others).
Naturally then the Sith don't "concern themselves with morality", but that's rather like not concerning yourself with the laws of physics. It doesn't matter what you do, those laws are intertwined with it. Similarly, as long as you are dealing with sentients, morality MATTERS, whether you admit it or not.
I'm not sure where this odd idea that the Sith aren't evil comes from. They kill, maim, torture, enslave, and do other dastardly deeds freely and without remorse and merely for their own benefit or enjoyment. That's evil. Now, individual Sith might be less evil than others and you might get the rare Sith that is turning away or has turned from the Dark Side (and in a real sense such a person isn't a Sith anymore than a Christian that converts to the worship of the Greek Gods is still a Christian). Such "turn-coats" add an interesting layer to a story, but they don't make the bad guys good anymore than Anakin Skywalker makes the Jedi evil.
Originally posted by madeux Sith are evil. Deal with it. Edit for more clarity: Sith believe in Slavery. Jedi do not believe in slavery. Slavery is evil. (Go ahead and try to argue otherwise). Sith are evil.
I see both sides as wrong, the Jedi are too passive and tend to stagnate while the Sith are too aggressive and tend to destroy themselves. True peace comes from Balance.
The sith by their very definition are evil. They are all about the self, with no regard for others unless it benefits the SELF. That is the very definition of evil.
You may not like it, you may say most people are about the self, and that's true, but it's evil. Morality dictates that you have to be aware of others including their emotional state, how they feel, and what they might like. The greater good philosophy says that if I share an apartment with someone and they lost their job, I may help them get by until they find a new one. This would benefit me by helping another individual, but helping the individual benefits them as well, so it's not all about me.
If I were a sith in the Star Wars universe, if I had a roommate that lost their job I would just kick them to the curb and find a new roommate. Not exactly the best example, but it illustrates the point.
Selfishness is not always evil. Sometimes it is very necessary otherwise people just trample over all of your rights in the name of the supposed greater good.
Most things in life are relative and situational. To proclaim much of anything as universally good or evil is very difficult to do, slavery included. I should note I'd have to work a bit at it to make any example where slavery was not inherently evil :P But I do think it is likely possible to do so.
Originally posted by CymTyr The sith by their very definition are evil. They are all about the self, with no regard for others unless it benefits the SELF. That is the very definition of evil. You may not like it, you may say most people are about the self, and that's true, but it's evil. Morality dictates that you have to be aware of others including their emotional state, how they feel, and what they might like. The greater good philosophy says that if I share an apartment with someone and they lost their job, I may help them get by until they find a new one. This would benefit me by helping another individual, but helping the individual benefits them as well, so it's not all about me. If I were a sith in the Star Wars universe, if I had a roommate that lost their job I would just kick them to the curb and find a new roommate. Not exactly the best example, but it illustrates the point.
That's not the definition of Evil. Evil is the category a party places actions or people into that conflicts with their desires.
I see both sides as wrong, the Jedi are too passive and tend to stagnate while the Sith are too aggressive and tend to destroy themselves. True peace comes from Balance.
Balance? Serfdom or indentured servitude is balance of slavery and not slavery, but that's not a good thing.
The Old Jedi Order had its problems, but just because it wasn't Perfect, doesn't mean that you need to somehow average it with the Sith to get "balance" which must be good.
The New Jedi Order is much better, but they've suffered heavily under writers who want to force them into interesting stories (same with the New Republic). Also note, that the New Jedi improved itself by embracing things the Sith and Old Jedi Order both rejected, like love, marriage, and family.
The sith by their very definition are evil. They are all about the self, with no regard for others unless it benefits the SELF. That is the very definition of evil.
You may not like it, you may say most people are about the self, and that's true, but it's evil. Morality dictates that you have to be aware of others including their emotional state, how they feel, and what they might like. The greater good philosophy says that if I share an apartment with someone and they lost their job, I may help them get by until they find a new one. This would benefit me by helping another individual, but helping the individual benefits them as well, so it's not all about me.
