Are the Sith Really Evil?

[samhawke90]

So I was talking to a friend of mine a few days ago about the sith and as we were talking he made a very good point about the Sith's Code. I'd like to share it now, because I'm not sure I could put it into my own words quite as well. So first I would like to say that I take no credit what so ever for this quote, it is entirely my friends words, he posted this to his Facebook after our conversation:

"Before it slips my mind there is one awesome quote I have to write.

"Peace is a lie, there is only passion;
Through passion I gain strength;
Through strength power;
Through power victory;
And through victory, my chains are broken."

The Sith code doesn't mean fear and hate, it means all emotions. Classic sith are the anti-sith who have allowed hate, fear, and pride to cloud all other emotions. The true sith have courage to fight for others because of compassion, empathy, and love. Sure the Jedi code has helped more people but they only do so because they are told it is right. If a true sith does something it is because they believe it is right. Living through your heart is a double edged sword. But at the end of the day, given that you don't fall to darkness, you can say both that you did the right thing and you didn't have to destroy who you are to do it."

That I believe is the best way to word the topic and while I can understand the flaws I also hope that it can also shed light on what a True Sith is, not necessarily all evil and spread fear, but more like a less strict Jedi, or something like that. Someone willing to do something for the greater good because they think its right, I'm not saying that the Jedi don't believe in what they are doing, but that they are held back in a small way. So if you can agree with that comment of if you disagree with it completely, please feel free to speak you mind about it, but please don't flame someone or insult another or their opinion.

[Lemur, The Kool-Aid Guy]

The ultimate goal as demonstrated by the Sith Code is self-gain, first victory and then a state of freedom, presumably from rules. It makes no mention of love or empathy, and generally when passion is discussed in the context of gaining strength it refers to those emotions that confer advantages. Rage makes you stronger. Selfishness protects your interests. In contrast, empathy causes you to feel the pain of others, hindering you. Compassion restricts your own actions. The Sith Code values strength, and then victory, explicitly rejecting peace. If we presume the end goal of empathy is peace, which is reasonable since understanding prevents conflict, then we can presume the Sith oppose empathy as a detriment and a lie.

The operative point of Sith ideology is the might of the individual gaining power for himself. The code itself even references the individual. Not 'we' gain strength, but 'I.' The whole philosophy is centered around the premise that peace is a lie. That means any coexistence is purely in a state of flux that may break into full hostility if there is any gain to be had for the individual from it.

A society of Sith would be inherently violent and unstable, and any unifying factor would have to come from authoritarianism stemming from a single leader or an oligarchy. It would also have to be enforced by people who are not Sith, people who exist in a chain of command based off of rules and regulations rather than principles of self-liberation through strength and victory.

Ultimately the ideology of the Sith is a dangerous philosophy that hinges on conflict. It may be seductive as carte blanche to use all emotions, but in the strict principles espoused by their governing document, not all emotions are equal and many are liabilities.

/ends analysis.

[Kami]

The Sith Code is not inherently evil, and nowhere does it say anything about dominating others, or performing evil.

What it does say - and what it rewards those who seek - is Power, and Independence. In other words, if you follow the Sith Code literally you're looking to gain the power to impose your view of 'right' and 'wrong' on the galaxy, breaking the chains of societal pressure. If you have the freedom to do as you see fit, and the power to make it stick (on others too), then where's the harm if you're good-natured? If you're self-policing, then where's the danger?

It's true that any successful disciple to a code generally thinks less of those who haven't achieved it - why do you think Jedi are leaning on the Humble card so much? In the case of the Sith this means they see themselves as 'better' than those around them because they're more powerful, and this is the goal of a society following the Sith Code.

So. You're powerful, unconstrained by society's unwritten laws (you think less of the people who wrote them anyway) and you listen to your emotions... which are largely happy; but not controlled, never controlled. In a very few circumstances I could see listening to your passions ending well, and all of them involve being killed by surprise fairly early on. Aside from the Space Wizards, nobody is happy *all* the time... and the damage that could be done would only ripple outward, making others unhappy and so on... and so on...

