These particular breeds of theory articles annoy me a great deal, mostly because A) the bad guys and the good guys in the fiction being discussed are usually are pretty clearly defined in the first place, B) the 'theorists' are motivated by more... carnal intentions more often than not (on the less severe end of this, they write them because they like the villain's tailor) and C) often they'll vilify the good guys to make their point.

Don't get me wrong, I actually do think that maybe the Jedi weren't all that pious in the end, but if I evaluate the individual actions of Obi-Wan, Yoda, Windu and others (especially after The Clone Wars) against the actions of Maul, Dooku, Sidious and Vader, I'm not really walking away wondering who I would want to invite over for dinner, if I had too.*

I can understand it when the fiction isn't so clear cut (black and gray, white and gray, gray and gray) (or if the original work's author is really dumb and uses protagonist-centered morality, but even with the sub-standard writing of the Prequels, I would say they at least are clear cut).

*The real question to ask yourself: what's for dinner?

Okay, rant over. Carry on.

These particular breeds of theory articles annoy me a great deal, mostly because A) the bad guys and the good guys in the fiction being discussed are usually are pretty clearly defined in the first place, B) the 'theorists' are motivated by more... carnal intentions more often than not (on the less severe end of this, they write them because they like the villain's tailor) and C) often they'll vilify the good guys to make their point.

Don't get me wrong, I actually do think that maybe the Jedi weren't all that pious in the end, but if I evaluate the individual actions of Obi-Wan, Yoda, Windu and others (especially after The Clone Wars) against the actions of Maul, Dooku, Sidious and Vader, I'm not really walking away wondering who I would want to invite over for dinner, if I had too.*

I can understand it when the fiction isn't so clear cut (black and gray, white and gray, gray and gray) (or if the original work's author is really dumb and uses protagonist-centered morality, but even with the sub-standard writing of the Prequels, I would say they at least are clear cut).

*The real question to ask yourself: what's for dinner?

Okay, rant over. Carry on.

The people behind these theories almost always cherry-pick the examples that further their theory, and almost always ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary - my favorite is when the creator/writer says themselves the complete opposite of the theory. Or they completely miss the point of a line of dialogue or a scene or something else that's fairly obvious.

There was one theory floating around about Luke turning to the dark side in The Force Awakens and the author of the article mentioned how Luke looked at his hand at the end of Return of the Jedi and clenched his fist because of the power he possessed. He completely missed the point of the scene - Luke did that because he just cut off his father's hand and he saw it was the same as his. He saw what he was becoming and turned AWAY from the dark side, since immediately after that, he tosses away his lightsaber. That's a pivotal scene, since Luke is the only person to refuse the Emperor - and Palpatine knows it. But the author just blows past that, because it completely refutes his point.

It's fine to speculate, of course, but I find it disrespectful to ignore parts of the fiction in order to support your point.

The Jedi are good. The Sith are evil. End of story.

I quite agree, but with some qualifications.

True Sith are evil, but I think there are some dark side users who claim to be Sith who aren't really evil, and therefore not truly Sith. I think the Sith as a culture had a place in it for selflessness, but that's been lost to time.

Along the same vein, true Jedi are good, but there were those who became members of the Jedi Order who didn't live up to the ideal.

While I see a great deal of grey in the morality of Star Wars, I'm definitely among those who believe the story is primarily one of good vs. evil. There's always a being of pure evil and heroes of sublime goodness who rise up. While there can be flawed heroes, they can never truly overcome the evil in the galaxy until they embrace good wholeheartedly. Otherwise, they'll never be the ones who defeat the evil, though there are always others.

I've always seen the Sith as ruthless, pragmatic, narcissistic, utopianist, sociopaths. They can seem callous and cruel but thats because to them the end justifies the means and all means are options, they utilize total war to gain their objective. Their leadership (Lords and Darths) are not necessarily psychopaths themselves but they have no problem utilizing them. Those Darksiders that are chaotic psychopaths are too unhinged to be in power for more than the briefest of time before they devour themselves or are dispatched by the former.

They are without a doubt evil but they are not, for the most part, wasteful of their attention unless it furthers their ends. Nor are they without the capacity to be kind, merciful or even loving if they can gain profit or pleasure from the act.