If I were a sith in the Star Wars universe, if I had a roommate that lost their job I would just kick them to the curb and find a new roommate. Not exactly the best example, but it illustrates the point.
That's not the definition of Evil.
Evil is the category a party places actions or people into that conflicts with their desires.
e·vil
–adjective
1.
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2.
harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3.
characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.
due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5.
marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
–noun
6.
that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.
7.
the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8.
the wicked or immoral part of someone or something: The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
9.
harm; mischief; misfortune: to wish one evil.
10.
anything causing injury or harm: Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.
11.
a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence: the evils of alcohol.
12.
a disease, as king's evil.
EDIT-NOTE: 1. morally wrong or bad; immoral
What is and what isn't MORAL OR IMMORAL(good/evil) can change from person to person and country to country and from time to time.
As far as a fictional sith goes, I believe these two would define.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
Selfishness is not always evil. Sometimes it is very necessary otherwise people just trample over all of your rights in the name of the supposed greater good.
Most things in life are relative and situational. To proclaim much of anything as universally good or evil is very difficult to do, slavery included. I should note I'd have to work a bit at it to make any example where slavery was not inherently evil :P But I do think it is likely possible to do so.
Depends on how you approach morality. If you approach it from a consequentialist standpoint, then it is undoubtedly true that no act in general (at least as far as I am familiar with words in the English Language), is ever always evil. Murder CAN serve the greater good (though this is EXCEEEDINGLY RARE and more to the point, almost impossible to figure out given that you can't know all the consequences of such an act before doing or not doing it). If you approach it from a standpoint that MOTIVES matter most, then selfishness could quite easily be evil.
Personally, I'm a consequentialist. Motives matter in terms of figuring out how someone will behave in the future, but how good or evil an act is makes more sense to determine by ACT. Given that, it seems silly to me to say if person A saves the innocent child, then it was good, but if person B did it (for selfish reasons) then it was bad.
From that perspective, it is easy to come up with fictional scenarios where slavery is good. Let's say someone is attached to a doomsday device that will explode if don't do hard labor for the rest of their life or if they are killed. This device cannot be blocked or removed. The person does not WANT to do the labor and they don't care if the device goes off and kills people (or don't believe the evidence). Essentially, then, you have to enslave them lest billions of people die. Naturally, real life doesn't contain such certainties, and I think it is just about impossible to come up with a realistic scenario that requires enslaving one person and as close to actually impossible as you can get to come up with one that involves a large group of people (there's basically always another way).
This about sums up the level of deep thought here, started out good.
Once the so-called, and slanted understandings of history, we lose objective outlook. I wont even touch the bible useage.
This thread was discussed at lenght on the offical boards until it was moved and finally killed. The basic answer is Jedi are good and Sith are evil because George Lucas said they are. The writers and fans, who interpret Star Wars, have changed the ideals. Lucas did, through Obe Won and "Cantakakin," elude to a much deeper ideal.
Originally posted by Drachasor Originally posted by Xero_Chance Good and Evil are relative. I see both sides as wrong, the Jedi are too passive and tend to stagnate while the Sith are too aggressive and tend to destroy themselves. True peace comes from Balance.
Balance? Serfdom or indentured servitude is balance of slavery and not slavery, but that's not a good thing. The Old Jedi Order had its problems, but just because it wasn't Perfect, doesn't mean that you need to somehow average it with the Sith to get "balance" which must be good. The New Jedi Order is much better, but they've suffered heavily under writers who want to force them into interesting stories (same with the New Republic). Also note, that the New Jedi improved itself by embracing things the Sith and Old Jedi Order both rejected, like love, marriage, and family.
Indentured servitude is the same thing as slavery, they're synonyms. Also, your example doesn't prove any point whatsoever.
The Jedi are not aggressive enough to fix problems staring them in the face and the Sith are not peaceful enough to preserve systems that work.