Known sentient nature dictates ambition and selfishness (on average), and different people have different points of view - so if you do something you consider right, odds are I won't and will be annoyed or angry at you. I listen to my emotions when they tell me to strike out at you and set things right... and we're right back in the rubble of Korriban.

As I've said a number of times tonight: "An excellent idea, except people."

That said, thank you for posting it and I hope you'll point out the holes I'm sure are in my rambling argument. I enjoy talking about this sort of thing ^^

[Apillis]

Bypassing all the pseudo-intellectual, b.s.

Yes, the Sith are evil.

For this very simple fact: they are the designated villains and "evil-doers" of the Star Wars universe. That is their purpose and their role within the Star Wars narrative. Whatever redeeming qualities a Sith character may does not alter the reality they are the designated "evil-doers", the dark side is wholy corrupting (this canon, no amount of b.s. changes that), and they are the villains.

The redeeming qualities you may sympathize with are simply there to give a character more than one dimension. But in the end--if a writer managed to make you shed a tear for the evil monster or agree with the vile despot, it simply means one thing: the writer succeeded in their goal to manipulate you into seeing the Obviously Evil Card Carrying Villain in another light.

Where the problem in this lies is when people become too overly sympathetic for the villains own point of view, they begin to ignore all the evil they committ. And thus... brings everything full circle to the pseudo-intellectual b.s. questioning whether or not the obviously evil villains are actually "evil".

[Meira]

Apillis has a great point here. I believe our dear Sparrow has said something very similar before when he spoke about the way the Star Wars universe works. See, in our reality, there sometimes is a definite line between right and wrong, good and bad, etc. But there often isn't. We have all kinds of moral grey. While this is also evident in SW, it is a fictional universe created with this constant: the light side is good and the dark side is bad. We have room to play around in this sand pit, but in the end, this is a truth and it is definite.

Like Apillis said, yes we can sympathize with individual characters and go on about "the greater good" or the "the ends justify the means" or even "the means justify the ends", but the fact of the matter is that these musings I the characters are simply their mental process of their journey. The dark side is a manifestation of corruption. Those without the force can become corrupted and do terrible things. When those who have a connection to the force become corrupt, the dark side is what it looks like.

Anyone who succumbs to the dark side will eventually be destroyed by their own corruption, not just those who identify with the Sith, anyone. They may believe that they can master it without being affected, they may be tryin to harness it for a greater good, but in the end, it is evil and in the SW universe good will inevitably win over evil, always.

So if you understand the dark side in this respect, the Sith are dilusional and drunk on power. They believe they can control it because they are blinded by their corruption. It's like watching a disaster happen in slow motion. We can see the endgame as observers, but if you look real close, that dude that's about to bite the bullet is smiling. It makes for an amazing story.

[Poludnica]

I think it was intended for SW Sith to be major, canon villains. Like in Tolkien's universe Sauron and his lot; so in terms of creators intentions, I think they are meant to be evil. But for me it's just a base of canon, stereotypical Sith. I'd like to think in writing the envelope can be pushed and some reinterpretation may occur.

So in terms of expanded universe, or a bit AU one like SWU I think is, I try not to label the charrie off the bat by its faction. For me acts can be evil or morally wrong, not really 'evil' as the person's trait. I am sure Sith do more evil things than your Jedi does but I am not sure that deems being utterly 'evil'.

All in all I just take a look at character at hand, try to see their motivation rather than label in binary system of 1- evil 0 - goood. It's my take on the matter, though it is a take of a person who was not interested in SW up until few weeks ago so I may just not have an opinnion yet. Will see if as my knowledge of SW developes I can see if actually it is alright to say "All Sith are evil and it should be so." For now I will just say - they were designed to be but that is still just a base for something a writer can use and turn the purpose around - from what I saw so far it is doable but very difficuly giving the dichotomic division of morality in SW - we could argue that a Sith having more and more redeeming qualities (show symapthy etc.) will eventually turn to grey or light side so there is not really much in between.

So I guess this is my word on a matter >.>

[Rugs]

Bypassing all the pseudo-intellectual, b.s.

Yes, the Sith are evil.

Basically came here to say this.

