Jump to content

The Empire are the good guys?


TyeJ

Recommended Posts

That Is because those bounty hunters chose to be adopted into Mandalore the Vindicated's clan , if you don't then yeah you can be an imperial..if you do choose adoption, you are definitely NOT imperial because if he (Mandalore) chose at any time to switch sides and go to the republic ( now Shae Vizla "The Avenger") Then as a Mandalorian you are obligated to follow.

Except that the first time you deny being an Imperial is during Chapter 1, long long before you are offered the chance to be a Mandalorian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Is because those bounty hunters chose to be adopted into Mandalore the Vindicated's clan , if you don't then yeah you can be an imperial..if you do choose adoption, you are definitely NOT imperial because if he (Mandalore) chose at any time to switch sides and go to the republic ( now Shae Vizla "The Avenger") Then as a Mandalorian you are obligated to follow.

Wait, I could refuse to become a Mandalorian? Damn, that makes me wanna replay my bounty hunter. I hate being associated with a culture I don't understand at all.

I got the sense from the dialogue that it was a foregone conclusion, I must not have paid enough attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, I could refuse to become a Mandalorian? Damn, that makes me wanna replay my bounty hunter. I hate being associated with a culture I don't understand at all.

I got the sense from the dialogue that it was a foregone conclusion, I must not have paid enough attention.

 

I refused Mandalore on my first bounty hunter and the reactions were so priceless, I've always taken the refuse option. It's just too good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally can't understand how people can say that the Republic is just as bad as the Empire.

 

I mean, I'll be the first one to admit the Republic has an incredible amount of flaws, but their biggest problem is corruption in a government that TRIES to stand for freedom and equality.

 

The Empire has literally legalized slavery, speciesism, and murder. If I had a credit for every time I saw a sith killing an imperial just for fun, I would be rich by now. They don't even try to hide it, they will literally tell you they were bored and felt like killing someone.

 

The Republic certainly isn't perfect, but it will never be as bad as the Empire, because, at the very least, they try to do the right thing.

Edited by JJKerryee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally can't understand how people can say that the Republic is just as bad as the Empire.

All *I* said was that they are also bad guys, but bad guys who try to hide it.

I mean, I'll be the first one to admit the Republic has an incredible amount of flaws, but their biggest problem is corruption in a government that TRIES to stand for freedom and equality

Debatable. They try to *look* like they stand for those things, but the reality sometimes ... falls short, let's say.

The Empire has literally legalized slavery, speciesism, and murder. If I had a credit for every time I saw a sith killing an imperial just for fun, I would be rich by now. They don't even try to hide it, they will literally tell you they were bored and felt like killing someone.

 

The Republic certainly isn't perfect, but it will never be as bad as the Empire, because, at the very least, they try to do the right thing.

For sure, but the Republic are *not* good guys. Let me mention, as a prime example, one name.

 

Leontyne Saresh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For sure, but the Republic are *not* good guys. Let me mention, as a prime example, one name.

 

Leontyne Saresh.

Well, the actions of 1 former chancellor certainly don't speak for the entire government. Especially because Saresh herself was never a bad guy until Ziost and let's not talk about how out of character she was in KOTFE and KOTET. Also, let's not forget everything she did for Taris.

 

My biggest problem with your point of view is that you haven't really explained why the Republic are the bad guys. The only thing you've done until now and will probably keep doing is giving me the names of certain corrupt people inside the Republic. I can do that too. For example, Senator Vanara Kayl and Senator Barc. And that is exactly my point, while to consider the Republic as the bad guys we have to point fingers at certain people in the Republic and ignore the rest of the government, to expose the Empire as the bad guys, I can simply show you the entire government and its policies.

Edited by JJKerryee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally can't understand how people can say that the Republic is just as bad as the Empire.

 

I mean, I'll be the first one to admit the Republic has an incredible amount of flaws, but their biggest problem is corruption in a government that TRIES to stand for freedom and equality.

 

The Empire has literally legalized slavery, speciesism, and murder. If I had a credit for every time I saw a sith killing an imperial just for fun, I would be rich by now. They don't even try to hide it, they will literally tell you they were bored and felt like killing someone.