Slavery isn't evil. In our eyes and by our society's standards it is, but in other societies in other times and countries, it is/has been seen as necessary and right. This was the case in Ancient Rome when enslaving people from barbarian lands was seen as rescuing them and sex with young boys was acceptable.
Good and Evil mean NOTHING. It's all apples vs oranges.
I see both sides as wrong, the Jedi are too passive and tend to stagnate while the Sith are too aggressive and tend to destroy themselves. True peace comes from Balance.
Balance? Serfdom or indentured servitude is balance of slavery and not slavery, but that's not a good thing.
The Old Jedi Order had its problems, but just because it wasn't Perfect, doesn't mean that you need to somehow average it with the Sith to get "balance" which must be good.
The New Jedi Order is much better, but they've suffered heavily under writers who want to force them into interesting stories (same with the New Republic). Also note, that the New Jedi improved itself by embracing things the Sith and Old Jedi Order both rejected, like love, marriage, and family.
Indentured servitude is the same thing as slavery, they're synonyms.
Also, your example doesn't prove any point whatsoever.
The Jedi are not aggressive enough to fix problems staring them in the face and the Sith are not peaceful enough to preserve systems that work.
Slavery isn't evil. In our eyes and by our society's standards it is, but in other societies in other times and countries, it is/has been seen as necessary and right. This was the case in Ancient Rome when enslaving people from barbarian lands was seen as rescuing them and sex with young boys was acceptable.
Good and Evil mean NOTHING. It's all apples vs oranges.
Yeah, germans call it the Zeitgeist. The morality and ethics of cultures/societies has improved a LOT as time has gone on. Not that surprising, really, so has our technology and many other things as well. I think you've made my case very well given your example of young boys.
I understand you are trying to say good and evil don't matter, but ethics DO matter. They are the rules and principles by which we decide how people should interact with each other. Now, on the one hand you can say there's no basis for determining what is good or bad there, and from a completely objective perspective that doesn't care about the welfare of the people involved, you are absolutely right. On the other hand, from a perspective that DOES care about the welfare of society and its members, good and evil (e.g. ethics/morality), DO matter a great deal. Some rules are just better than others in this regard (such as not allowing slavery). I think it is pretty clear which perspective is the more useful one to go with, fellow member of society.
Oh, and indentured servitude isn't slavery, since you can earn your freedom.
SW force users have more references to other things then just Buddhists and monks. Campbell made plenty of references to not just the main religious practices. But mythology as well as faith, and other cultures such as the Egyptians, Rome, Greece, and even the American Indians, as well as some of the Medieval times. It is the stories that shape and change are generation.
A hero stands in front of the crowd, they are the ones that lead it. Not the other way around(reference to Campbells Hero With a Thousand Faces). Nietzsche along with other people such as Kant, Freud, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, and many others had influence over Campbells writing of the book which Lucas based SW off of. Then again Philosophy also supports peoples rights to suicide and other personal choices such as self abuse, unlike religious practices(read a book and stop googling shit on SW).
It's nothing more then faith(regardless of the different names people label it). Real issue is over course of 2000 years there has not been anything overly new in the sense of religion to raise up and aspire the masses. That is all the basis of what the force is. Different people have different views on faith(religion) and with that comes conflict(just like with in RL). Making a story about good vs. evil sells(Lucas profiting off another mans work in a simpler sense).
When did you start playing "old school" MMO's. World Of Warcraft?
Heh, too many posts to use quotes in a practical way, so let's strip it down to the essentials.
George Lucas made in essence a fairy tale, but then in scifi clothes: it even has the princess, the knights, swords and magic (The Force). And just like with fairy tales and other children's stories, you have the black&white view of good and evil. As some posters already commented, this is how George Lucas intended it to be. But even in this restricted view of Sith and Jedi, Anakin didn't become a Dark Jedi and even a Sith because of a wish to 'do evil', but to bring order to the Galaxy.