Ah, ye olde Good versus Evil. Well, from the in-setting point-of-view there is little question: the Sith are pretty much pure evil. This is the obvious intention of the creators. From the outside, well, they are still very evil, at least all the Sith we see are, both in word and deed. Torture, murder, even genocide, lies, manipulation and so on.

The common misconception is that this makes the Jedi as their opponents good. They certainly strive to be, but the Jedi Order we see in the Prequels and following Canon is obviously flawed. It may be presented as black and white, and seeing as the OT are mostly a space fairy tale, it worked there. But in the PT? Not really. That is the problem when you involve fairy tale characters in trade disputes and senate hearings ...

The Sith are pretty evil in any case, even if their Code does not say it explicitly, since the Sith we experience simply are. The Jedi mostly try to be good, although most fail to some greater or lesser degree. But if contrasted with the Sith, they are obviously the good guys. Not shining white knights (even if they are supposed to be), but you do not need to be when compared to the likes of Darth Traitorous the Genocidal Megalomaniac.

I would start by saying, it's been pretty clearly stated (though I forget the source for it) that George Lucas views and intended Jedi vs Sith to be Good vs Evil. It is fairly apparent when considering his sources of inspiration and general approach in the use of common story archetypes. That aside, my personal observation has been that the result is more of a Order vs Chaos opposition, though Emperor Palpatine does break this mold as he was most certainly attempting to create a very ordered and regimented society.

Overall though, Sith are ruled by emotion and action. This leads to a group that tends to create chaos and disharmony. They govern by the rule of power and are taught to take what they want which leads to a lot of fighting, backstabbing and instability in the order. The Jedi on the other hand are taught to cast aside emotion and to be ruled by contemplation and logic. They are a very ordered group that try to abandon emotion and personal attachments. We have seen obvious sitatuations in the prequels particularly which illustrate that this group is not perfect and is not always right and good.

Because Jedi are generally selfless and put the needs of the many over the needs of the few they do tend towards a path of good. They even tend to avoid the grey area trap of the ends justifies the means, if they are a purist at least. Because the Sith are driven by emotion and a search for their own power without consideration of others, they tend towards a path of evil. But over all their tenants, to me at least, lean more towards displaying an opposition between Order and Chaos more then strictly Good and Evil.

This seems to have become 2 discussions. Are the Jedi truly good? And are the Sith truly evil? Probably because the natural assumption is that if one is true, then so too must the other.. I disagree.

Jedi were clearly flawed.. the prequels and especially the Clone Wars showed the cracks in the "oh so perfect Jedi ethics". They had been seemingly unopposed for centuries and were becoming corrupt from within. Not "manipulating the entire Senate" corrupt, but that path wasn't far in their future. If Palpatine hadn't shown up, enough Dooku's would have come from the orders ranks to start a bloody conflict.

That being said, the Sith are pretty clearly evil. I don't want to give spoilers, but the Darth Plageuis revealed the ultimate scheme of centuries of Sith. It's pretty completely evil. Evil not just by actions, but true Sith (of which there had only been two for a long time) don't just draw on the dark side with mechanical precision. The feed off it, individuals like Palpatine have become so thoroughly corrupted by it that he is little more then it's avatar. Palpatine did not have any illusions about "helping" the galaxy, he sought to bring as much under his influence as possible. Create an orderly galaxy as a symbolic representation of that control.. and then effectively wipe out our reality. I assume Vader and him did all sorts of rites and rituals to fully make Vader a Sith.. drawing him into the rule of 2 and continuing the dark events put in by Darth Bane millennia ago. *all Canon, a lot of this is from books on Disney's thumbs up list*

That being said, dark siders are not intrinsically evil. They will give into the dark side completely eventually, but for a time can maintain... Near as I can tell, I admit there's some conjecture there.

As much of Star Wars is often a tale of black and white, the grey is where we have our most fun. Boba Fett, Han Solo, several of the novels, and the entire Clone Wars cartoon. Ultimately someone has to choose a side in many of these tales, but some stay neutral in the battle between good and evil. And even the ones who ultimately choose a side, it is their struggle that is the story.. not that they are definitely good or evil. The Luke Skywalker story was one of him choosing between light and dark, but it was the grey that our story focused on.

