Role of the Sith (from The Old Republic)

[Havok]

Oh for pete's sake using the dark side is part of what defines a Sith from a Jedi.

That's not how the writers see it.

Wait... fucking what? Again, examples and citations for this claim.

Oh and P.S....

And? You're not making sense here. It has in every example we've seen. It does NOT follow that it must-- UNLESS you are appealing to the authority of the Jedi, who cannot necessarily be trusted due to the history of them oppressing the fuck out of the Sith.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa fucking whoa.
Please cite the examples and sources of the Jedi "oppressing the fuck out of the Sith".

[Formless]

Wait... fucking what? Again, examples and citations for this claim.

Oh, come on Hav, you know Star Wars Canon as well as I do. The game would be C-canon, that means that that anything that happens in it would be considered canon UNLESS it is contradicted by the facts of another C-canon source. "All Sith must be evil" is NOT an established fact anywhere in the rest of canon, in part because it only takes one example to refute... which is what we're arguing about.

So again, you support your claim that the Sith must be evil according to canon.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa fucking whoa.
Please cite the examples and sources of the Jedi "oppressing the fuck out of the Sith".

Oh, please, I gave up that argument ages ago. Fine, if you want I hereby formally retract it. However, that does not mean that appealing to the authority of the Jedi on all matters pertaining to the force is a logically coherent argument for a number of other reasons (internal disagreements over the nature of the force inside the order itself, the existence of other philosophies of the force including but not limited to the Sith themselves, the simple fact that Jedi are not infallible or always honest ["Luke, you're going to have to learn that many things are true... from a certain point of view."], etc. )

[Ritterin Sophia]

Setting aside the fact that all Sith ever seen have been evil, their code and way of life promotes evil actions through gaining power, rejecting peace and cooperation and using the Force to achieve these ends.

So because you've never seen a nice Sith that means they can't be, I've never met or heard of an evangelical I would like does that mean all of them are unlikable? Christians have rationalized worse as simply metaphorical, why couldn't a Sith simply rationalize it to mean that one can never be lax and must at all times challenge oneself to do greater things?

A Sith is expected to gain power, to dominate the weaker, to kill their superiors and mentors.
They are also defined by their embracing of the dark side, which is evil.

Expected to not required to, there's nothing in the Sith Code that says one must use the Dark Side, it's simply an easier faster path. What if said Sith who prefers to go with the rationalization I gave chooses to not use the Dark Side as a challenge to himself?

Um, no. My definition of the Sith is the exact same one used in canon BY the writers over many years.

Mind giving me a canon source were this is defined?

[Bellosh101]

"All Sith must be evil" is NOT an established fact anywhere in the rest of canon, in part because it only takes one example to refute... which is what we're arguing about.

The thing though is that a Sith can't truely be "good" unless he stands against the fundamental principles of Sith ideology, and that begs the question of how someone can be a Sith if he or she rejects Sith ideology. Take Darth Malgus for example; while we're told that he treats his fuckbuddy kindly enough and detests the intrigues of Sith politics, he still identifies himself as a Sith. As a self-identified Sith, Darth Malgus does things (like mess around in the Unknown Regions and sack the Jedi Temple in an act of decietful aggression) that enable other fellow Sith to screw sentient beings as they see fit, even if Malgus doesn't see fit to act like a dick himself. Darth Malgus's actions, even if they are not psychopathic on his part, nonetheless are done in support of the Sith State (an organization that in its various reincarnations has constantly done nothing but screw over the galaxy), making him a dangerous being for the galaxy and a de facto agent of evil. Only by renouncing both the Dark Side (which with excessive use always causes amorality to form within users) and the fundamental principles of Sith ideology (which endorse amorality and "evil") can a "Sith" honestly call themselves "good".

[Ritterin Sophia]

The thing though is that a Sith can't truely be "good" unless he stands against the fundamental principles of Sith ideology, and that begs the question of how someone can be a Sith if he or she rejects Sith ideology.

Again, we have not yet determined that there is anything about the Sith that says they must be evil.

