Role of the Sith (from The Old Republic)

[Formless]

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.

EXACTLY! Finally you get it.

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.

Please explain how I've strawmanned Yoda. His reiteration of the Jedi doctrine that you should form no attachments and to move on was completely unhelpful for someone in Anakin's situation, and was a major contributing factor to Anakin's fall to the Dark Side and sociopathy. Meanwhile, please explain why the sins of the Sith magically make the Jedi infallible, especially in light of the existence of OTHER philosophies of the Force, such as the Aing-Tii monks? do you know how canon works, child?

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?

Who cares?

[Havok]

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.

All evil Force users I have SEEN are Sith.
Being a Sith means you embrace EVIL, acts of evil, the use of evil, you love evil, you have a passion for being evil, you murder little kids, turn on your friends and blow up planets, you only care about yourself and how the galaxy effects you and you take what you want by force and kill anyone and anything that gets in your way.

I mean LISTEN TO YOURSELF Karen.... A NON-EVIL SITH.

[Formless]

Being a Sith means you embrace EVIL, acts of evil, the use of evil, you love evil, you have a passion for being evil, you murder little kids, turn on your friends and blow up planets, you only care about yourself and how the galaxy effects you and you take what you want by force and kill anyone and anything that gets in your way.

Citation needed.

I mean LISTEN TO YOURSELF Karen.... A NON-EVIL SITH.

Appeal to incredulity.

[Bellosh101]

That's goal post moving. The argument was 'can there be an alternative interpretation of the Sith Code' and not 'are alternative interpretations shown.

I'm not moving goal posts; I'm merely challenging you lot to come up with alternative interpretations of the Sith Code that explain why the Sith are different from the Jedi.

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.

That's more of a issue for the Galactic Republic rather than the Jedi Order.

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.

Again, what's stopping the pro-emotion crowd from simply learning something like Vaapad instead of embracing an ideology that embraces psychopathy?

Again you're saying the Sith absolutely must use the Dark Side to be a Sith, there's no such thing in the Code.

According to Darth Sidious himself, one of the fundamental principles of the Sith is that Jedi teachings are too narrow and dogmatic. Seeing that the prime restriction on using the Force by Jedi is that they can't use the Dark Side, this means that according to G-canon, use of the Dark Side is a prerequisite of being a Sith. It's as simple as that.

[Havok]

And as for your point about Yoda... which I can't find... You are 100% wrong. Yoda gave Anakin the exact correct advice. What happens if Anakin does what Yoda says? He stops fearing for Padme's life. Then when Palpatine makes his play for Anakin, he doesn't succumb to that fear which then allows him to stay on the path of the Jedi and not massacre the future of the Order and he turns Palpatine in which may subvert Order 66, or at least give the Jedi a fighting chance at surviving it.

Yoda's fault was that he couldn't see that Anakin had already started down the Dark path that would ultimately lead to the Jedi's destruction. He also certainly did not know how far down the path he had gone, but his advice was sound.

[Bellosh101]

Meanwhile, please explain why the sins of the Sith magically make the Jedi infallible, especially in light of the existence of OTHER philosophies of the Force, such as the Aing-Tii monks?

I'm reminded of the saying about how democracy sucks ass.... but not as much as every other form of government currently out there. What's at debate is not how infallible the Jedi are, but rather how incredibly destructive and dangerous the Sith ideology is. As for those other Force philosophies, there's not enough infomation out there to suggest that one of those happens to be more beneficial to the galaxy than even that of the Jedi.

[Darth Fanboy]

Hey, I'm just going by what it says on the wookiepedia page. Which also says that its older than Bane. So go fuck yourself, asshole.

So you admit you are copying and pasting from Wookiepedia to make your argument? Calling me an asshole doesn't change the point I made. You are trying to convince people that Sith don't have to be evil based on your own interpretation of the Sith Code where you are obviously trying to find a different meaning underneath the one that is pretty obvious.

FURTHERFUCKINMORE, I would ask if you have read the Darth Bane trilogy, especially the first book where Bane delves into ancient Sith teachings where it is pretty explicity mentioned that coveting more power is key to a Sith's dark side development. It is very clear that craving power, being selfish, giving in to one's base desires, are KEY to being a Sith.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I'm not moving goal posts; I'm merely challenging you lot to come up with alternative interpretations of the Sith Code that explain why the Sith are different from the Jedi.