Star Wars has a pretty classic view on good and evil. It's pretty black and white, with the two representative sides being called the Dark and Light. It's impossible to commit to the Dark Side without falling to it's corruption and becoming evil and doing evil things. Now granted, some evil characters can be more sympathetic than others, but it still doesn't change the fact that they are, as Apillis has said, evil.

And you can't really be much of a Sith without using or falling to the Dark Side; it's the crux of who they are, as a mirror image of the Jedi and all their interaction with the Light.

Sure, some of them fall having good intentions. Iniquitous has good intentions. Nieraan fell because he was forced to and because he wanted some way to get out and away from under his abusive mother's thumb. But you know what they say about the road to hell and good intentions.

[Gamov]

May 14, 2012 3:28:32 GMT -5 Apillis said:

The redeeming qualities you may sympathize with are simply there to give a character more than one dimension. But in the end--if a writer managed to make you shed a tear for the evil monster or agree with the vile despot, it simply means one thing: the writer succeeded in their goal to manipulate you into seeing the Obviously Evil Card Carrying Villain in another light.

And yet this was Lucas' entire aim through all six films. Darth Vader was introduced as evil incarnate in ANH, then we got a glimpse of the man that Vader used to be in ESB when we learned that Luke was his son. This theme was then completed in RoTJ before being explained even further in the prequels.

Likewise, the other Sith that appear through out the movies appear to have some more human moments attributed to them. The most glaring example tends to be Dooku who appears visibly saddened by the fact that Mace Windu and the other Jedi would not surrender on Geonosis when he gave them the option. In fact, even in open duels with Obi-Wan and Anakin, Dooku had several chances to kill either of them, but never did.

Even Palpatine is shown to have a moment of humanity when he rescues Anakin from Mustafar. It would have been just as easy for him to leave him to die and simply find a replacement. But he saved him anyway.

---

As to the original question of whether or not the Sith are truly evil, I believe that question rests with how much of the Star Wars universe one accepts as fact - more specifically the EU. If we are to follow the Sith as they are in the movies, then there isn't much room for interpretation outside of that limited frame work. However, if you look to (and accept) the EU as evidence, then the Sith were originally victims of persecution by the Jedi Order.

The events that transpired in the Hundred Years Darkness after the first Dark Jedi were exiled from the order for their beliefs eventually gave rise to a centuries old grudge that neither side has been able to let go of. The Sith will always seek the destruction of the Jedi, and the Jedi will always seek the destruction of the Sith.

This theme is evident in the tenants of both organizations as both proclaim the other to be weak of mind and spirit for their beliefs - espousing instead that it is their way of thinking and doing things that is in fact the stronger, more righteous path.

That being said though, Sith philosophy isn't much of a philosophy at all. The Sith Code that supposedly serves as the guidelines for their society rarely comes into play as it is essentially the Jedi Code re-purposed to fit their beliefs instead. That would be akin to someone rewriting the philosophies of Confucius to say the opposite and then branding it a "new school of thought".

Instead, the Sith rely on a more Darwinian approach that provides them with the reasoning behind their actions. This in itself does not make them evil as it is parallel to the Jedi belief that everything has its time (learning to let go of attachments and accepting that everything must eventually become one with the Force).

If anything, the Sith Order as an organization cannot be condemned based solely on its beliefs. Individual members of that society must be examined independently of one another and their own personal actions called into question. The Jedi Order is not condemned as an organization just because one Jedi experimented with the Dark Side and became a Sith.

If this were the case, then we could also ask "are the Jedi really good?", based on the history and relationships (past and present) of their members with the Dark Side and the Sith.

[Rugs]

Making an evil villain (redundant, I know) sympathetic does not remove the fact that the villain is evil. In the Star Wars setting, once you fall to the Dark Side, once you give yourself over wholly to it, you're evil, in some way, or you soon will be. It's the nature of the beast. That's the way the universe works.

Moments of humanity make a character deeper and gives them more character, but it does not absolve them of being evil.

Nor does the ultimate redepmtion and coming back to the light and good of things mean that they weren't evil people for the years that they operated under the influence of the Dark Side.

[Gamov]

May 14, 2012 16:24:01 GMT -5 Rugs said:

That's the way the universe works.