Take Darth Malgus for example; while we're told that he treats his fuckbuddy kindly enough and detests the intrigues of Sith politics, he still identifies himself as a Sith. As a self-identified Sith, Darth Malgus does things (like mess around in the Unknown Regions and sack the Jedi Temple in an act of decietful aggression)

There was no armistice in effect, thus there was nothing morally corrupt about attacking the Jedi Temple which housed the master controls for the Coruscant defense systems. After sacking the temple the Sith could've kept going, but obviously thought more could be served by a peace treaty.

that enable other fellow Sith to screw sentient beings as they see fit, even if Malgus doesn't see fit to act like a dick himself. Darth Malgus's actions, even if they are not psychopathic on his part, nonetheless are done in support of the Sith State (an organization that in its various reincarnations has constantly done nothing but screw over the galaxy), making him a dangerous being for the galaxy and a de facto agent of evil.

The same could be said about every Catholic alive that doesn't immediately scream for the Pope to resign and everyone who hid the pedophile priests to subject themselves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law of the nations they operated in.

Only by renouncing both the Dark Side (which with excessive use always causes amorality to form within users) and the fundamental principles of Sith ideology (which endorse amorality and "evil") can a "Sith" honestly call themselves "good".

Where in the Sith Code does it say a Sith must be evil? No one has presented this.

[Formless]

Ah, the diffusion of responsibility argument. Well, I never said that he isn't in part responsible for the actions of his Empire, but then the same is true of me as an voting American with respect to Iraq. Am I evil?

Besides, by that argument the only thing he has to renounce is his allegiance to the Empire. He need not give up his personal Sith derived philosophy.

[Sinewmire]

Why couldn't there be a Sith who isn't entirely evil? I mean, sure, he'd still be evil, but doesn't mean he can't have any redeeming features.

A Sith who actually loves his wife (probably to the point of extreme jealousy, but it's still there) or who sees true power as merely having people who owe him favours rather than a direct subordinate to superior officer ratio.

Perhaps it is better to be feared than loved, but wouldn't love be a good chain for a Sith who understands how people work?

Or could a Sith not want to forsake the Dark Side, but fear his horrific murder at the hands of his former comrades, and as such, stay within the organisation and try to dirty his hands as little as possible?

[Eleas]

I agree. Yeah, someone can be a right bastard or not, and the Sith seem to fall into that camp pretty much every time, but the interesting part is what justification they have for it.

Palpatine, for instance, may have maintained some few altruistic justifications, but from what I hear they pretty much were limited to "I deserve to rule these worms... oh, and they're better off with me as a leader in any case, because I am the greatest protector they could have." Revan, on the other hand, had fully gone the way of the zealot, ruthlessly slaughtering his way to what he perceived as the salvation of the galaxy. Maul had his own rationale, which was a loyalty to the Sith ideals. Dooku, finally, seemed halfway on the way toward convincing himself that he himself was this "Chosen One", and thus, far too important to bother with the petty restrictions levied by the Jedi Council (Star Wars d20 Revised and Expanded).

Many Sith Lords, I imagine, are so wrapped up in their noble goals and the perceived purity of their own ideals that they firmly consider themselves to be, if not good, then at least forces for good. It takes a special kind of arrogance to proclaim oneself the last great hope of the galaxy, after all, and the Sith code practically demands arrogance.

[Bellosh101]

Again, we have not yet determined that there is anything about the Sith that says they must be evil.

Let's analyze the Sith Code line by line:

Peace is a lie; there is only passion.
~Implicitly condones violence as something admirable, while mocking the concept of peace.

Through passion, I gain strength.
~Implicitly condones making an individual's achievment of greater superiority over others a greater priority than seeking the betterment of others.

Through strength, I gain power.
~Implicitly condones dominion over lesser beings, instead of letting others live free, as something admirable.

Through power, I gain victory.
~Implicitly condones violence as an admirable act, rather than a regrettable means to an end.

Through victory, my chains are broken.
~Implicitly condones the rejection of an universial system of morals, without which it is impossible to establish shared standards of "good" and "evil". It also implicitly condones murdering your superior so YOU can be the #1 guy.

The Force shall free me.
~Implicitly condones use of the Force to transcend inconvenient obstacles to one's selfishness..... such as morality.

You can yap to me all you want about alternate interpretations of the Sith Code, but the damning fact that Sith don't seem to abide by these alternate interpretations is conclusive proof that the Sith Code was specifically intended to condone acts of "evil" because it suggests that no such standards exist..... other than what you dictate to inferiors.