I already told you, one lends itself to assholes with anger management issues better than the other. It's hard to have irrational fits of emotion if one of your major tenets it's to maintain balance and to never ride them.

That's more of a issue for the Galactic Republic rather than the Jedi Order.

Wasn't the argument that the Sith don't prescribe to a universal moral code one of your arguments? Why did you consider it such a great argument then when we have evidence that Jedi believe their code is not for everyone?

Again, what's stopping the pro-emotion crowd from simply learning something like Vaapad instead of embracing an ideology that embraces psychopathy?

Absolutely nothing, that's the whole point. The entire time we've been arguing I've been a proponent that the Code is loose enough that you can ride emotions without turning to the Darkside, Mace walks that balance every day.

According to Darth Sidious himself, one of the fundamental principles of the Sith is that Jedi teachings are too narrow and dogmatic. Seeing that the prime restriction on using the Force by Jedi is that they can't use the Dark Side, this means that according to G-canon, use of the Dark Side is a prerequisite of being a Sith. It's as simple as that.

Where does he say this? I just watched RotS on Spike not but a couple hours ago and nowhere does he say to be a Sith you must use the Dark Side. What he does say is to be a good leader one must study the Force in all it's incarnations and by joining the Sith he has the freedom to do so, which is a statement of personal belief and not fact.

FURTHERFUCKINMORE, I would ask if you have read the Darth Bane trilogy, especially the first book where Bane delves into ancient Sith teachings where it is pretty explicity mentioned that coveting more power is key to a Sith's dark side development. It is very clear that craving power, being selfish, giving in to one's base desires, are KEY to being a Sith.

Do you have a quote where it describes how old? There's more than two millenium between the Galactic Cold War and the Republic Dark Age of which Bane features so prominently.

[Darth Fanboy]

Please explain how I've strawmanned Yoda. His reiteration of the Jedi doctrine that you should form no attachments and to move on was completely unhelpful for someone in Anakin's situation, and was a major contributing factor to Anakin's fall to the Dark Side and sociopathy. Meanwhile, please explain why the sins of the Sith magically make the Jedi infallible, especially in light of the existence of OTHER philosophies of the Force, such as the Aing-Tii monks? do you know how canon works, child?

You do realize that if Anakin had followed Yoda's advice and not obsessed over Padme's death it might have helped? Yoda had no fucking clue Anakin was married to Padme, and that he was dreaming of her death. For all he knew he was worried about Obi Wan or another Jedi who routinely put their life on the line and Yoda gave Anakin the advice he would have given to anyone with comrades like that.

We KNOW Yoda's advice wasn't terribly helpful because we are omniscient third party observers.

The Jedi Order is not infalliable by any stretch of the imagination, but that in itself is not evidence that one can follow Sith teachings and be "good".

[Samuel]

Why don't they just have dark side users who aren't Sith? It isn't like there aren't examples and you'd think the galaxy would get used to the Sith popping up every couple of thousand years.

[Formless]

And as for your point about Yoda... which I can't find... You are 100% wrong. Yoda gave Anakin the exact correct advice. What happens if Anakin does what Yoda says? He stops fearing for Padme's life. Then when Palpatine makes his play for Anakin, he doesn't succumb to that fear which then allows him to stay on the path of the Jedi and not massacre the future of the Order and he turns Palpatine in which may subvert Order 66, or at least give the Jedi a fighting chance at surviving it.

Yoda's fault was that he couldn't see that Anakin had already started down the Dark path that would ultimately lead to the Jedi's destruction. He also certainly did not know how far down the path he had gone, but his advice was sound.

Uh, yeah, my point was that it was useless advice for someone in Anakin's situation, and that it was an example of how Yoda isn't always right. That's already taking into account that Anakin has been walking the dark path since the previous movie, and is emotionally vulnerable. In that context, it did not help Anakin one bit.

Frankly, one of the whole points of the prequels was to show some of the Jedi's flaws. Its quite easy to see how an order as stagnant and dogmatic as they were could be wrong about a few things.

I'm reminded of the saying about how democracy sucks ass.... but not as much as every other form of government currently out there. What's at debate is not how infallible the Jedi are, but rather how incredibly destructive and dangerous the Sith ideology is.

