Hi everyone,

I read the few lines about "Experiencing the Force" a few minutes ago and found the ideas about "Pragmatic power" quite entertaining. in fact, the idea of a force user, that really, really believes that Jedi and Sith are a little bit lobotomized believing in all this spiritual crap instead of just kicking ass on an advanced level is so entertaining, that i plan to realize it.

But it is even possible to ignore the duality of the force away and simply enjoy the ride?

What do you think?

I think so. It involves riding a fine line though. You want to be careful not to tap into the dark side too often. Use your dark side pips when your character would be particularly angry or jealous, although try to use the force as peacefully as possible. You should be able to keep your morality towards 50 if you carefully balance it. On the other hand, if you don't care which way it slides, do whatever you have to do to activate your powers.

Can a character ignore the consequences and enjoy the ride? Sure. Do those consequences go away? Nope. The Force itself doesn't work based on how the Jedi and Sith believes it works. Things aren't darkside powers because the Sith use them and the Jedi don't. Even if you stripped away the Jedi/Sith teachings you'd still be left with the same overall affects.

So yeah, a character could ignore all the Jedi/Sith teachings. But they are still subject to the same ups and downs that come with using the Force. The duality of the Force is a very real thing not subject to the whims of the Jedi, Sith, or any other Force tradition.

When it comes to Jedi teachings, Sith teachings, and the entire Light/Dark thing... I'll just use the Jedi's words against them...

Obi-Wan : So, what I told you was true... from a certain point of view.

Obi-Wan : Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view...

The Jedi and the Sith have their dogmas, as limited in their understanding of the whole truth and as self-reinforcing as any other dogmas.

Their beliefs are not nonsense, but they also aren't objective universal truth. Both sides are still just more blind men trying to describe the elephant.

One might interpret it not about the force itself, but how one relates to the power one has as a result of using the force. It

N such a view, the force itself doesn't have a light or darkside. Rather, the force user has a light and a dark side to their psychology that informs and motivates their actions. Turning to one or the other could become a question of what you nurture and embrace in yourself. Over time, one becomes habituated and conditioned on an emotional and intellectual level. It could also be that force use stimulates various neuro-chemical states and create positive associations between using the force and the emotions one taps to drive it. In such a case, dark side users may be addicted to the power rush that flows when they tap into negative emotions and use the force for selfish ends. Even then, a dualistic interpretation of the force may be viewed too much akin to putting people into unuanced boxes. Obi-Wan didn't realize he was playing Irony's straight man when he told Anakin that only Sith deal in absolutes. If we take a psychological standpoint with dark and light, the a phenomenological view of what is motivating the individual, and their emotional state when using the force, becomes just as important as the ultimate outcome of how they use the force. How it affects them also matters. We're also going to end up with far more shades of grey in terms of judging individual force users choices. But, in the end, you are still what you actualize within yourself. Acting from selfishness or negative emotions is a choice that colors your self-manifesting destiny.

If you ask my Force using character about it, he will tell you that the Force just is. It's no better nor worse than the sunlight - it can light your way, or burn you to a crisp. The "Dark" side of the Force is just how your primitive brain responds best - to basic impulses based on fear, lust, or greed. Allow them to overwhelm you, and you become a monster. Attempt to suppress them, and they will often come to bite you in the ass at the worst possible moment. The trick is to acknowledge that they are a part of you, without allowing them to control you.

MaxKilljoy, on 14 Jan 2016 - 5:16 PM, said:MaxKilljoy, on 14 Jan 2016 - 5:16 PM, said:

When it comes to Jedi teachings, Sith teachings, and the entire Light/Dark thing... I'll just use the Jedi's words against them...

QuoteQuote

Obi-Wan : So, what I told you was true... from a certain point of view.

Obi-Wan : Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view...

The Jedi and the Sith have their dogmas, as limited in their understanding of the whole truth and as self-reinforcing as any other dogmas.

Their beliefs are not nonsense, but they also aren't objective universal truth. Both sides are still just more blind men trying to describe the elephant.