How disappointing. It seemed like there was an opportunity here for some real, insightful debate.

Ah well. C'est la vie.

[Rugs]

When your argument can't function outside of that, there's not a debate to be had. The way the SW universe exists and has bee established, the Sith are evil.

Don't confuse sympathy with morality.

[Karl the Unfettered]

So, if all Sith are totally evil and have no value whatsoever to the plot or the narrative or anything aside from being The Bad Guys, if that's really as shallow as the Dark Side is...

Why bother making Sith characters? If there's no depth to the general idea of Sith, why go to the trouble? Why try for redeeming qualities or some other personality facet aside from the dominant "Power GET! BWAHAHAHAA!" bit when they won't mean bo-diddly when push comes to shove?

[Dire Wolf]

Pretty much? I mean, last time I checked, the republic survives this war and goes on to govern the galaxy at large for the next four thousand years. Regardless, its fun to play the bad guy and every great story has a villain. That's why I have my sith, mostly for fun and to play against Rugs' Locke. We should do something with them btw, Rugs.

[sparrow]

May 14, 2012 21:10:20 GMT -5 Karl the Unfettered said:

So, if all Sith are totally evil and have no value whatsoever to the plot or the narrative or anything aside from being The Bad Guys, if that's really as shallow as the Dark Side is...

You appear to be attempting to rebut a position that no one has actually taken. All Rugs (and others) have been saying is that having a few sympathetic qualities doesn't automatically make a villain in a story not a villain. In fact, it often makes them a more interesting villain.

[Rugs]

May 14, 2012 21:10:20 GMT -5 Karl the Unfettered said:

So, if all Sith are totally evil and have no value whatsoever to the plot or the narrative or anything aside from being The Bad Guys, if that's really as shallow as the Dark Side is...

Why bother making Sith characters? If there's no depth to the general idea of Sith, why go to the trouble? Why try for redeeming qualities or some other personality facet aside from the dominant "Power GET! BWAHAHAHAA!" bit when they won't mean bo-diddly when push comes to shove?

The same way the Jedi are (broadly speaking) totally good and serve no value whatsover than being the Good Guys. Again, Star Wars is a universe with a pretty black and white view on good and evil. You can't have much of a discussion until you accept and work within the guidelines that the universe provides.

There's also the fact that it is the ever-ongoing struggle between good and evil that forms the heart of what Star Wars is about. It's been their since the beginning: the Rebels are your good guys, the Empire your bad. The Jedi are your noble warrior-monks, and the Sith are their dark counterparts. It's part of what makes Star Wars what it is.

Just because something can be boiled to be plain good or evil at its heart doesn't mean it's shallow; it means it's part of a basic story structure that's been around more or less as long as humanity has. The mark of a good writer, or storyteller in general, is to take that and make sympathetic characters, on both sides, regardless of if they boil down to being just good or evil

Again, a lot of you are confusing sympathy with morality. You can feel empathy with an evil character; you can feel like they have good intentions and all that stuff, but that does not absolve them from the fact that they are evil. Characters you can empathize with mean that the writer has done a good job of creating a good character.

If that's their purpose; some villains aren't meant to be empathized with. Others are, but that doesn't make them more or less evil or more or less of a villain.

I'll say it again: stop confusing a sympathetic character with a morally good one. Morality and sympathy are not the same thing.

[Apillis]

May 14, 2012 19:26:43 GMT -5 Gamov said:

May 14, 2012 16:24:01 GMT -5 Rugs said:

That's the way the universe works.

How disappointing. It seemed like there was an opportunity here for some real, insightful debate.

Ah well. C'est la vie.

Here's the deal. That "saddened look" that you think Dooku had, wasn't sorrow--it was disappointment, disappointment because Mace Windu (and the rest of Jedi) were not bending knee to him. This reality is even more ABCed in AotC novel. It was not a "I have to fight my friends! D=", it was a "How dare they... -.-" moment. He was called "Darth Tyranus" for a reason, i.e. meaning "Dark Tyrant". He couldn't stand the fact that they had the gall to go against him.

