Role of the Sith (from The Old Republic)

[Ritterin Sophia]

How does that refute "when a cadre of ambitious Jedi [the Founding Fathers of the Sith] opened themselves to the DARK SIDE, they discovered the Force could be used to bend life itself... well, that was the leap we had to make"?

It doesn't, it simply states that studying the Dark Side was what they had to do to make the leap from Jedi into something new. That could easily be interpreted as saying every Sith needs to define what it means for him to be a Sith.

Have you heard of anyone who titled themselves "Caesar" who didn't want to be regarded as an emperor? Do you honestly think that some idiot could call themselves a bloody Dark Lord or Darth without embracing the dark side? Do they call themselves Dark Lord because they like dark colors or something, or because they can't stand sunlight? Why else would someone be a Dark Lord if they don't use the dark side?

Okay just because I misread when you said 'possibly' and apologized for it does not change that it's only possibly. You have to show that indeed these are the words from which 'Darth' is derived for this to be a valid argument.

Evolved from what? Lord Qordis states that the Sith Code has existed ever since the Founding Fathers of the Sith (the "cadre of ambitious Jedi [who] opened themselves to the DARK SIDE") were exiled, which means they were the ones who wrote that code. How can someone honestly claim that these psychopathic Founding Fathers intended for the Sith Code to not be about the dark side?

They probably didn't, just like a lot of Christians may or may not have meant for the stories of the Bible could be interpreted as metaphorical. Again, what we're arguing is not are the Sith good, but does the Sith Code allow for a good Sith in the canon.

Which is impossible, because the Sith's Founding Fathers intended their followers to use the dark side. If a Jew one day decides to believe in the New Testament, by all objective standards (as of 2010) they're not practicing the Jewish faith anymore. If a Sith abandons dark side, they're establishing some other Force philosophy.

And the earliest Christians did not consider themselves Christians but Jews, this is analogous to that.

A Christian is objectively defined as someone who believes that Jesus Christ is humanity's lord and savior. A Muslim is defined as someone who acknowledges that Muhammad is the most important Prophet. A Sith is defined by someone who follows the dark side teachings of the "cadre of ambitious Jedi [who] opened themselves to the DARK SIDE", along with their successors. Is that so hard to grasp?

The Code defines what is Sith and there's no mention of the Dark Side anywhere.

You mean the freedom to act like pricks?

Here you're going to try and strawman me, the debate is not are there good Sith but can one exist within the definition of the Sith, the only consistent definition is the Sith Code and all it teaches is a vague reference to 'Freedom'. As I showed you can interpret this as freedom to choose to study the Dark Side or not.

*sigh* Whether an early Christian identified himself as a Jew or not, it doesn't change the fact that the reason they belong in the Jewish sect they're in is because they believe Jesus Christ is the messiah; a core tenet that has not changed at all ever since Christianity was founded as a Jewish sect. Likewise, the core tenet of the Sith ever since their founders "opened themselves to the DARK SIDE" has been to embrace the dark side. Throughout the entire SW franchise, the Sith's core tenet has never changed. A rejection of the dark side means you can't follow a Sith-based philosophy. It's that simple.

The only consistent tenet has been the Code, which do not require you to use the Dark Side, encourage yes, but not require. Ulic Qel Droma was given a poison that forced him to draw on the Dark Side, yet he was still a Sith.

[Darth Fanboy]

No it isn't, Revan and Malak were chosen by the Sith Emperor to pave the way for his arrival and instead Revan & Malak either through want of power of their own or to prepare the Republic against the Emperor.

I will admit that I did not know this, because it is a very recent addition to the Canon.

Again the analogy works because the Sith Emperor is head and Revan tried to start his own Sith to fight his. Catholic Vs Protestantism.

You analogy is still bullshit. In order to be a Sith, one must follow Sith Teachings, disregarding those teachings does not mean that one is still a Sith, a former Sith perhaps, but still not a Sith.

Again, Fanboy, you have yet to show that a Sith need use the Dark Side.

Again Schatten, you prove you can't read. You just fucking quoted a pretty basic explanation. "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."

Meanwhile we see very explicity in the Code of the Sith that "Peace is a lie, there is only passion" which is a pretty strong indicator (to put it mildly) that Sith embrace strong feelings, such as hate and greed. So if Sith are embracing these strong feelings as part of their doctrine, and those strong feelings are consistent with the Dark Side of the Force, it's pretty fucking easy to see that the Dark Side is a part of Sith Doctrine.

I mean for fuck's sake what kind of stupid bullshit is this that it has to be repeatedly explained to you.

Implicit and not explicit is this so hard to understand, why is it there must only be one interpretation of the Code?

It's the interpretation that Sith have used for MILENNIA. I'm so sorry that the General Schatten opinion has zero fucking weight compared to what has been repeatedly depicted in the canon. You are being an idiot in the same vein as those Galactic Empire apolgists who actually legitmiately think that the Empire was a truly benevolent and positive government.