Palpatine said the exact same thing to Anakin in Rots

One of the player character's in our game, starting eight years after Order 66, became a full-fledged Jedi Knight in the final months of the Clone Wars. She has come to believe that, ultimately, the Jedi Order became blinded by its own dogmas and self-righteous sense of infallibility. She also believes they didn't know what the ancient prophecy meant when it talked about bringing balance to the force. She believes there was good in what she was taught, but that it was too rigid, inflexible, and narrow to allow for real wisdom and understanding to grow. A big part of her goal in the game is to find ancient Jedi teachings that predate the uniform, ordered, modern Jedi.

Thousands of years ago our ancestors sacrificed children to their gods. Burned them alive. Did they get darkside points? Nope. It was done for the "good of the community", they truly believed they were doing the right thing. Saved by the old "evil is a point of view" argument. Lucky for them, they weren't force users though, because the Force has feedback, and every death takes its toll, regardless of philosophy.

That said, some force users seem to have an immunity of some sort to that feedback. Look at Starkiller, Legend or Canon, not sure if he still exists these days or not, although Koda does, he could blast away with lightning non stop and never have the tiniest twinge of guilt. Naturally we won't even think about the 1000's of stormtroopers he mows down in a bloody red killing binge. Even I have to admit, some of those deaths may not have been made purely in "self-defense". Perhaps his immunity is from his upbringing at Vader's hands and he really didn't know any better. If that's the case then "point of view" becomes a lot more important.

Thousands of years ago our ancestors sacrificed children to their gods. Burned them alive. Did they get darkside points? Nope. It was done for the "good of the community", they truly believed they were doing the right thing. Saved by the old "evil is a point of view" argument. Lucky for them, they weren't force users though, because the Force has feedback, and every death takes its toll, regardless of philosophy.

That said, some force users seem to have an immunity of some sort to that feedback. Look at Starkiller, Legend or Canon, not sure if he still exists these days or not, although Koda does, he could blast away with lightning non stop and never have the tiniest twinge of guilt. Naturally we won't even think about the 1000's of stormtroopers he mows down in a bloody red killing binge. Even I have to admit, some of those deaths may not have been made purely in "self-defense". Perhaps his immunity is from his upbringing at Vader's hands and he really didn't know any better. If that's the case then "point of view" becomes a lot more important.

I find video games to be a poor foundation from which to understand the Force on. Starkiller is a perfect example of why. He gets away with what he does because it's fun to zap Stormtroopers with Force Lightening. The game would be less fun though if it penalized you for doing that. So Starkillers immunity isn't so much an immunity as much as ..... different mediums have different rules.

Starkiller is immune because to do otherwise would detract from the fun of the game.

I absolutely love the whole "pragmatic power" theme. It's pretty much the only one I would adopt if I was playing a force sensitive. However, you need to understand that the dark side is a corrupting influence. Using the dark side is dangerous and should be moderated as much as possible. I think Anakin is a great example of the dark side's corruption. I absolutely do not believe Anakin was the type of person who would have no qualms against killing dozens of children (younglings) on a whim or someone's word. Yet when he fell to the dark side, he did exactly that. He even force choked the one woman he loved more then anything, the one he fell to the dark side just to save. Anyone thinking they can use a power without consequence that is fueled by anger, fear, and hate is deluding themselves.

I tend to break down the Force and the dark side thusly:

Fear, anger, hatred, are all base and unthinking emotions. When you attack something out of fear, that's the dark side. When you strike out in anger, that's the dark side. When you let hatred dictate your actions and cloud your judgment, that's the dark side. You are not in control , your emotions and primal instincts are. You become a tool of the dark side.

Opposed to that is serenity, contemplation, and knowledge. When you are at peace you see more clearly and have more control over not only yourself, but the world around you. If you resist throwing insults back at the guy who called you a slimeball, you might realize he's upset because his son is in the hospital. If you hold back from attacking a wild animal, you might realize it's only defending its nest from an intruder and can back away without killing a mother. Resisting the impulses to act on base emotions makes you more powerful than surrendering to those emotions, but it's also more difficult because living creatures are never separate from their biological buttons and chemical urges. That's why the dark side is the quick and easy path, whereas the Force (Which I use as a term in place of the light side) takes years of study and meditation to master.