I intend on having a darksider PC working with my party in my next game (basic common foe plot). I expect that at least by the end of the game, he will have gone fully into the dark side with abandon, or started to redeem.. but if not, I'm totally okay with his ending being where he waves to the party and blasts off on his own. Leaving a ...... as to whether the party may some day on the future have to face him in combat.

My point is, black and white can be fun, and that element certainly exists in Star Wars. So if that's your thing, run with it.

But in my opinion the grey is where the magic happens.

I think this really comes down to arguing about definitions of good and evil, but the thing I find interesting about the Sith is that true believers, going into it, know they will die. The whole Sith idea is for the master to be killed by the apprentice. Every Sith knows this going into it. So the Sith as a belief/culture/group is powerful, but individuals are actually basically sacrificing themselves for the Sith goals.

I think this really comes down to arguing about definitions of good and evil, but the thing I find interesting about the Sith is that true believers, going into it, know they will die. The whole Sith idea is for the master to be killed by the apprentice. Every Sith knows this going into it. So the Sith as a belief/culture/group is powerful, but individuals are actually basically sacrificing themselves for the Sith goals.

Except for the one that will become immortal. The Sith'ari.. basically the Sith messiah. I think most Sith believe THEY will be the one to turn the rule of 2 into the rule of one...

I think this really comes down to arguing about definitions of good and evil, but the thing I find interesting about the Sith is that true believers, going into it, know they will die. The whole Sith idea is for the master to be killed by the apprentice. Every Sith knows this going into it. So the Sith as a belief/culture/group is powerful, but individuals are actually basically sacrificing themselves for the Sith goals.

Except for the one that will become immortal. The Sith'ari.. basically the Sith messiah. I think most Sith believe THEY will be the one to turn the rule of 2 into the rule of one...

I supopse that makes sense, a certain amount of megalomania is required on the job description. Although if they really thought they were "the One" then why bother to train an apprentice?

So they always have an attack dog on hand.

So they always have an attack dog on hand.

That. And there is some degree of loyalty to the darkside itself. If the Master falls or is too weak, his knowledge needs to be passed on so the dream of another Sith'ari can continue.

I'm also fairly certain, based on Bane and Plagueis, that they need the apprentice to finalize the rite, or whatever it is, to gain immortality..

When you consider the wars, the murders, the torture, the planetary annihilation, the lying and manipulation, the fact that they fuel themselves with hate, the terrible dental work... saying they weren't evil is kind of blind.

Well all of your above points (save one) can be applied to the British Empire too, so were they also evil?

Would they be? Yes, I think so. Even worse so, because at least Star Wars is only fiction.

I resolved this debate very easily:

PC's are neither Jedi nor Sith. They're Force Sensitive.

Characters start 50/50 morality to show that they're neither good nor evil. They're just average joes with virtues and flaws. This has been interesting as different characters are created. But all try to behave in a moral manner, as even the most aggressive still wants to be light side.

When you consider the wars, the murders, the torture, the planetary annihilation, the lying and manipulation, the fact that they fuel themselves with hate, the terrible dental work... saying they weren't evil is kind of blind.

Well all of your above points (save one) can be applied to the British Empire too, so were they also evil?

Everyone knows it's not what you do that makes you evil; it's your accent.

And sometimes goatees.

First I'd argue that we saw more Sith in the Prequels then we saw Jedi. Yoda and the Council acted out of fear to try and keep Anakin from becoming a Jedi and that action is what started him down the Dark Side of the Force. The banning of marriage for Jedi was done out of fear that such emotional attachments would lead to the dark side. Mace Windu tried to murder Palpatine out of fear and anger when a much more emotionally detached proper Jedi would have arrested him and tried him with the evidence they had. Action after action taken during the Clone Wars were less Jedi and more Sith to the point where the So called Jedi were pretty much Sith in everything but name.