It is reasonable to assume they would but nothing absolutely requires them to do so.

Except Sith teachings, but what do Sith teachings have to do with being a Sith?

And there's nothing in the Code that requires the use of the Dark Side, I keep saying this but you just keep ignoring it.

You keep saying it because you keep IGNORING the evidence.

Schatten: There is nothing that explicitly states in the code of the Sith that they have to use the Dark Side of the Force.

Fanboy/Havok/Anyone with two fucking brain cells: It doesn't have to be explicity stated, and it's pretty easy to see the connection between Sith teachings such as the Code of the Sith, and use of the Dark Side of the Force.

Schatten: Yeah that's reasonable, but there is nothing that explicity states that they do so i'm going to continue being a moron and act as if you haven't presented any evidence to support your side of the argument.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I'm just going to concede because it's honestly not worth it.

So has anyone seen the new Sarlacc Enforcer class? Looks like a lot of fun.

[Bellosh101]

It doesn't, it simply states that studying the Dark Side was what they had to do to make the leap from Jedi into something new. That could easily be interpreted as saying every Sith needs to define what it means for him to be a Sith.

What's your evidence that studying the Dark Side can somehow lead to a philosophy where every Sith needs to define what it means for him to be a Sith? You've I will not accept unfounded hearsay and conjecture.

You have to show that indeed these are the words from which 'Darth' is derived for this to be a valid argument.

The two Sith who first used the 'Darth' titles are Revan and Malek, who had access to the Rakata homeworld, and thus their language. If the writers of Jedi vs. Sith had no intention of making the Rakatan language consequential to the development of the word 'Darth', then why bloody write about it at all? Even then, there's still the pre-KOTOR explaination that 'Darth' is shorthand for 'Dark Lord of the Sith', something I've noticed you don't address. In the context of the SW franchise, it's impossible to claim that 'Dark Lord' has nothing to do with the dark side.

They probably didn't, just like a lot of Christians may or may not have meant for the stories of the Bible could be interpreted as metaphorical. Again, what we're arguing is not are the Sith good, but does the Sith Code allow for a good Sith in the canon.

However a Christian treats the Bible means jack as long as he or she believes that Jesus Christ is the lord and savoir of humanity. None of Christianity's variations allow for a follower to not accept Jesus Christ as the lord and savoir of humanity. At any rate, you have no bloody proof that Pall's origin story for the Sith is meant to be taken as metaphorical, which means your hearsay and conjecture is still unfounded and useless.

And the earliest Christians did not consider themselves Christians but Jews, this is analogous to that.

Didn't I already say that "it doesn't change the fact that the reason they belong in the Jewish sect they're in is because they believe Jesus Christ is the messiah; a core tenet that has not changed at all ever since Christianity was founded as a Jewish sect"? Learn to read, please.

The Code defines what is Sith and there's no mention of the Dark Side anywhere.

And since when was the fucking Sith Code the highest authority on the fundamental principles of Sith ideology; the document from which every other Sith teaching derives from? Let me give you a hint: that's not what the Code is ever said to be. No Sith has ever appealed to the Sith Code as the ultimate authority on how to practice the Force. The Code is more of an anthem if anything; it's highly symbolic but it can't be used by itself to judge the nature of the Sith Order like you blindly do.

Here you're going to try and strawman me, the debate is not are there good Sith but can one exist within the definition of the Sith, the only consistent definition is the Sith Code and all it teaches is a vague reference to 'Freedom'. As I showed you can interpret this as freedom to choose to study the Dark Side or not.

Will you shut up about the Sith Code already? If you can't prove that the Sith Code is the highest authority on Sith doctrine, then you have no damn argument at all.

The only consistent tenet has been the Code, which do not require you to use the Dark Side, encourage yes, but not require.

Again, you keep yapping about this Code as if it all-important. If you can't demostrate the importance of the Code as something other than a Sith slogan (because that's all it really fucking is), you can't prove jack shit that the Sith Order had the capability to produce "good" Sith. I won't bother replying to any of your rebuttals in length as long as you can't show us that the Sith Code is anything but a mere slogan.

[Ritterin Sophia]

-snip-

It was already conceded, I honestly don't know what more I could give you.

[Lagmonster]

Split from the TOR thread in G&C, as it's a discussion of Sith mythologies and not gameplay.

[Darth Yan]

Honestly, I think that they aren't so much trying to make the sith good as make them something other then cackling moustach twirling snively whiplash villians who blow things up for shits and giggles. If "The Weakness of Inferiors" is to be believed palpy used some psuedo bullshit of how the sith were ncecssary because non force sensitives were children who couldn't do anything without a strong leash. Cartoon villians are fucking lazy, and I applaud that they are trying to make bad guys who are more then that.