Does this mean there are situations in which a Jedi can kill without risking dark side corruption? Absolutely, if he does so in defense of others. But there's a thin line to be walked between killing in self defense and killing in preemptive self defense, because the latter is heavily steeped in fear. When you fear someone might attack but don't know for sure (Because they haven't one it yet, and the future is always in motion!), acting on that fear by striking first is of the dark side. You allow your fear to dictate your response, and in so doing open yourself to the dark side.

The thing to remember is that while the Jedi and the Sith and various other Force traditions have their own takes on what the Force is, the fact remains is that the Force isn't concerned with what society or any dogmatic belief structure thinks is right or wrong. Evil actions are of the dark side no matter rationale you use to justify it. Sacrificing an innocent virgin to appease the patron protector-deity of your community is still an evil action where something like the Force would be concerned. The Jedi probably have the closest read on how the Force operates (having been around as long as they have tends to help when it comes to understanding a hard-to-grasp mystical energy field), but by no means are they 100% correct on all things; in Legends, there's the Aing-Tii Monks whose understanding and usage of the Force pretty much flies in face of Jedi beliefs, including such craziness as actual teleportation and creation of matter from nothing.

From the get-go, it's pretty clear that the Force views things in terms of black and white, and that "shades of grey" or "moral justifications" don't matter to it. You can try and justify and rationalize your actions all you like, but murder is still murder where the Force is concerned. Same with using powers like Harm or Unleash, in that you're tapping into the darker aspects of the Force. Over in Legends, there was even a whole plot arc where the New Jedi Order thought that using dark side abilities for good reasons was okay, but that was later proven to be false with it's main proponent in the NJO falling right into the dark side all while thinking he was doing what was best for the galaxy and oblivious to his falling until he'd pretty much soared way past the point of no return.

You mention "evil actions," but that in of itself is a loaded term steeped in ideological - and sometimes dogmatic - societal perspectives. Unless the Force is an intelligent deity that dictates morality and good and evil that we can objectively deduce, we still have to have a working definition of "evil actions" to adjudicate such questions during play. What is that? In my view, "good actions" are those which are beneficial to the human / sapient organism in order to allow it to survive and thrive. "Evil actions" are those actions which impede surviving and thriving. This occurs both at the individual and corporate (group level). The ethic of a "light side" force user should be one of "in this situation, what choice will bring the most surviving and thriving?" I am NOT saying that the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the one. Nor do I regard killing or not killing inherently good or bad. But to reject "societal definitions" of light and dark while refusing to provide an objective standard that can be applied achieves nothing. Even if you find the Sith and Jedi perspectives, your gaming table - and the characters it is imagining - will have to have some sort of philosophy of what dark and light actually are.

You mention "evil actions," but that in of itself is a loaded term steeped in ideological - and sometimes dogmatic - societal perspectives. Unless the Force is an intelligent deity that dictates morality and good and evil that we can objectively deduce, we still have to have a working definition of "evil actions" to adjudicate such questions during play. What is that? In my view, "good actions" are those which are beneficial to the human / sapient organism in order to allow it to survive and thrive. "Evil actions" are those actions which impede surviving and thriving. This occurs both at the individual and corporate (group level). The ethic of a "light side" force user should be one of "in this situation, what choice will bring the most surviving and thriving?" I am NOT saying that the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the one. Nor do I regard killing or not killing inherently good or bad. But to reject "societal definitions" of light and dark while refusing to provide an objective standard that can be applied achieves nothing. Even if you find the Sith and Jedi perspectives, your gaming table - and the characters it is imagining - will have to have some sort of philosophy of what dark and light actually are.

He's rejecting in game justifications not out of game justifications. Yes we have to define what is evil in our own terms. But in game it's a defined thing that doesn't change based on the POV of the Jedi or Sith or anyone else. So out of game we do need to decide what is and isn't evil. But in game no one decides for themselves what is and isn't evil.