For me the interesting thing is not who is evil or who is good. It is the shades of gray the things people do and justify. I think a "pure evil" villian is boring you know this villian will run a quick checklist and do the most vile thing. It is when you look at a villian who is willing to do these horrible things for what they see as the greater good, that you find an interesting character. Did palpatine assume power just because he was a horrible person? Or did he take on the responsiblity that he saw everyone around him shirk. Was he the one person willing to make the hard choices so that he could bring order and law to this chaotic galaxy. Knowing that he would have to kill not only people but maybe worlds to bring about this order and the resulting peace. This is more interesting to me than he this guy does horrible things just because well he is evil.

Nobody in real life, and relatively few people even in fiction, do evil just to be doing the most vile possible thing. There's always a goal that at least seems good to the person, though possibly good only for him or her.

When we argue that the Sith (as we see them in the movies) are evil, we are not claiming that they are motivation-less cardboard cutouts, just that their actions and goals tend toward evil.

Palpatine clearly had a goal, though I suspect it was more "gain ultimate power for myself" than "bring order to a chaotic galaxy." (The latter does seem to be what motivated Anakin/Vader, at least at first.) But the actions he took to further that goal paint him as pretty clearly evil, even if he wasn't just doing those things for the sake of being evil. (Heck, even if he had the allegedly nobler "bring order" goal, the first thing we see him do is orchestrate both sides of a conflict that ultimately develops into a galaxy-spanning war. He brought a heck of a lot of chaos before he even got starting on bringing order. That wasn't even the normal, reluctant plunging of a nation into war that a normal political leader might choose in the hope of preventing a worse outcome and one day forging a lasting peace -- the war was entirely of his creation and lasted exactly as long as he chose, because he was running both sides.)

Hi,

can i just ask what we are talking about?

Of course are the Sith EVIL.

The Jedi are good.

Why? Because they are both from a movie and the Sith were MADE TO BE EVIL! They are the ANTAGONIST.

Yes i know, later appeared many books with some philosophie around the Jedi and Sith, but to be honest... i didn`t like that.

What is so bad about having a REAL antagonist, a REAL bad guy, who is just evil. I dont need i "missunderstood" priest who calls himself a priest of good, while blowing up planets.

I rather have a pure evil guy (doesn`t matter if force user or not), than a tragic guy, who landed somehow on the wrong path and made some poor choices.

Killing children and building a weapon that blows up entire planets are just no attributes for good guy.

My 2 cent :-)

Greetings

H

Plus remember there's a big difference between honest to god Sith and just fallen Jedi, or force users. Simple old darksider's are potentially complex and nuanced individuals struggling with internal demons.

On the other hand full on Sith are pretty bona fide super evil and have to toss the other guy down death star tubes to redeem themselves. Sith in training might still have a hope, but I'm pretty sure by the time you get the capital S in your Sith you've been pretty thoroughly corrupted.

For me the interesting thing is not who is evil or who is good. It is the shades of gray the things people do and justify. I think a "pure evil" villian is boring you know this villian will run a quick checklist and do the most vile thing. It is when you look at a villian who is willing to do these horrible things for what they see as the greater good, that you find an interesting character. Did palpatine assume power just because he was a horrible person? Or did he take on the responsiblity that he saw everyone around him shirk. Was he the one person willing to make the hard choices so that he could bring order and law to this chaotic galaxy. Knowing that he would have to kill not only people but maybe worlds to bring about this order and the resulting peace. This is more interesting to me than he this guy does horrible things just because well he is evil.

Nobody in real life, and relatively few people even in fiction, do evil just to be doing the most vile possible thing. There's always a goal that at least seems good to the person, though possibly good only for him or her.

When we argue that the Sith (as we see them in the movies) are evil, we are not claiming that they are motivation-less cardboard cutouts, just that their actions and goals tend toward evil.

Palpatine clearly had a goal, though I suspect it was more "gain ultimate power for myself" than "bring order to a chaotic galaxy." (The latter does seem to be what motivated Anakin/Vader, at least at first.) But the actions he took to further that goal paint him as pretty clearly evil, even if he wasn't just doing those things for the sake of being evil. (Heck, even if he had the allegedly nobler "bring order" goal, the first thing we see him do is orchestrate both sides of a conflict that ultimately develops into a galaxy-spanning war. He brought a heck of a lot of chaos before he even got starting on bringing order. That wasn't even the normal, reluctant plunging of a nation into war that a normal political leader might choose in the hope of preventing a worse outcome and one day forging a lasting peace -- the war was entirely of his creation and lasted exactly as long as he chose, because he was running both sides.)