Yes, and unfortunately for you Yoda's words don't prove that it is. Or that alternative interpretations of the Sith ideology are impossible. I refer you to my earlier question: how are religious moderates possible in the real world if there is always only one valid interpretation of any given ideology?

FURTHERFUCKINMORE, I would ask if you have read the Darth Bane trilogy, especially the first book where Bane delves into ancient Sith teachings where it is pretty explicity mentioned that coveting more power is key to a Sith's dark side development. It is very clear that craving power, being selfish, giving in to one's base desires, are KEY to being a Sith.

And? Darth Bane does not necessarily represent all Sith, and clearly the Sith predate Darth Bane.

We KNOW Yoda's advice wasn't terribly helpful because we are omniscient third party observers.

The Jedi Order is not infalliable by any stretch of the imagination, but that in itself is not evidence that one can follow Sith teachings and be "good".

Where did I say that the Sith's teachings ARE good? All I've said is that its entirely possible to see how a Sith could potentially rationalize good behavior in the same way religious moderates do all the time.

[Darth Fanboy]

And for good fucking measure let us throw in some ancient Sith teachings from Darth Bane: Path of Destruction. These all come from the holocron of Darth Revan, a Sith Lord from a time not too distant from TOR.

P. 239 -

"By it's very nature the dark side invites rivalry and strife. This is the greatest strength of the Sith: it culls the weak from our order."

"The power of the dark side cannot be dispersed among the masses. It must be concentrated in the few who are worthy of the honor."

P. 240 -

"The Sith must be ruled by a single leader: the very embodiment of the strength and power of the dark side."

Hey notice that last quote? It's almost as if an ancient Sith Holocron said that the leader of the Sith Order should be the embodiment of the DARK SIDE OF THE FORCE.

But hey doesn't mean he can't be a nice guy right? Look, Darth Mister Nice Guy might not be a murdering psychopath or the kind of posessive greedy fucker that would make Larfleeze blush, but who knows what scheme it could all be a part of? How much did Anakin/Darth Vader love his wife before choking her out on Mustafar? The Dark Side is a bitch, and it's a very very tangible bitch with very very real consequences in the SW universe.

[Bellosh101]

Why did you consider it such a great argument then when we have evidence that Jedi believe their code is not for everyone?

So you forgot the part about those areas not being their (ie. the Republic's) jurisdiction? This is the same thing as the U.S. preaching about how everyone in the world should have freedom and liberty while lacking a realistic way to force freedom and liberty on every single third world shithole.

The entire time we've been arguing I've been a proponent that the Code is loose enough that you can ride emotions without turning to the Darkside

Darth Sidious doesn't seem to agree with you.

I just watched RotS on Spike not but a couple hours ago and nowhere does he say to be a Sith you must use the Dark Side.

Don't play dumb with me; every Sith we've ever seen in the SW franchise has made use of the Dark Side. It makes absolutely no sense that the Sith ideology somehow doesn't actually mandate the use of the Dark Side in order to be considered a Sith based on all the evidence (like Darth Fanboy's post above this one). Your revisionist argument can't really be argued for at all unless the franchise decides to issue yet another stupid-ass retcon concerning the true nature of the Sith.

[Darth Fanboy]

Uh, yeah, my point was that it was useless advice for someone in Anakin's situation, and that it was an example of how Yoda isn't always right.

Did Yoda KNOW Anakin's situation? It's reasonable to believe Yoda thought Anakin was worried about something else like a fellow Jedi like Obi Wan ir Nejaa Halcyon getting killed by Separatists. Looking at the situation and taking into consideration Yoda was clueless with regards to Anakin's marriage, it was pretty sound advice.

That's already taking into account that Anakin has been walking the dark path since the previous movie, and is emotionally vulnerable. In that context, it did not help Anakin one bit.

Frankly, one of the whole points of the prequels was to show some of the Jedi's flaws. Its quite easy to see how an order as stagnant and dogmatic as they were could be wrong about a few things.

And yet for all of those faults the Jedi were still trying to, well, save lives and protect innocent people to the best of their ability. Those bastards deserved to be purged.

And? Darth Bane does not necessarily represent all Sith, and clearly the Sith predate Darth Bane.