 

The Republic certainly isn't perfect, but it will never be as bad as the Empire, because, at the very least, they try to do the right thing.

 

Yeah, I agree with this completely. At every level of game design, the Empire is shown to be much worse than the Republic. From major quests and NPCs all the way down to minor sidequests and little descriptions.

 

The Sith Empire is so cartoonishly evil that it's sometimes played for laughs. Like, remember that military officer on Dromund Kaas who murdered his entire squad because he mistook his surprise party for an attempt to plot against him?

 

All *I* said was that they are also bad guys, but bad guys who try to hide it.

 

Debatable. They try to *look* like they stand for those things, but the reality sometimes ... falls short, let's say.

 

For sure, but the Republic are *not* good guys. Let me mention, as a prime example, one name.

 

Leontyne Saresh.

 

Saresh is just one person, though. And she's gone now. Jorgen talked about how different the Republic had become after she consolidated power, so it suggests she was an aberration in the system.

 

The Republic and Empire are more than any single leader, but while Saresh's rise and fall took place over the course of maybe 6 years, Vitiate was an immortal constant of the Sith for over a millennium.

 

I also think people are really overstating the level of corruption and gridlock in the Republic. We find one prominent Senator who was dealing with gangsters on Coruscant, but she was still trying to use those connections to help rebuild Coruscant and thus help people. And we can still expose her. Moreover, all the various criminal syndicates only became powerful in the wake of the Sacking of Coruscant.

 

Much of the bad things on Coruscant we see are the direct consequences of the chaos and damage caused by the Sith Empire, and we are still told that most sectors of a planet sized city are safe.

 

In fact, a lot of the politics we see on Coruscant at the time are a reflection of the state of the galaxy after the Sack of Coruscant. The Republic was in shock after a brutal and humiliating defeat on their own capital world and feared what more the ascendant Sith Empire could do to them.

 

The current state of the galaxy suggests Saresh's legacy is already being swept aside, and if Supreme Commander Malcolm is still alive, the Republic Senate has been quite effective at helping get things done to safeguard the Republic.

Edited by OldVengeance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole discussion and the question about the Republic being "the good guys" seems predicated on false equivalency to me. The Republic is (if taken as a single entity), unquestionably, the good guy in this Republic/Empire dichotomy. Are there actors within the Republic who are not "good guys"? Absolutely, but you have to look at the situation systemically. First, there's this where Charles Boyd said (emphasis mine):

Along with Tau, we also introduced General Daeruun on the Republic side. I feel like we’ve historically overdone it a bit on the number of Republic authority figures who are morally questionable, ends-justify-the-means types (probably because they’re so fun to write!) So Daeruun is meant to go the other direction, embodying all that’s good and noble about the Republic and its goals.

Which comes from the recent news article "A Look Behind the Scenes with Ossus." By Charles' own admission they have overdone it with the morally questionable Republic leaders.

 

Those morally questionable leaders appear in almost every class story and in many planet arcs. Half the side missions on Coruscant deal with corrupt or morally questionable leaders, but you deal with exposing their corruption or unethical behavior. That is one major difference between the Republic and the Empire; in the Republic corruption and unethical behavior is not condoned, it's not accepted, and will often result in consequences for the perpetrator. We don't always see the consequences but that doesn't mean they don't happen. For example, we see Senator Kayl resign but not what happens with Senator Nalrin Daheel's colleague or Senator Barc. For someone to say, "well, the Empire is evil, but the Republic has bad actors, too, so they're evil, as well" reeks of whataboutism. Leontyne Saresh is as representative of the Republic, and the Republic's ideals, as is Supreme Chancellor Palpatine. I'd bring up a real world example but that might be construed as discussing politics, but I suspect that you can guess the example I would use.