If you take a look at the larger Star Wars universe, with all the books, comics, games etc that 'expanded' upon Lucas' original stories, then you see a deeper, more complex view of Sith and Jedi, and it isn't just automatically good vs evil. Mind you, this 'Expanded Universe' is something that was still approved by George Lucas and his people at Lucasfilm, George Lucas has ultimate creative control over the Star Wars universe, the 'Expanded Universe' included.
Now, if SW:ToR took place in the era of the movies, like SWG, then I'd say follow the black&white idea of Sith being evil and Jedi being good. But it isn't, SW:TOR takes place 4,000 years before the movies, in the Expanded Universe of Star Wars where things are more grey and Sith and Sith society aren't plainly evil.
Furthermore, it's not about our view of the Sith and the Jedi, but about Bioware's when it comes to SW:TOR, and Bioware people have clearly stated that the Sith aren't merely about evil, but that they have a legitimate view and cause (see post 6 at the end). And note that they implement SW:TOR like this with the full approval of Lucasfilm.
So, the reasons why Sith vs Jedi in SW:TOR won't be just evil vs good:
- SW:TOR takes place in the Expanded Universe of Star Wars, that allows a more complex, 'realistic' view of Jedi/Sith societies
- Bioware stated that the Sith in SW:TOR aren't just about evil
Looking at real life and history, I think that like someone already said our perception of good and evil up to a point are subjective and time and culture dependent. People can be evil, but that doesn't mean that whole societies and civilisations and the people in it are evil. As Bioware dev Erickson stated, the majority of people were just 'trying to do their thing'.
To give a few examples:
- even among its top people and generals there will have been Nazis that weren't evil, but just going around living their life.
- our forefathers in former centuries have committed atrocities that equal and surpass that of regimes like the Nazis. If in some way the indigenous civilisations of other continents had managed to strike back in the way of the Allied Forces did towards Nazi Germany, and managed to drive off the colonial settlements and conquer Europe, a lot of our historic figures up to our nation's leaders would have been condemned as criminals just as the Nazi leaders, and with reason: systematic genocide and mass slaughter, enslavement of the African people, dropping African slaves in sea en route to America when a few proved to be sick, those are only a few examples how our forefathers behaved towards other civilisations and races.
However, we don't regard our forefathers as evil and our nations' histories as one of being evil empires, even if at the same time we regard the Nazi empire as evil.
- if animals in some way could think and reason as humans, they would probably deem humans as a species evil, the way that humankind has no care for nature or animal and planetlife, gobbles up all the planet's resources and only thinks of itself without thought their actions might have for future eras.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
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).
Comments
I dont think I mentioned anything about lifting rocks or doing backflips, I could be mistaken. As far as being more responsible if I must elaborate. A Jedi tends to be more responsible on how he uses the force and when he may use it whereas a sith uses his power because he can and at will. You and everyone who wants to canbreak it down, but it is still simply good vs evil, end of story.
Ill bow out of thsi now though , before I get sucked into someone nerdraging over lore. It's getting almost as bad as LOTRO was.
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?
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
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.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
This isn't really about who is good and who is evil, it's about how simple Lucas (intentionally, since he's selling to kids) made the line. Majority rules, and the majority says that Luke was the good guy and Darth Vader was the bad guy. After the movies, in the expanded universe, we start seeing more distinction in Jedi and Sith and suddenly, there's grey areas. Simply put, the IP has matured (at least in novels and gaming - in movies and TV, well, it's still stuck in kiddy land).
I just wanted to address the delusional who somehow think that the original movies were deep and complex, and the new Trilogy - and everything after it - are dumbed-down and tailored for kids. It was always tailored for kids; the only difference was that in '77, it was unlike anything anyone had ever seen before.
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.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
That doesn't mean that the Sith aren't evil.
By every sensible definition of morality, the Sith ARE evil (or at least immoral, if you prefer to stick to softer terms).