There was no armistice in effect, thus there was nothing morally corrupt about attacking the Jedi Temple which housed the master controls for the Coruscant defense systems.

That does nothing to disprove the notion that Darth Malgus is an agent of "evil" and that the Sacking of Coruscant enabled other Sith to commit future atrocities and war crimes.

The same could be said about every Catholic alive that doesn't immediately scream for the Pope to resign and everyone who hid the pedophile priests to subject themselves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law of the nations they operated in.

Red herring: the Christian Bible sells itself as an arbitrator of good and evil while the Sith Code laughs at the notion of such a concept. Catholics believe that their faith is (or should be) a force of good, while the Sith don't give a fuck whatsoever. Guess which group happens to be more psychopathic as a collective whole?

[Formless]

That's only one interpretation of the Sith code. The whole point is that there are others that aren't evil or nihilistic. For example, the first line is more likely referring to (the pursuit of) inner peace a la Bhuddism; this would be supported by the fact that the Jedi (there has to be a liar for something to be a lie, after all, and the jedi Code and Sith Code's mirror one another for a reason) think one should seek peace with one's self and control one's emotions (which we have seen can be self defeating and have negative consequences. See: the retarded advice Yoda gave to Anakin in RotJ). In that context, your interpretation of the Code as advocating violence falls apart.

[Formless]

Ghetto edit: That should be "the retarded advice Yoda gave Anakin in RotS", not RotJ.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Peace is a lie; there is only passion.
~Implicitly condones violence as something admirable, while mocking the concept of peace.

Where does it say the peace is external peace rather than internal? See it's easy to rationalize. You need explicit not implicit.

Through passion, I gain strength.
~Implicitly condones making an individual's achievment of greater superiority over others a greater priority than seeking the betterment of others.

The Sith believes it's up to the individual to better themselves. This is again implicit and not explicit

Through strength, I gain power.
~Implicitly condones dominion over lesser beings, instead of letting others live free, as something admirable.

It condones it, but it can also be rationalized as gaining personal strength means power over oneself. Same as above.

Through power, I gain victory.
~Implicitly condones violence as an admirable act, rather than a regrettable means to an end.

Again where does it say that, I can rationalize that as saying if I gain power over myself and I can achieve greater things. And again.

Through victory, my chains are broken.
~Implicitly condones the rejection of an universial system of morals, without which it is impossible to establish shared standards of "good" and "evil". It also implicitly condones murdering your superior so YOU can be the #1 guy.

Same here. It simply says that by achieving 'victory' then you free yourself, it could be self doubt or whatever.

The Force shall free me.
~Implicitly condones use of the Force to transcend inconvenient obstacles to one's selfishness..... such as morality.

Implicit not explicitly. This is a theme you're not getting, you can rationalize it to mean whatever you want.

You can yap to me all you want about alternate interpretations of the Sith Code, but the damning fact that Sith don't seem to abide by these alternate interpretations is conclusive proof that the Sith Code was specifically intended to condone acts of "evil" because it suggests that no such standards exist..... other than what you dictate to inferiors.

Seriously? I've been rather polite to you and your attitude is both unwarranted and unwanted. I did not start discussing with you so we can start yelling insults and profanities at each other, it's not necessary because we're having a conversation where everyone is amenable to change. I'm willing to concede if you can show me that there is no other interpretation of the Sith Code except the one, which you're failing to do.

That does nothing to disprove the notion that Darth Malgus is an agent of "evil" and that the Sacking of Coruscant enabled other Sith to commit future atrocities and war crimes.

Again, every Soviet during World War II was evil because they were ultimately helping Stalin.

Red herring: the Christian Bible sells itself as an arbitrator of good and evil while the Sith Code laughs at the notion of such a concept. Catholics believe that their faith is (or should be) a force of good, while the Sith don't give a fuck whatsoever. Guess which group happens to be more psychopathic as a collective whole?

No they don't, we have explicit G-Canon from Sidious, the Sith believe themselves morally correct. Again, please desist with the attitude, it's unnecessary and overly belligerent. I have not started screaming profanities nor have I simply ignored your arguments, I've addressed every point you've raised and the hostile way in which you're discussing is not welcome.

I'm not trying to play mod, I'm simply trying to get you to understand that we can have a discussion and disagree without every reply beginning and ending with a blatant insult and a snide remark.