See previous post(s). Bane got a very large portion of his knowledge from ancient Sith, including Darth Revan.

Where did I say that the Sith's teachings ARE good? All I've said is that its entirely possible to see how a Sith could potentially rationalize good behavior in the same way religious moderates do all the time.

Because rationalizing that good behaviors goes against what Sith are taught! Unless that good behavior furthers the Sith's own hidden agenda that further's his own goals.

[Formless]

How does that prove that there can never be a Sith who disagreed with his fellow Sith on what constitutes good behavior? Why do you discount the possibility that there could be schisms among the Sith? I don't disagree that Darth Bane's ideals are crap, but how does that actually address the arguments we've made in this thread? Especially when we consider that Bane was not the founder of the order, and its quite possible that the beliefs of the Sith have changed throughout time, while dissenting opinions have gotten less common over time due to the "rule of two"?

[Darth Fanboy]

Do you have a quote where it describes how old? There's more than two millenium between the Galactic Cold War and the Republic Dark Age of which Bane features so prominently.

One of the major parts of Bane's Sith Education was a holocron from Darth Revan, which would have been made prior to the events in KOTOR. Bane also learns from teachings and texts that aren't all specifically dated, but referred to as "ancient." One is a text authored by Darth Revan (page 138 of Path of Destruction.)

A revelation made by Darth Bane after spending time researching these archives:

Kaan's acting like one of the Jedi. Worrying about the greater good*. seeking to bring harmony and cooperation to our order. The dark side withers and dies under those conditions!

*-Note that the "greater good" in this case was uniting the Sith into a Brotherhood of Darkness to attempt galactic conquest by military force.

[Ritterin Sophia]

And for good fucking measure let us throw in some ancient Sith teachings from Darth Bane: Path of Destruction. These all come from the holocron of Darth Revan, a Sith Lord from a time not too distant from TOR.

P. 239 -

"By it's very nature the dark side invites rivalry and strife. This is the greatest strength of the Sith: it culls the weak from our order."

"The power of the dark side cannot be dispersed among the masses. It must be concentrated in the few who are worthy of the honor."

P. 240 -

"The Sith must be ruled by a single leader: the very embodiment of the strength and power of the dark side."

Hey notice that last quote? It's almost as if an ancient Sith Holocron said that the leader of the Sith Order should be the embodiment of the DARK SIDE OF THE FORCE.

All of that is the opinion of one Sith Lord, this is like saying because the Baptists don't follow the Pope they aren't real Christians.

But hey doesn't mean he can't be a nice guy right? Look, Darth Mister Nice Guy might not be a murdering psychopath or the kind of posessive greedy fucker that would make Larfleeze blush, but who knows what scheme it could all be a part of? How much did Anakin/Darth Vader love his wife before choking her out on Mustafar? The Dark Side is a bitch, and it's a very very tangible bitch with very very real consequences in the SW universe.

Again, where in the Sith Code can I find it saying a Sith must use the Dark Side?

So you forgot the part about those areas not being their (ie. the Republic's) jurisdiction? This is the same thing as the U.S. preaching about how everyone in the world should have freedom and liberty while lacking a realistic way to force freedom and liberty on every single third world shithole.

So again, it's bad for the Sith to believe others need to better themselves, but not the Jedi?

Darth Sidious doesn't seem to agree with you.

Again, Sidious doesn't define what is a Sith except through force of arms, which is admittedly not a lot but is still little more than a 'No True Scotsman'.

Don't play dumb with me; every Sith we've ever seen in the SW franchise has made use of the Dark Side. It makes absolutely no sense that the Sith ideology somehow doesn't actually mandate the use of the Dark Side in order to be considered a Sith based on all the evidence (like Darth Fanboy's post above this one). Your revisionist argument can't really be argued for at all unless the franchise decides to issue yet another stupid-ass retcon concerning the true nature of the Sith.

I'm not playing dumbe, you've yet to show that there's something intrinsic in the Sith Code that requires one to use the Dark Side and you're using circular logic: There can't be good Sith because all we see are evil Sith so their can't be good Sith because we only see evil Sith so there can't be good Sith, ad nauseum.