MaxKilljoy, on 14 Jan 2016 - 5:16 PM, said:MaxKilljoy, on 14 Jan 2016 - 5:16 PM, said:

When it comes to Jedi teachings, Sith teachings, and the entire Light/Dark thing... I'll just use the Jedi's words against them...

QuoteQuote

Obi-Wan : So, what I told you was true... from a certain point of view.

Obi-Wan : Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view...

The Jedi and the Sith have their dogmas, as limited in their understanding of the whole truth and as self-reinforcing as any other dogmas.

Their beliefs are not nonsense, but they also aren't objective universal truth. Both sides are still just more blind men trying to describe the elephant.

Palpatine said the exact same thing to Anakin in Rots

Being an evil megalomaniacal b--tard doesn't make you wrong ALL the time.

Does no one remember Mortis? Seems a pretty strong support that the Force itself is in fact divided black/white. morally So it would be interesting if a character was played with the idea that there is no dichotomy, but I would certainly say that the universe does not agree with him.

You mention "evil actions," but that in of itself is a loaded term steeped in ideological - and sometimes dogmatic - societal perspectives. Unless the Force is an intelligent deity that dictates morality and good and evil that we can objectively deduce, we still have to have a working definition of "evil actions" to adjudicate such questions during play. What is that? In my view, "good actions" are those which are beneficial to the human / sapient organism in order to allow it to survive and thrive. "Evil actions" are those actions which impede surviving and thriving. This occurs both at the individual and corporate (group level). The ethic of a "light side" force user should be one of "in this situation, what choice will bring the most surviving and thriving?" I am NOT saying that the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the one. Nor do I regard killing or not killing inherently good or bad. But to reject "societal definitions" of light and dark while refusing to provide an objective standard that can be applied achieves nothing. Even if you find the Sith and Jedi perspectives, your gaming table - and the characters it is imagining - will have to have some sort of philosophy of what dark and light actually are.

That's not so far from the standard I was applying elsewhere -- what effects will the person's (that is, character's) actions have, and what is their intent? The two interact and sometimes even contradict. Any fictional setting that tells us that right and wrong, light and dark, good and bad, are simple black and white no-nuance no-context divisions, is lying .

But then, there's plenty of moral nuance even in the Star Wars OT, despite what some here will claim .

Han shoots first and takes time to come around to helping these people he just met for something other than the cash.

Kenobi and Yoda lie and dissemble when telling Luke what's going on, but they do so "for the greater good".

Yoda tells Luke to let his friends suffer and die because he's afraid Luke will fail and that hope will be lost.

The Alliance blows up two different Death Stars presumably full of civilian workers who might not even have a choice about being there, because far more people will die if they don't, at least in part.

They drag the primitive locals of the forest moon of Endor into their war with the Empire, and get some of them killed in the process.

Etc, etc, etc.

Even the very small window that the OT gives us on the far bigger "reality" of the Star Wars setting shows us FAR more moral nuance and complexity and conflict than some people are claiming.

You mention "evil actions," but that in of itself is a loaded term steeped in ideological - and sometimes dogmatic - societal perspectives. Unless the Force is an intelligent deity that dictates morality and good and evil that we can objectively deduce, we still have to have a working definition of "evil actions" to adjudicate such questions during play. What is that? In my view, "good actions" are those which are beneficial to the human / sapient organism in order to allow it to survive and thrive. "Evil actions" are those actions which impede surviving and thriving. This occurs both at the individual and corporate (group level). The ethic of a "light side" force user should be one of "in this situation, what choice will bring the most surviving and thriving?" I am NOT saying that the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the one. Nor do I regard killing or not killing inherently good or bad. But to reject "societal definitions" of light and dark while refusing to provide an objective standard that can be applied achieves nothing. Even if you find the Sith and Jedi perspectives, your gaming table - and the characters it is imagining - will have to have some sort of philosophy of what dark and light actually are.

But then, there's plenty of moral nuance even in the Star Wars OT, despite what some here will claim .