I don't think Palpatine is a guy you want to go have a beer with because he is just misunderstood. I also think there are motives to what he has done that from a certain view point (namley his) are not done just to be the bad guy. Is he power hungry of course and is that just greed or a feeling of a greater calling? My point was the more human/relatable you make a villian the more interesting they are. I always like the villians that I can look at and say "I can see why he did that". Maybe the point is that in my mind the jedi are not 100% good and the Sith are not 100% evil. To me they have always felt like two sides of a coin and seperatly they don't have a chance at accomplishing what they aim for. The jedi will never live up to the expectation and the sith will never arrest the falling into madness of depravity.

I could see a Jedi following the order perfectly and being a total jerk even a villian. Just like I could see a Sith becoming a local hero for channeling that passion and power the right way. I think that is what has made me love Star Wars for 30+ years is that there are some deeper seated issues at play than black hats and white hats.

For me the interesting thing is not who is evil or who is good. It is the shades of gray the things people do and justify. I think a "pure evil" villian is boring you know this villian will run a quick checklist and do the most vile thing. It is when you look at a villian who is willing to do these horrible things for what they see as the greater good, that you find an interesting character. Did palpatine assume power just because he was a horrible person? Or did he take on the responsiblity that he saw everyone around him shirk. Was he the one person willing to make the hard choices so that he could bring order and law to this chaotic galaxy. Knowing that he would have to kill not only people but maybe worlds to bring about this order and the resulting peace. This is more interesting to me than he this guy does horrible things just because well he is evil.

Nobody in real life, and relatively few people even in fiction, do evil just to be doing the most vile possible thing. There's always a goal that at least seems good to the person, though possibly good only for him or her.

When we argue that the Sith (as we see them in the movies) are evil, we are not claiming that they are motivation-less cardboard cutouts, just that their actions and goals tend toward evil.

Palpatine clearly had a goal, though I suspect it was more "gain ultimate power for myself" than "bring order to a chaotic galaxy." (The latter does seem to be what motivated Anakin/Vader, at least at first.) But the actions he took to further that goal paint him as pretty clearly evil, even if he wasn't just doing those things for the sake of being evil. (Heck, even if he had the allegedly nobler "bring order" goal, the first thing we see him do is orchestrate both sides of a conflict that ultimately develops into a galaxy-spanning war. He brought a heck of a lot of chaos before he even got starting on bringing order. That wasn't even the normal, reluctant plunging of a nation into war that a normal political leader might choose in the hope of preventing a worse outcome and one day forging a lasting peace -- the war was entirely of his creation and lasted exactly as long as he chose, because he was running both sides.)

I don't think Palpatine is a guy you want to go have a beer with because he is just misunderstood. I also think there are motives to what he has done that from a certain view point (namley his) are not done just to be the bad guy. Is he power hungry of course and is that just greed or a feeling of a greater calling? My point was the more human/relatable you make a villian the more interesting they are. I always like the villians that I can look at and say "I can see why he did that". Maybe the point is that in my mind the jedi are not 100% good and the Sith are not 100% evil. To me they have always felt like two sides of a coin and seperatly they don't have a chance at accomplishing what they aim for. The jedi will never live up to the expectation and the sith will never arrest the falling into madness of depravity.

I could see a Jedi following the order perfectly and being a total jerk even a villian. Just like I could see a Sith becoming a local hero for channeling that passion and power the right way. I think that is what has made me love Star Wars for 30+ years is that there are some deeper seated issues at play than black hats and white hats.

c'broath was kind of the archtype of the Jedi taken to one extreme, in that he genuinely believed he was entitled to rule as a Jedi, destroyed the guardian of Palpatines treasure and ruled in an extremely rigid, yet awkwardly just society for some years before Thrawn found him and applied such measures to a population. Though that being said, much of that stemmed from being a clone and Luke only really ever saw him as a really sick man rather then a great evil that needed destroying. He saw himself as the master of the universe and despite being an extremely fickle individual at best was a jedi capable of great evil in his abuses of the force.

I would probably cite him as an exception, though it makes me wonder what the original C'broath would have done under similar cercumstances.