[Bellosh101]

Well, I never said that he isn't in part responsible for the actions of his Empire, but then the same is true of me as an voting American with respect to Iraq. Am I evil?

Another red herring: American voters didn't endorse the Iraq War in 2004 because they made a collective decision to fuck all universial principles of morality. Darth Malgus on the other hand not only loyally works for an organization that preaches amorality as a virtue, but also dabbles with abilities that have the known side affect of developing more amoral personalities.

He need not give up his personal Sith derived philosophy.

Yet you haven't explained how any personal Sith derived philosophy can be considered Sith if it lacks the evil, nihilistic, or selfish principles that the Sith Code endorses.

For example, the first line is more likely referring to (the pursuit of) inner peace a la Bhuddism; this would be supported by the fact that the Jedi should seek peace with one's self and control one's emotions.

Did you forget when Yoda said that the Force should be used for knowledge and defense, and never to attack? Every Sith that we have seen so far in one way or another endoses violence as a method of first resort (or otherwise views peace as a method of last resort). If that first line was all about inner peace like you say, then what's stopping Sith believers from merely endorsing techniques like Vaapad specifically designed to let Force-users exploit their emotions in battle without becoming corrupted by the Dark Side?

Oh wait; because the Sith are psychopathic fucktards who want to fuck up the entire galaxy for their selfish needs.

[Formless]

Well, I never said that he isn't in part responsible for the actions of his Empire, but then the same is true of me as an voting American with respect to Iraq. Am I evil?

Another red herring: American voters didn't endorse the Iraq War in 2004 because they made a collective decision to fuck all universial principles of morality. Darth Malgus on the other hand not only loyally works for an organization that preaches amorality as a virtue, but also dabbles with abilities that have the known side affect of developing more amoral personalities.

It only preaches amorality as a virtue in your interpretation of the Sith Code. In any case the question still stands: is complicity with an evil organization all it takes to be yourself labeled as "evil?"

He need not give up his personal Sith derived philosophy.

Yet you haven't explained how any personal Sith derived philosophy can be considered Sith if it lacks the evil, nihilistic, or selfish principles that the Sith Code endorses.

What? We've given multiple alternative interpretations of the Sith's stated beliefs, and you ask a question like this? Have you been paying any attention at all? Or are we supposed to accept your circular logic that the Sith must be evil because that is what a Sith is without question?

For example, the first line is more likely referring to (the pursuit of) inner peace a la Bhuddism; this would be supported by the fact that the Jedi should seek peace with one's self and control one's emotions.

Did you forget when Yoda said that the Force should be used for knowledge and defense, and never to attack?

What did I say about appealing to the authority of the Jedi when it comes to the morality/nature of the force? Do you not know what the words "appeal to authority" mean?

Every Sith that we have seen so far in one way or another endoses violence as a method of first resort (or otherwise views peace as a method of last resort). If that first line was all about inner peace like you say, then what's stopping Sith believers from merely endorsing techniques like Vaapad specifically designed to let Force-users exploit their emotions in battle without becoming corrupted by the Dark Side?

Precisely nothing is stopping them from endorsing such techniques. But the point is, both interpretations are valid.

Oh wait; because the Sith are psychopathic fucktards who want to fuck up the entire galaxy for their selfish needs.

Give me proof that this need always be the case and that yours is the only valid interpretation of the Sith code.

[Bellosh101]

Where does it say the peace is external peace rather than internal?

If it was all about internal peace, the Sith would have settled for learning Vaapad or something similar since any sane Force-user would be willing to use their passion in battle if they didn't turn into a psychopath in the process. The fact that someone identifies as a Sith can only mean that they have psychopathic tendencies.

The Sith believes it's up to the individual to better themselves.

The Jedi pretty much say that same shit too.

It can also be rationalized as gaining personal strength means power over oneself.

Nothing more than a fancy rewording of Jedi doctrine, which means that can't be a fundamental Sith principle.

I can rationalize that as saying if I gain power over myself and I can achieve greater things.

Yet another rephrasing of Jedi doctrine. All your alternate interpretations are bullshit because those are all things the Jedi also teach.

It simply says that by achieving 'victory' then you free yourself, it could be self doubt or whatever.

The Jedi also frown on fear.... none of your interpretations do a good job of demostrating why the Sith are collectively psychopaths while the Jedi are not.