I love how put me on ignore but somehow see a need to continue your disagreement with me in almost every thread.

http://popculturephilosopher.com/jedi-philosophy/

This disconnect creates some of the most powerful paradoxes in the movies. In the first series (IV, V & VI) Yoda and Obi-Wan counsel control of emotions, and warn Luke against the dangers of his affection for his friends, and his unreasonable love for his father. Yet it is Luke’s decision to ignore this seemingly wise advice that provides most of the high points of the first series. In the end, Luke is proven right when his ill-advised love for his father finally uncovers the good left in Darth Vader, and brings about the final end to the Sith. Therefore, love is ultimately shown to be even more powerful than the light side of the Force (which failed to conquer its counterpart in all five chronologically previous movies).

Conversely, the second series suffers from taking its doctrine of non-attachment too seriously. The Jedi Council consequently comes across as cold and uncaring –a fact which drives Anakin into the more hot-blooded arms of the Dark Side. In addition, this set of movies is in the strange position of positing love as the enemy. Although Anakin clearly has psychotic tendencies, the movie insists on blaming his moments of indiscriminate slaughter on his “love” for his mother and his wife. Even Obi-Wan’s platonic love for his padawan does nothing except cloud his judgment.

It is this too-fully-realized disdain for emotion that, more than anything else, makes the second series inferior to the first.

Part of the problem is that I can't take seriously the inherently self-contradictory 70s-era pop-syncretism that underlies the supposed "absolutely morality" here.

Lucas conflates the yin-yang dualism of the Tao, with the perpendicular good-evil of dualism Zorastrian (and Christian) belief, and then overlays (the westernized understanding of) Buddhist "attachment" to "bad" and "detachment" to "good". He then tries to map the entire thing into a prescriptive rather than descriptive reading of Campbell's long-misused "hero's journey". The result is a confused mashup that can't decide what it is, a sort of "blue vs orange" morality that makes no **** sense.

The supposed "absolute morality" that's evidently exemplified by the Jedi Code would tell us that everything good that comes from the attachments that people form -- family, friends, functional societies, etc -- are "evil", and that only through total denial of everything that makes us human can we achieve goodness. It would also tell us that there is no justifiable anger, or fear, or sadness, and that hating even the most vile of atrocities will never result in anything but suffering.

But it's not like the Sith have anything better to offer... instead of total denial of all the realities of being human, most Sith choose to wallow in everything negative about being human instead of tempering it, or channeling it into something constructive. They show their "freedom" from "moral limits" by wallowing in petty, juvenile displays of gratuitous and melodramatic "evil".

But the irony here is that, as the linked article discusses, the movies themselves -- perhaps unintentionally -- show us how wrong and failed the Jedi's precious ancient and "objectively true" religious dogma actually is within the setting itself .

A lot of good stuff here ^

Also keep in mind that the Force seems to be kind of like water trying to find it's level in a chaotic universe. Sometimes it seems to favour the Light, sometimes the Dark, and seems to rest when neither side is in direct conflict. If you follow the history of the Jedi they started out as the Je'dii and were all about the Balance of Light and Dark but then had a schism. ( http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Je'daii_Code and http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Dawn_of_the_Jedi:_Into_the_Void)
What you can infer is that the Force doesn't like it when either the Jedi or the Sith are in control but rather when they are in balance with one another.

Another irony is that the Jedi Order actually is the one that, when in power, maintained or strived for order while espousing freedom and the Sith created chaos while striving for order. I think the deeper meaning behind the Force is that power corrupts regardless of who is in the lead and only when the two oppose each other does the Force remain in balance. Only when neither is in power that it rests, at least until the next chaotic event stirs the pot again.

Sometimes it seems that the Jedi are presented as putting their own "spiritual health" above the impact of their own inaction...

Reminds me of this quote: Many great and wise air nomads have detached themselves and achieved spiritual enlightenment but the Avatar can never do it because your sole duty is to the World. Here is my wisdom for you. Selfless duty calls you to sacrifice your own spiritual needs and do whatever it takes to protect the world.