Utilitarianism states roughly that one should try to maximize group happiness and that is The Good. Obviously the Sith are almost diametrically opposed to this (group happiness only matters as far as it benefits the individual Sith...which as the movies show, it is NOT often).
Kant's Categorical Imperative, in any of its myriad of forms, would not condone using other people or that each person should only be interested in how to benefit themselves.
There have been some attempts to make moral systems where the focus is on the bonds between people, but the Sith are against forming bonds with others generally speaking (that's weakness to them), and manipulate and destroy bonds they find (whether it is to them or between others).
Naturally then the Sith don't "concern themselves with morality", but that's rather like not concerning yourself with the laws of physics. It doesn't matter what you do, those laws are intertwined with it. Similarly, as long as you are dealing with sentients, morality MATTERS, whether you admit it or not.
I'm not sure where this odd idea that the Sith aren't evil comes from. They kill, maim, torture, enslave, and do other dastardly deeds freely and without remorse and merely for their own benefit or enjoyment. That's evil. Now, individual Sith might be less evil than others and you might get the rare Sith that is turning away or has turned from the Dark Side (and in a real sense such a person isn't a Sith anymore than a Christian that converts to the worship of the Greek Gods is still a Christian). Such "turn-coats" add an interesting layer to a story, but they don't make the bad guys good anymore than Anakin Skywalker makes the Jedi evil.
Sith are evil. Deal with it.
Edit for more clarity:
Sith believe in Slavery. Jedi do not believe in slavery.
Slavery is evil. (Go ahead and try to argue otherwise).
Sith are evil.
The bible says Slavery is ok, is the bible evil?
Good and Evil are relative.
I see both sides as wrong, the Jedi are too passive and tend to stagnate while the Sith are too aggressive and tend to destroy themselves. True peace comes from Balance.
The sith by their very definition are evil. They are all about the self, with no regard for others unless it benefits the SELF. That is the very definition of evil.
You may not like it, you may say most people are about the self, and that's true, but it's evil. Morality dictates that you have to be aware of others including their emotional state, how they feel, and what they might like. The greater good philosophy says that if I share an apartment with someone and they lost their job, I may help them get by until they find a new one. This would benefit me by helping another individual, but helping the individual benefits them as well, so it's not all about me.
If I were a sith in the Star Wars universe, if I had a roommate that lost their job I would just kick them to the curb and find a new roommate. Not exactly the best example, but it illustrates the point.
Selfishness is not always evil. Sometimes it is very necessary otherwise people just trample over all of your rights in the name of the supposed greater good.
Most things in life are relative and situational. To proclaim much of anything as universally good or evil is very difficult to do, slavery included. I should note I'd have to work a bit at it to make any example where slavery was not inherently evil :P But I do think it is likely possible to do so.
It also says stoning to death kids for talking back is a good idea.
I wouldn't take the morality it espouses literally, at the very least. It is a product of its times.
That's not the definition of Evil.
Evil is the category a party places actions or people into that conflicts with their desires.
Balance? Serfdom or indentured servitude is balance of slavery and not slavery, but that's not a good thing.
The Old Jedi Order had its problems, but just because it wasn't Perfect, doesn't mean that you need to somehow average it with the Sith to get "balance" which must be good.
The New Jedi Order is much better, but they've suffered heavily under writers who want to force them into interesting stories (same with the New Republic). Also note, that the New Jedi improved itself by embracing things the Sith and Old Jedi Order both rejected, like love, marriage, and family.
Yes
PIRATE LORDS
Yes, it most certainly is.
e·vil
–adjective
1.
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2.
harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3.
characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.
due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5.
marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
–noun
6.
that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.
7.
the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8.
the wicked or immoral part of someone or something: The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
9.
harm; mischief; misfortune: to wish one evil.
10.
anything causing injury or harm: Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.
11.
a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence: the evils of alcohol.
12.
a disease, as king's evil.