This is a theme you're not getting, you can rationalize it to mean whatever you want.

Muslim scholars say similar tripe about how the concept of jihad refers to a internal struggle to remain faithful, but it doesn't stop terrorists like Osama bin Laden from claiming it to be a violent concept. Likewise, your dimwitted claims that the Sith Code essentially mirrors ring hallow when the Sith Order seems to be filled with either psychopaths or those who don't mind psychopaths.

I'm willing to concede if you can show me that there is no other interpretation of the Sith Code except the one, which you're failing to do.

Your intrepretation doesn't explain why the Sith Order is teeming with psychopaths, nihilists, and other selfish pricks; mine does.

Again, every Soviet during World War II was evil because they were ultimately helping Stalin.

Are you a moron? Stalin was unquestionably ruthless, but even he didn't take glee in the thought that there is no such thing as universial morality standards like the Sith Order does. Not to mention that Stalin didn't have the ability to develop his sorcery abilities through acts of evil like the Sith can.

No they don't, we have explicit G-Canon from Sidious, the Sith believe themselves morally correct.

Which disproves the notion that Sith "morality" is an excuse for psychopathy...... how exactly?

[Bellosh101]

In any case the question still stands: is complicity with an evil organization all it takes to be yourself labeled as "evil?"

In the context of an universe populated with lasersword and magic-wielding mages; yes. If Darth Malgus stands by while his fellow Sith exploit and kill people at will, then that means he endorses such actions and can be labeled "evil". Meanwhile, I have yet to hear any logical argument as to how doing the exact same can label a person as "good"..... especially if that person has the ability to wield magic or otherwise defect to the other side.

We've given multiple alternative interpretations of the Sith's stated beliefs

No you haven't, because they make the Sith seem like a clone of the Jedi Order on paper even though the Sith Order in reality gets all the Force-sensitive psychopaths, nihilists, and other selfish pricks the galaxy has to offer.

What did I say about appealing to the authority of the Jedi when it comes to the morality/nature of the force?

You mean the same Jedi Order that other than for one bad apple who wasn't indoctrinated from birth, they pretty much kept their internal shit together while the Sith Order time and time again is subjected to violent internal divisions (which not even the Rule of Two can prevent). Well geez; who's advice should I trust more? The organization that has its shit together or the organization filled with back-stabbing, homicidal psychopaths and other fucktards?

I honestly can't choose!!!!!!!

But the point is, both interpretations are valid.

Your interpretation is shit because it doesn't account for the psychopathy seen in the Sith Order.

Give me proof that this need always be the case and that yours is the only valid interpretation of the Sith code.

Give me proof that your lameass "Sith=Jedi clone" interpretation is remotely plausible at all...... or explains something for that matter. If you can't explain why the Sith are filled with amoral twerps while the Jedi are not, than your interpretations are worthless.

[Ritterin Sophia]

If it was all about internal peace, the Sith would have settled for learning Vaapad or something similar since any sane Force-user would be willing to use their passion in battle if they didn't turn into a psychopath in the process. The fact that someone identifies as a Sith can only mean that they have psychopathic tendencies.

Again, just because most Sith don't do so, doesn't mean they're incapable of an alternative outlook.

The Jedi pretty much same the same that same shit too.

So why aren't you attacking the Jedi for not caring about bettering others?

Nothing more than a fancy rewording of Jedi doctrine, which means that can't be a fundamental Sith principle.

Why? are you unaware that the Sith originate in a schism of the Jedi Order? Would it not make sense that parts of their codes would vaguely mesh?

Yet another rephrasing of Jedi doctrine. All your alternate interpretations are bullshit because those are all things the Jedi also teach.

Sith are the culmination of the Sith Species with Jedi exiled after the First Jedi Schism, they both draw their ideals from the same area.

The Jedi also frown on fear.... none of your interpretations do a good job of demostrating why the Sith are collectively psychopaths while the Jedi are not.

What? I'm not trying to explain why the Sith are evil, I'm trying to demonstrate that classical tragic heroes are perfectly valid characters within the framework of the Sith Code.

Muslim scholars say similar tripe about how the concept of jihad refers to a internal struggle to remain faithful, but it doesn't stop terrorists like Osama bin Laden from claiming it to be a violent concept. Likewise, your dimwitted claims that the Sith Code essentially mirrors ring hallow when the Sith Order seems to be filled with either psychopaths or those who don't mind psychopaths.