One of the major parts of Bane's Sith Education was a holocron from Darth Revan, which would have been made prior to the events in KOTOR. Bane also learns from teachings and texts that aren't all specifically dated, but referred to as "ancient." One is a text authored by Darth Revan (page 138 of Path of Destruction.)

A revelation made by Darth Bane after spending time researching these archives:

Kaan's acting like one of the Jedi. Worrying about the greater good*. seeking to bring harmony and cooperation to our order. The dark side withers and dies under those conditions!

*-Note that the "greater good" in this case was uniting the Sith into a Brotherhood of Darkness to attempt galactic conquest by military force.

Except as far as I can tell the only edict to being a Sith is following the code and not being killed by anyone who disagrees with your interpretation or claim, it's an inherently anarchic system. Due to that nature it's more prone to abuse, but nothing requiring someone to be evil.

[Formless]

Frankly, one of the whole points of the prequels was to show some of the Jedi's flaws. Its quite easy to see how an order as stagnant and dogmatic as they were could be wrong about a few things.

And yet for all of those faults the Jedi were still trying to, well, save lives and protect innocent people to the best of their ability. Those bastards deserved to be purged.

Once again, I have not once in this thread claimed that the Sith were morally superior. That's your strawman, and I would ask you to please extinguish the fire.

See previous post(s). Bane got a very large portion of his knowledge from ancient Sith, including Darth Revan.

Yeah, and we're talking about an order that has been wiped out and reconstructed several times by the time of Darth Bane. That means that every time the ideology has to be reconstructed, there is the possibility that previous knowledge was lost and the opinions and interpretations of the people reconstructing it like Bane can start to creep into it. Meanwhile, voices of dissent and conflicting opinions are lost. The only thing we know has stayed constant since the inception of the Sith during Exar Kun's time was the code of the Sith.

Where did I say that the Sith's teachings ARE good? All I've said is that its entirely possible to see how a Sith could potentially rationalize good behavior in the same way religious moderates do all the time.

Because rationalizing that good behaviors goes against what Sith are taught! Unless that good behavior furthers the Sith's own hidden agenda that further's his own goals.

This does not mean that we can't properly call such a character a Sith should the writers ever decide to write him, any less than it would be appropriate to call Anakin a Jedi despite his fall to the dark side and rejection of the Jedi's teachings.

[Darth Fanboy]

How does that prove that there can never be a Sith who disagreed with his fellow Sith on what constitutes good behavior?

Because BY DEFINITION Sith do not practice "good behavior." Sure you can be a force user who doesn't do things that a "good jedi" would do and still be considered a good guy, hell sometimes they might even call on the Dark Side. You what kind of Force User that is? A Quinlan Vos type of character. That's not a Sith.

Sith teachings involve craving and coveting power and influence, taking what they feel is rightfully theirs, imposing their will upon lesser beings, all of this by any means possible. Abandoning those selfish principles means that the Sith is no longer practicing Sith teachings, and therefore not Sith.

Why do you discount the possibility that there could be schisms among the Sith?

There have been schisms among the Sith already documented, but none of them were the result of a Sith wanting to be more benevolent or altrustic. The most notable one being the Schism between the splinter Sith order led by Lumiya and the "One Sith" order of Darth Krayt. Shit, the rift between Darth Bane and Kaan's Brotherhood of Darkness can be considered a schism.

Protestant churches came about via a schism with the Catholic Church, they are both still considered Christian. But say if those Churches had broken off because they no longer though Jesus Christ had any importance. That is beyond a schism, they would be adopting a completely different set of principles.

I don't disagree that Darth Bane's ideals are crap, but how does that actually address the arguments we've made in this thread? Especially when we consider that Bane was not the founder of the order, and its quite possible that the beliefs of the Sith have changed throughout time, while dissenting opinions have gotten less common over time due to the "rule of two"?

Because Bane's doctrine is based DIRECTLY on Sith Teachings from a prominent Sith Lord from a time period quite relevant to our discussion. The words of Darth Revan, prior to the events of KOTOR, carry a lot more weight than your convoluted interpretation of what the Code of the Sith COULD possibly mean.

[Bellosh101]

So again, it's bad for the Sith to believe others need to better themselves, but not the Jedi?