The great cosmic irony is that one sort of detachment can be a very selfish act, putting the individual's needs ahead of all else.

A parallel would be the comic book hero who never kills, no matter what, regardless of all other factors. Sometimes this personal moral stance gets a nice thick layer of plot armor and the protagonist never has to confront failure or hard choices because of it. Other times, the protagonist is actually put in a position where his steadfast refusal to take any life ends up costing other people dearly.

One has to ask if it is selfish of this protagonist to put their own moral code before the life and limb of other people.

As far as I can see, the force is an innately evil force, or all sentient life capable of tapping into it is innately evil. If the default end of a force sensitive person not avoiding their natural passions is to end up as a psychotic killer, then the force is pretty **** evil. The Jedi say that we have to avoid love, fear, anger, ambition, curiosity and everything else that defines humans and become a blank slate of calmness. They say that if we don't we will fall into the dark side and end up evil. They say we cannot love our own mother or fear for her safety without the force dragging us to evil.

The force presents a constant battle between neutral and evil, where the default setting is evil winning inside an individual. Good does not really enter into the picture. Any goodness shown by the Jedi is a calm pragmatism, or a leftover passion for justice or compassion that they have not managed to purge yet. Up until the last movie, we never heard of the good side seducing anybody and being addictive, no, the force has only every dragged people to evil. People that were good, were good despite the force, not because of it.

As such, I agree with the earlier posters about the force not changing its nature due to the ideology of its user, it will remain as is. As for the OPs question, can somebody think that both ideologies are bogus and just do whatever they want with the force? Sure, we call them Sith. We call them despots, tyrants, psychopaths and worse. Without the discipline of the Jedi, the dark side is too strong and seductive, giving into your passions and desires can only end one way.

As far as I can see, the force is an innately evil force, or all sentient life capable of tapping into it is innately evil. If the default end of a force sensitive person not avoiding their natural passions is to end up as a psychotic killer, then the force is pretty **** evil. The Jedi say that we have to avoid love, fear, anger, ambition, curiosity and everything else that defines humans and become a blank slate of calmness. They say that if we don't we will fall into the dark side and end up evil. They say we cannot love our own mother or fear for her safety without the force dragging us to evil.

This is .... ok ..... for starters no, the Force isn't innately evil. Nor do the Jedi teach that if you follow your passions you will end up a psychotic killer. That completely misconstrues the Jedi and the Force. The Jedi also don't avoid their emotions. We were shown countless times Jedi expressing anger, love, fear, anger,ambition, curiosity and anything else. What they were not was ruled by them. They opted for a monastic life style because they felt it better suited what they felt their goal was as an institution. This is in no way different from Catholic clergy, who feel emotions and create bonds but devote their life to something greater than themselves. Because the Jedi feel they have a greater duty they devote all their time and energy to that duty to the exclusion of all other things that would interfere with that. But that never stopped them from loving, or feeling anger and fear. We witness these emotions from Jedi countless times in both canon and legends.

The Jedi recognize that attachments is a good way for the dark side to get in. Loving your mother won't drag you to evil (not even remotely a Jedi teaching). But that attachment could be used against you. Perfect example is with Anakin when Palaptine uses Anakin love for Padme to corrupt him. It wasn't love that corrupted Anakin. Hell Obi Wan loved Anakin (like a brother but love is love and no form of love is greater than another). But that attachment was used against him in a way that say couldn't be used against Mace. Mace lacked an easy attachment for Papaltine to exploit. The Jedi recognized that given their position and what they felt was their duty that having these outside attachments created conflicts of interest. But to say that then the only way to use the Force is blank calmness is and anything else is just evil completely misses the point. And flys in the face of both canon and legend material that showed us all the ways in which Jedi actually felt emotions and still did their duty.

The force presents a constant battle between neutral and evil, where the default setting is evil winning inside an individual. Good does not really enter into the picture. Any goodness shown by the Jedi is a calm pragmatism, or a leftover passion for justice or compassion that they have not managed to purge yet. Up until the last movie, we never heard of the good side seducing anybody and being addictive, no, the force has only every dragged people to evil. People that were good, were good despite the force, not because of it.