Because according to some interpretations of the Khoran it does mean an internal struggle. You're trying to argue that there is only one interpretation to the Khoran which is the definition of a No True Scotsman.

Your intrepretation doesn't explain why the Sith Order is teeming with psychopaths, nihilists, and other selfish pricks; mine does.

Yes it does, all groups have assholes, the Sith Code simply attracts more than most.

Are you a moron? Stalin was unquestionably ruthless, but even he didn't take glee in the thought that there is no such thing as universial morality standards like the Sith Order does. Not to mention that Stalin didn't have the ability to develop his sorcery abilities through acts of evil like the Sith can.

Again? What did I do to you? Why is it we're discussing an imaginary organization and you think it necessary to insult my intelligence when I've been unnecessarily polite? I don't think you're a moron simply because you disagree with me, why must you do the same?

To address your point, the only evidence we have in this area is that the Sith believe in their own universal morality system. Again, there's nothing in the Sith Code that says a Sith must derive their power from the Dark Side.

Which disproves the notion that Sith "morality" is an excuse for psychopathy...... how exactly?

It doesn't, because I'm not defending all Sith. I'm defending the notion that it is ultimately up to each individual Sith, indeed every single sapient being real or imagine, to define their own morality system and that their course of action is ultimately their responsibilty.

Again, why the hostility?

[Formless]

In any case the question still stands: is complicity with an evil organization all it takes to be yourself labeled as "evil?"

In the context of an universe populated with lasersword and magic-wielding mages; yes. If Darth Malgus stands by while his fellow Sith exploit and kill people at will, then that means he endorses such actions and can be labeled "evil". Meanwhile, I have yet to hear any logical argument as to how doing the exact same can label a person as "good"..... especially if that person has the ability to wield magic or otherwise defect to the other side.

Fair enough.

We've given multiple alternative interpretations of the Sith's stated beliefs

No you haven't, because they make the Sith seem like a clone of the Jedi Order on paper even though the Sith Order in reality gets all the Force-sensitive psychopaths, nihilists, and other selfish pricks the galaxy has to offer.

So there is no such thing as a Dark Jedi? Excuse me, but the Sith do NOT have a monopoly on sociopaths in Star Wars. The Jedi just make a habit of kicking people out of the order who use the Dark Side. This also does not disqualify a Sith from potentially being better than his peers... the point you are trying to argue.

What did I say about appealing to the authority of the Jedi when it comes to the morality/nature of the force?

You mean the same Jedi Order that other than for one bad apple who wasn't indoctrinated from birth, they pretty much kept their internal shit together while the Sith Order time and time again is subjected to violent internal divisions (which not even the Rule of Two can prevent). Well geez; who's advice should I trust more? The organization that has its shit together or the organization filled with back-stabbing, homicidal psychopaths and other fucktards?

I honestly can't choose!!!!!!!

What part of the words "appeal to authority" do you not understand, you raving moron? Do you even know what a logic fallacy is? Unless you think Yoda, a guy who outright lied to one of his students about the status of his birth and is known for giving his students bad advice (again, see RotS), is infallible you have proven nothing.

But the point is, both interpretations are valid.

Your interpretation is shit because it doesn't account for the psychopathy seen in the Sith Order.

Give me proof that this need always be the case and that yours is the only valid interpretation of the Sith code.

Give me proof that your lameass "Sith=Jedi clone" interpretation is remotely plausible at all...... or explains something for that matter. If you can't explain why the Sith are filled with amoral twerps while the Jedi are not, than your interpretations are worthless.

Strawman. Nowhere did I say that there weren't evil interpretations of the code or that the Sith we've seen don't act on interpretations such as those. I'm saying that not all Sith have to take those interpretations. Its not hard to account for the behavior of the Sith we've seen, but that STILL does not prove that all Sith must be evil douchbags.

Also, the see Schattan's point about the origin story of the Sith, and my point about how the two codes mirror each other. Coincidence? I think not.

[Bellosh101]

Again, just because most Sith don't do so, doesn't mean they're incapable of an alternative outlook.