*sigh* I've already written about the slavery issue over at TFN so I'll repost the reasons why the Jedi can't act in non-Republic space with impunity:

Anywho, let's consider this hypothetical situation: Qui-Gon Jinn survives TPM, and being the maverick he is, he, Kenobi, and Skywalker go on a personal crusade to Tatooine and manage to free all the slaves. Sounds heroic yes, but caring for those emancipated slaves goes far beyond simply freeing them. Whoever frees them would have the moral obligation to find new homes for these ex-slaves. Unless the Republic spends enough money to ensure law and order can be upheld on a planet with no value to any Republic citizen, those slaves would have to be transported to a Republic member-world that will take them in to ensure they don't wind up being re-enslaved. After that, whoever takes the slaves in would have to spend time and money into ensuring their level of education is brought up to galactic standards. There's not too much room for error for this process; if a slave fails to be naturalized properly, he or she will end up somewhere at the bottom of society, a criminal, or otherwise a burden. Finally, freeing the slaves of one planet will produce a moral obligation on the Jedi's part to repeat the process everywhere else, but without the Republic's support, these unauthorized emancipation actions will ultimately go nowhere in the long run and become a source of embarressment for both the Republic and the Jedi Order.

Again, Sidious doesn't define what is a Sith except through force of arms, which is admittedly not a lot but is still little more than a 'No True Scotsman'.

Again, it's hard to declare a 'No True Scotsman' scenario when the Sith have always been portrayed as evil in the SW franchise. As far as the Sith are concerned, the empirical evidence suggests that individuals are simply incapable of rejecting the Dark Side while calling themselves Sith. The empirical evidence also shows that for all their rhetoric about being passionate and emo ( ), the Sith do not praise positive emotions such as love and hope as a means of achieving greater mastery of the Force. The only logical explanation for this apparent disconnect is that the Sith use terms like "passion" and "emotions" as codewords for the Dark Side, rather than geninuely believeing that all emotions, positive and negative, can be used to master the Force.

[Formless]

Because BY DEFINITION Sith do not practice "good behavior." Sure you can be a force user who doesn't do things that a "good jedi" would do and still be considered a good guy, hell sometimes they might even call on the Dark Side. You what kind of Force User that is? A Quinlan Vos type of character. That's not a Sith.

And this is not a "no True Scotsman" fallacy at all, no sir.

Because Bane's doctrine is based DIRECTLY on Sith Teachings from a prominent Sith Lord from a time period quite relevant to our discussion. The words of Darth Revan, prior to the events of KOTOR, carry a lot more weight than your convoluted interpretation of what the Code of the Sith COULD possibly mean.

Very well, his teachings likely accurately represented the Sith of his day. I will grant you that. However, that does not mean that previous Sith might not have behaved differently, and it does not discount that there may have been dissenters at any point in time.

[Darth Fanboy]

All of that is the opinion of one Sith Lord, this is like saying because the Baptists don't follow the Pope they aren't real Christians.

A Sith Lord who was the head of the Sith Order in a time period not far off from TOR. You analogy is flawed in this case, because Baptists and Catholics are two different orders. Meanwhile, the Pope could be considered the expert on Catholicism much in the way Revan could be considered the expert on the Sith Order.

Again, where in the Sith Code can I find it saying a Sith must use the Dark Side?

Most people aren't so fucking stupid they need that spelled out for them so explicity. We know the dark side is fueled by emotion, we know that the light side involves clarity and control over one's self. Yoda's teachings in ESB show how emotions and feelings can affect control of the Force.

The code of the Sith states "Peace is a lie, there is only passion" which goes a long way towards showing how strong emotions play a role in Sith teachings. If you can't connect the dots from there you are so blind you might as well turn in your driver's license.

So you forgot the part about those areas not being their (ie. the Republic's) jurisdiction? This is the same thing as the U.S. preaching about how everyone in the world should have freedom and liberty while lacking a realistic way to force freedom and liberty on every single third world shithole.

So again, it's bad for the Sith to believe others need to better themselves, but not the Jedi?

requires one to use the Dark Side and you're using circular logic: There can't be good Sith because all we see are evil Sith so their can't be good Sith because we only see evil Sith so there can't be good Sith, ad nauseum.

But because of all of the depictions of Sith as evil bastards it is reasonable to think that a given Sith is going to be anything but a good guy, and it is especially reasonable to assume they would utilize the Dark Side of the Force.