Also, think about why Darth Sidious (i.e. Dark Insidious) rescued Vader... Because he was the damn Chosen One, he saw Vader as the best conduit for the Sith to attain ultimate power. This is further exclaimed within the novels as well. It wasn't because he had any genuine feelings for Vader like some sort of father-figure, portrayed himself as one to Anakin--but it was all just to manipulate a vulnerable kid. It was all solely about how he saw Vader as the ultimate puppet--an all-powerful machine to strengthen the Sith and crush all who oppose him.

Don't try to b.s. to me that the guy who granted Tarkin the authority to blow an entire planet obliterating billions of lives in an instant just to make a point to a lone prisoner, is somehow a "decent guy" deep down inside, and may not be all that evil. I'm sorry, but you're kidding yourself more than anything at that point.

Besides, reflections of humanity are just that--glimmers just within an evil being. It's what grants them more than one dimension. It's what enables you to see the deeper motivations behind all the evil and what that evil's genesis was.

But none of it takes away from the evil they have committed. Doing so misguidingly focuses only on that glimmer of humanity while ignoring the vastly greater whole.

So if you're seeing the likes of Dooku, and especially Palpatine as anything outside of the obviously evil villains... Well, guess what, Lucas successfully manipulated you into seeing them as something other than what, he--Lucas himself, stated they are and continuously plainly makes them out to be within the narrative, which is: the evil villains of the story.

May 14, 2012 21:10:20 GMT -5 Karl the Unfettered said:

So, if all Sith are totally evil and have no value whatsoever to the plot or the narrative or anything aside from being The Bad Guys, if that's really as shallow as the Dark Side is...

Why bother making Sith characters? If there's no depth to the general idea of Sith, why go to the trouble? Why try for redeeming qualities or some other personality facet aside from the dominant "Power GET! BWAHAHAHAA!" bit when they won't mean bo-diddly when push comes to shove?

It's only shallow if you make it that way. A blatantly evil character can still have plenty of depth. That boils down to the skill of the writer.

If you embrace the fact that they are evil, and if you embrace the fact that they are the villains--you can see just how much freedom a writer actually has with them.

But if you're trying to have a character who does nothing but evil, and uses corrupting dark, evil powers... yet... is some how a good guy or maybe just "neutral". Congrats, you've entered Sue land.

[Adobi-Wan Kenobi]

The only thing I'm going to say is that i don't like Sith, but there are a few that i will allow.

With that said i think it greatly depends on the person behind the Sith nameplate, Example.

Palpatine: Only looked for self gain, held on to more hatred than an entire star system.= Evil

Anikin: As many Sith was lied to (About Padme's death.) and therefore wrongly made certain choices.= Not true evil

same with Jacen Solo, Luke Skywalker's temporary fall to the dark side, and others.

My point in the long run is that yes most Sith are bad Dooku, Maul, Bane, Zannah.

However certain ones fell due to lies and therefore where not true Evil.

[Rugs]

Yes, he spent 23 years as a Sith Lord because he'd been lied to and didn't know what he was doing after that initial fall and realization of what he'd become.

Right.

[Cain]

Just throwing in my two cents here; addressing the original poster's point that the Sith Code can be interpreted as courageous or empathetic, I would agree. The words are ambiguous enough that one's idea of what it means could be painted in many ways, and that's entirely the point.

If we don't think about this in terms of black hats and white hats and instead look at the reality of good and evil people, you'll find for the most part that people who do bad things do not consider themselves to be evil. The Sith are no exception.

So, if you're the Sith, how is it that you get people to believe that something called "The Dark Side" is a good thing? An intentionally ambiguous mantra that can be interpreted whatever way you need it to be in order to justify an ultimately self-centered grab for power? Yeah, that'll do. Conversations like this are exactly why the Sith even bother having a code. It's a means of manipulation in order to satiate new recruits long enough before they can get a taste of power and stop caring about the morality of it. In other words, its the cartoon camel on the pack of cigarettes that attracts the children's attention long enough to get them addicted.

Can the Sith Code be seen as something morally justifiable? Sure. Is it all just a lie to get you in the door? Of course. Are you really surprised? =P

[Karl the Unfettered]

Black and white is so damn boring. I prefer some ambivalence in my heroes and villains.

Well, whatever.