We'll just have to wait and see until more TOR material shows up to see if your assertions have any sort of meat to them. For the time being, the rest of the SW franchise doesn't seem to agree with you.

So why aren't you attacking the Jedi for not caring about bettering others?

How is freeing slaves and killing psychopathic Force-users not bettering others?

Would it not make sense that parts of their codes would vaguely mesh?

It would only be logical for the Sith to emphasize their differences from the Jedi, ie. the reasons why the two orders split in the first place.

Sith are the culmination of the Sith Species with Jedi exiled after the First Jedi Schism, they both draw their ideals from the same area.

So why then is the Sith Order filled with assholes? That can't be explained just by stating that the Sith also believe in what amount to nothing more than the same general principles of using the Force efficiently (ie. using the Force for Dummies) that would be useful for the Jedi too.

Again, there's nothing in the Sith Code that says a Sith must derive their power from the Dark Side.

Regardless, we've never seen a self-identifying Sith that frowned upon using the Dark Side. Besides, it would be rare for a subject of a Sith empire to think that use of the Dark Side is anything but normal thanks to indoctrination.

I'm defending the notion that it is ultimately up to each individual Sith, indeed every single sapient being real or imagine, to define their own morality system and that their course of action is ultimately their responsibilty.

Which ultimately is a piss-poor system of morality since all the Sith's psychopaths can use this excuse to pillage and burn star systems at will. Any Sith who wishes to be judged as a "good" being by a universial morality standard will sooner or later have to renounce the teachings of the Sith.

[Formless]

Bellosh, tell me: how do you account for the existence of religious moderates in the real world when the moral codes of most religions have proven in the past to attract sociopaths, and advocate things that can fairly reasonably be called bad? It sounds like according to you they should not exist, but I know they do because I have to interact with them all the time.

[Havok]

Wait... fucking what? Again, examples and citations for this claim.

Oh, come on Hav, you know Star Wars Canon as well as I do. The game would be C-canon, that means that that anything that happens in it would be considered canon UNLESS it is contradicted by the facts of another C-canon source. "All Sith must be evil" is NOT an established fact anywhere in the rest of canon, in part because it only takes one example to refute... which is what we're arguing about.

So again, you support your claim that the Sith must be evil according to canon.

Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace -Darth Sidous, Darth Maul
Star Wars: Episode II Attack Of The Clones -Darth Sidous, Darth Tyranus
Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge Of The Sith -Darth Sidious, Darth Tyanus, Darth Vader
Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope -Darth Vader
Star Wars: Episode V The Empire Strikes Back -Darth Vader, Darth Sidious
Star Wars: Episode VI Return Of The Jedi -Darth Vader, Darth Sidious
Star Wars: Clone Wars -Darth Sidious, Darth Tyranus
Star Wars: The Clone Wars -Darth Sidious, Darth Tyranus

G-Canon is what establishes the rules for Star Wars. Every G-Canon example of the Sith is that of an evil Sith. There is no gray area. There is no, 'oh well, he is kinda a good Sith' The only time this comes close to being a possibility is when Vader turns back to the 'good side', but at that point, he is no more a Sith than he was a Jedi right after he helped Palpatine kill Mace.

Add to that the assertion by Yoda that "anger, fear, aggression, the Dark Side of the Force are these" are all things we know to be associated directly with evil and Palpatine's conformation of that through his various encouragements to Luke and Anakin, "use your aggressive feelings boy", "your hate has made you powerful", "give into your anger" etc. and you know that the Sith use the Dark Side facets of the Force to power and channel their abilities.
We know that the Sith seek to control the galaxy at any and all cost, are willing to kill TRILLIONS of people to accomplish their goals (the organization and orchestration of the Clone Wars) and condone and even encourage the destruction of entire planets and civilizations just to set an example.

We also know that they have held true to their tenets for over a thousand years. We also know that before that the galaxy suffered under the oppression of the Sith.

Now Karen, unless you are going to argue that George Lucas is not the authority on his own creation and that some hack writer knows better than he does about the Sith, you will admit that the highest canon explicitly shows that the Sith are evil and all other sources fuck up completely when they do not adhere to this fact.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa fucking whoa.
Please cite the examples and sources of the Jedi "oppressing the fuck out of the Sith".

Oh, please, I gave up that argument ages ago. Fine, if you want I hereby formally retract it.

Concession accepted .