Except as far as I can tell the only edict to being a Sith is following the code and not being killed by anyone who disagrees with your interpretation or claim, it's an inherently anarchic system. Due to that nature it's more prone to abuse, but nothing requiring someone to be evil.

HOW FUCKING DENSE ARE YOU.

This isn't just about heirarchy and power structure! It's also about the actual physical act of utilizing the dark side! It became anarchy because Sith in their quest for greater power (physical and otherwise) routinely killed one another! It got to the point where a Sith Lord all but wiped out his entire order to begin it anew, with the caveat that his apprentice would one day surpass him in strength and kill him!

[Darth Fanboy]

And this is not a "no True Scotsman" fallacy at all, no sir.

In the case of a "No True Scotsman", being a Scotsman isn't something that can change, because no matter what the Scotsman's nationality remains the same. In this situation, what we are discussing is a set of beliefs that most certainly be disregarded. Am I still a Christian even though I no longer practice Christian teachings and beliefs even though I once was? Of course not, the same goes for a Sith who stops practicing Sith teachings. JEdi who no longer practice JEdi teachings are no longer considered Jedi after all.

Very well, his teachings likely accurately represented the Sith of his day. I will grant you that. However, that does not mean that previous Sith might not have behaved differently, and it does not discount that there may have been dissenters at any point in time.

Give me one example of a previous Sith that behaved differently in order to dissuade me from what I believe is a reasonable conclusion.

Of course never mind the fact that the Sith Order was founded by Dark Jedi who used the *shock* Dark Side of the Force. I no longer have a copy of the Essential/New Essential Chronology to get more specific quotes from, maybe someone will come by and enlighten us a little?

[Havok]

Being a Sith means you embrace EVIL, acts of evil, the use of evil, you love evil, you have a passion for being evil, you murder little kids, turn on your friends and blow up planets, you only care about yourself and how the galaxy effects you and you take what you want by force and kill anyone and anything that gets in your way.

Citation needed.

The Star Wars Saga, Episodes 1-6.

I mean LISTEN TO YOURSELF Karen.... A NON-EVIL SITH.

Appeal to incredulity.[/quote]
Some thing has to get you to realize how fucking retarded you sound Karen.

[Formless]

And this is not a "no True Scotsman" fallacy at all, no sir.

In the case of a "No True Scotsman", being a Scotsman isn't something that can change, because no matter what the Scotsman's nationality remains the same. In this situation, what we are discussing is a set of beliefs that most certainly be disregarded. Am I still a Christian even though I no longer practice Christian teachings and beliefs even though I once was? Of course not, the same goes for a Sith who stops practicing Sith teachings. JEdi who no longer practice JEdi teachings are no longer considered Jedi after all.

It certainly can be applied to belief systems: there are tons of Christians who would answer that not only are you not a christian now, but you never were a christian at any point in time simply because you renounced your faith and "no true christian does that". There are tons who believe other sects aren't truly christian either. If we saw a Sith who did not think he needed or should fuck over other beings to be a Sith (yes, before you say it the word "if" is there for a reason), but still believed that its right to seek power and that "peace is a lie" bit, why should we not consider him a Sith (albeit an extremely unusual one)? Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

Very well, his teachings likely accurately represented the Sith of his day. I will grant you that. However, that does not mean that previous Sith might not have behaved differently, and it does not discount that there may have been dissenters at any point in time.

Give me one example of a previous Sith that behaved differently in order to dissuade me from what I believe is a reasonable conclusion.

Of course never mind the fact that the Sith Order was founded by Dark Jedi who used the *shock* Dark Side of the Force. I no longer have a copy of the Essential/New Essential Chronology to get more specific quotes from, maybe someone will come by and enlighten us a little?

I will give you an example when someone writes one into canon. Until then, obviously we can't assume one exists, but I don't see why its not possible.

The Star Wars Saga, Episodes 1-6.

Bzzt. Wrong era. Besides, in the movies we aren't given that much information on the Sith, and nowhere did it say they had to be evil. Just that all the one's the Jedi were aware of were-- or more accurately, that they had tried to destroy the Jedi in the past and were known for using the Dark Side. That's all the information the movies give us on them.