EDIT-NOTE: 1. morally wrong or bad; immoral
What is and what isn't MORAL OR IMMORAL(good/evil) can change from person to person and country to country and from time to time.
As far as a fictional sith goes, I believe these two would define.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
PIRATE LORDS
Nevermind.
Depends on how you approach morality. If you approach it from a consequentialist standpoint, then it is undoubtedly true that no act in general (at least as far as I am familiar with words in the English Language), is ever always evil. Murder CAN serve the greater good (though this is EXCEEEDINGLY RARE and more to the point, almost impossible to figure out given that you can't know all the consequences of such an act before doing or not doing it). If you approach it from a standpoint that MOTIVES matter most, then selfishness could quite easily be evil.
Personally, I'm a consequentialist. Motives matter in terms of figuring out how someone will behave in the future, but how good or evil an act is makes more sense to determine by ACT. Given that, it seems silly to me to say if person A saves the innocent child, then it was good, but if person B did it (for selfish reasons) then it was bad.
From that perspective, it is easy to come up with fictional scenarios where slavery is good. Let's say someone is attached to a doomsday device that will explode if don't do hard labor for the rest of their life or if they are killed. This device cannot be blocked or removed. The person does not WANT to do the labor and they don't care if the device goes off and kills people (or don't believe the evidence). Essentially, then, you have to enslave them lest billions of people die. Naturally, real life doesn't contain such certainties, and I think it is just about impossible to come up with a realistic scenario that requires enslaving one person and as close to actually impossible as you can get to come up with one that involves a large group of people (there's basically always another way).
This about sums up the level of deep thought here, started out good.
Once the so-called, and slanted understandings of history, we lose objective outlook. I wont even touch the bible useage.
This thread was discussed at lenght on the offical boards until it was moved and finally killed. The basic answer is Jedi are good and Sith are evil because George Lucas said they are. The writers and fans, who interpret Star Wars, have changed the ideals. Lucas did, through Obe Won and "Cantakakin," elude to a much deeper ideal.
The Old Jedi Order had its problems, but just because it wasn't Perfect, doesn't mean that you need to somehow average it with the Sith to get "balance" which must be good.
The New Jedi Order is much better, but they've suffered heavily under writers who want to force them into interesting stories (same with the New Republic). Also note, that the New Jedi improved itself by embracing things the Sith and Old Jedi Order both rejected, like love, marriage, and family.
Indentured servitude is the same thing as slavery, they're synonyms.
Also, your example doesn't prove any point whatsoever.
The Jedi are not aggressive enough to fix problems staring them in the face and the Sith are not peaceful enough to preserve systems that work.
Slavery isn't evil. In our eyes and by our society's standards it is, but in other societies in other times and countries, it is/has been seen as necessary and right. This was the case in Ancient Rome when enslaving people from barbarian lands was seen as rescuing them and sex with young boys was acceptable.
Good and Evil mean NOTHING. It's all apples vs oranges.
Yeah, germans call it the Zeitgeist. The morality and ethics of cultures/societies has improved a LOT as time has gone on. Not that surprising, really, so has our technology and many other things as well. I think you've made my case very well given your example of young boys.
I understand you are trying to say good and evil don't matter, but ethics DO matter. They are the rules and principles by which we decide how people should interact with each other. Now, on the one hand you can say there's no basis for determining what is good or bad there, and from a completely objective perspective that doesn't care about the welfare of the people involved, you are absolutely right. On the other hand, from a perspective that DOES care about the welfare of society and its members, good and evil (e.g. ethics/morality), DO matter a great deal. Some rules are just better than others in this regard (such as not allowing slavery). I think it is pretty clear which perspective is the more useful one to go with, fellow member of society.
Oh, and indentured servitude isn't slavery, since you can earn your freedom.
SW force users have more references to other things then just Buddhists and monks. Campbell made plenty of references to not just the main religious practices. But mythology as well as faith, and other cultures such as the Egyptians, Rome, Greece, and even the American Indians, as well as some of the Medieval times. It is the stories that shape and change are generation.