[Formless]

G-Canon is what establishes the rules for Star Wars. Every G-Canon example of the Sith is that of an evil Sith.

Goddamnit, Hav, how many times do I have to tell you that this does not prove a non-evil Sith is impossible? How many times do I have to tell you that there is no such thing as precedence in Star Wars Canon?

Now Karen, unless you are going to argue that George Lucas is not the authority on his own creation and that some hack writer knows better than he does about the Sith, you will admit that the highest canon explicitly shows that the Sith are evil and all other sources fuck up completely when they do not adhere to this fact.

Goddamnit, Hav, none of this proves that a non-evil Sith is impossible UNLESS you define a Sith as "all evil Force users" or deny the way the canon system actually works in preference of your own anti-EU bias. Further, KOTOR has nothing to do with this, so kindly shove it up your ass.

[Ritterin Sophia]

We'll just have to wait and see until more TOR material shows up to see if your assertions have any sort of meat to them. For the time being, the rest of the SW franchise doesn't seem to agree with you.

That's goal post moving. The argument was 'can there be an alternative interpretation of the Sith Code' and not 'are alternative interpretations shown. You're essentially saying what I've been arguing this entire time.

How is freeing slaves and killing psychopathic Force-users not bettering others?

In the Power of the Jedi Sourcebook there is an anecdote of a Jedi Master and a Padawan, the Padawan asks why they do not free the slaves. The Master replies that in this part of the Galaxy it is considered moral to hold slaves and it is not the right of the Jedi to judge others in areas where they do not hold jurisdiction.

It would only be logical for the Sith to emphasize their differences from the Jedi, ie. the reasons why the two orders split in the first place.

They do, the Jedi promote that it is better to be at peace, the Sith say that you are best served by following your emotions. One lends itself to those with anger management issues better than the other.

So why then is the Sith Order filled with assholes? That can't be explained just by stating that the Sith also believe in what amount to nothing more than the same general principles of using the Force efficiently (ie. using the Force for Dummies) that would be useful for the Jedi too.

Again you're saying the Sith absolutely must use the Dark Side to be a Sith, there's no such thing in the Code. As for why there's so many assholes, I would suppose it's because one lends itself better to those with anger management issues.

Regardless, we've never seen a self-identifying Sith that frowned upon using the Dark Side. Besides, it would be rare for a subject of a Sith empire to think that use of the Dark Side is anything but normal thanks to indoctrination.

The argument was never whether they exist, but rather does it conflict with canon for some to exist.

Which ultimately is a piss-poor system of morality since all the Sith's psychopaths can use this excuse to pillage and burn star systems at will. Any Sith who wishes to be judged as a "good" being by a universial morality standard will sooner or later have to renounce the teachings of the Sith.

Why? The only thing I've asked you throughout this discussion was for one thing that says a Sith has to be evil. Your argument is that Sith can not be good because we never see a good Sith and so therefore Sith have to be evil. It's circular logic.

[Bellosh101]

This also does not disqualify a Sith from potentially being better than his peers... the point you are trying to argue.

As I told Schatten earlier, we'll just have to wait and see until TOR comes out to see if such potential actually exists.

Do you even know what a logic fallacy is? Unless you think Yoda, a guy who outright lied to one of his students about the status of his birth and is known for giving his students bad advice (again, see RotS), is infallible you have proven nothing.

How quaint; you dare lecture me about logical fallacies only to strawman Yoda in the next fucking sentence. Meanwhile, you failed to justify the weak analogy that a Jedi giving inflexiable advice and white lies is just as bad as a Sith committing murder and genocide. Next time, don't come up with poorly though-out Golden Mean bullshit.

Also, the see Schattan's point about the origin story of the Sith, and my point about how the two codes mirror each other. Coincidence? I think not.

Who's to say that the Sith didn't decide to simply parody the Jedi Code for their own purposes?

[Havok]

Or could a Sith not want to forsake the Dark Side, but fear his horrific murder at the hands of his former comrades, and as such, stay within the organisation and try to dirty his hands as little as possible?

Sure a Sith could forsake the Dark Side, but then he wouldn't be a Sith anymore. Get it? Anakin is the prime example of this... Forsake the Light become Darth Vader, forsake the Dark become Anakin Skywalker. You don't get it both ways. It is a black and white thing.