People were not evil because of the Force. That isn't even remotely supported. What was recognized was that if someone was evil and they used the Force for evil they could create great harm. No one falls to light side or the good side of the Force because the default setting is good. It creates life. It binds all life together. Like anything else it can be used for evil. We don't say people are seduced by good. Never. To expect them to use that in regards to the Force when we don't use that in regards to humans in general is just .......

The Force never made someone good. But it also never made anyone evil. The person themselves were either good and evil and they then used the Force for that purpose. Tarkin was evil and he did not need the Force for that. By that same token Darth Vader was evil and it wasn't the Force that made him that way. The entire fall of Anakin makes it clear, the Force never turned him evil, a series of bad choices made him that way.

As far as I can see, the force is an innately evil force, or all sentient life capable of tapping into it is innately evil. If the default end of a force sensitive person not avoiding their natural passions is to end up as a psychotic killer, then the force is pretty **** evil. The Jedi say that we have to avoid love, fear, anger, ambition, curiosity and everything else that defines humans and become a blank slate of calmness. They say that if we don't we will fall into the dark side and end up evil. They say we cannot love our own mother or fear for her safety without the force dragging us to evil.

This is .... ok ..... for starters no, the Force isn't innately evil. Nor do the Jedi teach that if you follow your passions you will end up a psychotic killer. That completely misconstrues the Jedi and the Force. The Jedi also don't avoid their emotions. We were shown countless times Jedi expressing anger, love, fear, anger,ambition, curiosity and anything else. What they were not was ruled by them. They opted for a monastic life style because they felt it better suited what they felt their goal was as an institution. This is in no way different from Catholic clergy, who feel emotions and create bonds but devote their life to something greater than themselves. Because the Jedi feel they have a greater duty they devote all their time and energy to that duty to the exclusion of all other things that would interfere with that. But that never stopped them from loving, or feeling anger and fear. We witness these emotions from Jedi countless times in both canon and legends.

The Jedi recognize that attachments is a good way for the dark side to get in. Loving your mother won't drag you to evil (not even remotely a Jedi teaching). But that attachment could be used against you. Perfect example is with Anakin when Palaptine uses Anakin love for Padme to corrupt him. It wasn't love that corrupted Anakin. Hell Obi Wan loved Anakin (like a brother but love is love and no form of love is greater than another). But that attachment was used against him in a way that say couldn't be used against Mace. Mace lacked an easy attachment for Papaltine to exploit. The Jedi recognized that given their position and what they felt was their duty that having these outside attachments created conflicts of interest. But to say that then the only way to use the Force is blank calmness is and anything else is just evil completely misses the point. And flys in the face of both canon and legend material that showed us all the ways in which Jedi actually felt emotions and still did their duty.

The force presents a constant battle between neutral and evil, where the default setting is evil winning inside an individual. Good does not really enter into the picture. Any goodness shown by the Jedi is a calm pragmatism, or a leftover passion for justice or compassion that they have not managed to purge yet. Up until the last movie, we never heard of the good side seducing anybody and being addictive, no, the force has only every dragged people to evil. People that were good, were good despite the force, not because of it.

People were not evil because of the Force. That isn't even remotely supported. What was recognized was that if someone was evil and they used the Force for evil they could create great harm. No one falls to light side or the good side of the Force because the default setting is good. It creates life. It binds all life together. Like anything else it can be used for evil. We don't say people are seduced by good. Never. To expect them to use that in regards to the Force when we don't use that in regards to humans in general is just .......

The Force never made someone good. But it also never made anyone evil. The person themselves were either good and evil and they then used the Force for that purpose. Tarkin was evil and he did not need the Force for that. By that same token Darth Vader was evil and it wasn't the Force that made him that way. The entire fall of Anakin makes it clear, the Force never turned him evil, a series of bad choices made him that way.

About not falling to the Light, well... Kylo Ren would like to have a word with you.