A hero stands in front of the crowd, they are the ones that lead it. Not the other way around(reference to Campbells Hero With a Thousand Faces). Nietzsche along with other people such as Kant, Freud, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, and many others had influence over Campbells writing of the book which Lucas based SW off of. Then again Philosophy also supports peoples rights to suicide and other personal choices such as self abuse, unlike religious practices(read a book and stop googling shit on SW).
It's nothing more then faith(regardless of the different names people label it). Real issue is over course of 2000 years there has not been anything overly new in the sense of religion to raise up and aspire the masses. That is all the basis of what the force is. Different people have different views on faith(religion) and with that comes conflict(just like with in RL). Making a story about good vs. evil sells(Lucas profiting off another mans work in a simpler sense).
When did you start playing "old school" MMO's. World Of Warcraft?
Heh, too many posts to use quotes in a practical way, so let's strip it down to the essentials.
George Lucas made in essence a fairy tale, but then in scifi clothes: it even has the princess, the knights, swords and magic (The Force). And just like with fairy tales and other children's stories, you have the black&white view of good and evil. As some posters already commented, this is how George Lucas intended it to be. But even in this restricted view of Sith and Jedi, Anakin didn't become a Dark Jedi and even a Sith because of a wish to 'do evil', but to bring order to the Galaxy.
If you take a look at the larger Star Wars universe, with all the books, comics, games etc that 'expanded' upon Lucas' original stories, then you see a deeper, more complex view of Sith and Jedi, and it isn't just automatically good vs evil. Mind you, this 'Expanded Universe' is something that was still approved by George Lucas and his people at Lucasfilm, George Lucas has ultimate creative control over the Star Wars universe, the 'Expanded Universe' included.
Now, if SW:ToR took place in the era of the movies, like SWG, then I'd say follow the black&white idea of Sith being evil and Jedi being good. But it isn't, SW:TOR takes place 4,000 years before the movies, in the Expanded Universe of Star Wars where things are more grey and Sith and Sith society aren't plainly evil.
Furthermore, it's not about our view of the Sith and the Jedi, but about Bioware's when it comes to SW:TOR, and Bioware people have clearly stated that the Sith aren't merely about evil, but that they have a legitimate view and cause (see post 6 at the end). And note that they implement SW:TOR like this with the full approval of Lucasfilm.
So, the reasons why Sith vs Jedi in SW:TOR won't be just evil vs good:
- SW:TOR takes place in the Expanded Universe of Star Wars, that allows a more complex, 'realistic' view of Jedi/Sith societies
- Bioware stated that the Sith in SW:TOR aren't just about evil
Looking at real life and history, I think that like someone already said our perception of good and evil up to a point are subjective and time and culture dependent. People can be evil, but that doesn't mean that whole societies and civilisations and the people in it are evil. As Bioware dev Erickson stated, the majority of people were just 'trying to do their thing'.
To give a few examples:
- even among its top people and generals there will have been Nazis that weren't evil, but just going around living their life.
- our forefathers in former centuries have committed atrocities that equal and surpass that of regimes like the Nazis. If in some way the indigenous civilisations of other continents had managed to strike back in the way of the Allied Forces did towards Nazi Germany, and managed to drive off the colonial settlements and conquer Europe, a lot of our historic figures up to our nation's leaders would have been condemned as criminals just as the Nazi leaders, and with reason: systematic genocide and mass slaughter, enslavement of the African people, dropping African slaves in sea en route to America when a few proved to be sick, those are only a few examples how our forefathers behaved towards other civilisations and races.
However, we don't regard our forefathers as evil and our nations' histories as one of being evil empires, even if at the same time we regard the Nazi empire as evil.
- if animals in some way could think and reason as humans, they would probably deem humans as a species evil, the way that humankind has no care for nature or animal and planetlife, gobbles up all the planet's resources and only thinks of itself without thought their actions might have for future eras.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
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).