 

Second, there is the matter of what practices are condoned within the respective governments. Yes, Senator Barc may want to legalize slavery in the Republic, seeing it as one of the advantages of the Empire, but it doesn't happen. During the mission you have the choice to destroy those Rylothian control chips or return them to Senator Barc. It is a choice that is ultimately meaningless because within just the timeline of the game slavery never becomes legal within the Republic and is always condemed. The mission happens because one morally questionable Senator decides to do something morally questionable. That doesn't make the Senate or the Republic evil or morally questionable just Senator Barc. One morally questionable Senator who wants to legalize slavery is not equatable to the Empire where slavery is legal and frequently practiced. Having a prison is not morally questionable. Forcing those prisoners to fight each other in a secret program to study them is, which is probably why Senator Tudos worked so hard to keep the program secret. Going so far as to silence anyone who expressed ethical concerns. If the Republic is corrupt and evil why the need for such secrecy? Project Noble Focus is not the same as encouraging escaped slaves to kill each other, or helping with research to develop a serum to kill said slaves in a slow and agonizing manner; all of which is very public and you're rewarded for both actions. Corruption, morally questionable and unethical actions, outright evil. These all flourish in the Empire where such actions are often rewarded and encouraged. In the Republic they wither when brought into the light. Kill hostages/captives, destroy medicine and collect the poison, blackmail people, setup booby traps to kill civilians, kill an officer because they take exception to you killing their child, build a weapon to kill your own people if they get a little uppity; all perfectly acceptable actions within the Empire.

 

The actions of a few corrupt or morally questionable individuals, even if the writers liberally seeded the Republic with them, does not make the Republic corrupt, morally questionable, evil, or on par with the Empire. Yes, the Republic is flawed, it's leaders are flawed, and they make mistakes. They are not necessarily corrupt or unethical they are merely flawed and that is the price of democracy. In every case within the game the corrupt and morally questionable bad actors act in a manner that is in opposition to the ideals of the Republic, and more often than not they want to keep their corruption and morally questionable actions a secret. Why? Because they know that if their deeds were to come out those deeds would not be accepted, they would be condemned, and they would often face consequences. They have to act in the shadows because they know they can't do what they do in the light. The must work under the cover of secrecy, anonymity, and confidentiality for a reason.

 

Reactions within the story and from NPCs are a separate issue, but that reflects on the writers and programmers not the Republic. The fact that you can be a dark V knight and Satele barely comments on it, and you're still made a master, or that a trooper can do things that would be considered war crimes if committed in the real world and pretty much no one comments on it or does anything about it doesn't make the Republic corrupt. It just means that the writers and programmers didn't build in enough nuance or consequence into the game. The fact that the writers went overboard with morally questionable leaders in the Republic doesn't reflect on the Republic, or make the Republic equivalent to the Empire, it just means that the writers favored caricatures over fully fleshed-out characters and put the spotlight on those characters (as admitted by Charles). I admit that this can be a problem for the Empire, too. There are a few too many puppy-kicking Sith. I guess the writers just find over-the-top evil Sith fun to write, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing about Project Noble Focus is that not only are the Republic's domination experiments put to an end, but the Empire starts them up again.

 

So really even the story elements that include dark secrets of the Republic end up reflecting worse on the Empire in the end.

Edited by OldVengeance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole discussion and the question about the Republic being "the good guys" seems predicated on false equivalency to me. The Republic is (if taken as a single entity), unquestionably, the good guy in this Republic/Empire dichotomy. Are there actors within the Republic who are not "good guys"? Absolutely, but you have to look at the situation systemically. First, there's this where Charles Boyd said (emphasis mine):

 

Which comes from the recent news article "A Look Behind the Scenes with Ossus." By Charles' own admission they have overdone it with the morally questionable Republic leaders.

 

Those morally questionable leaders appear in almost every class story and in many planet arcs. Half the side missions on Coruscant deal with corrupt or morally questionable leaders, but you deal with exposing their corruption or unethical behavior. That is one major difference between the Republic and the Empire; in the Republic corruption and unethical behavior is not condoned, it's not accepted, and will often result in consequences for the perpetrator. We don't always see the consequences but that doesn't mean they don't happen. For example, we see Senator Kayl resign but not what happens with Senator Nalrin Daheel's colleague or Senator Barc. For someone to say, "well, the Empire is evil, but the Republic has bad actors, too, so they're evil, as well" reeks of whataboutism. Leontyne Saresh is as representative of the Republic, and the Republic's ideals, as is Supreme Chancellor Palpatine. I'd bring up a real world example but that might be construed as discussing politics, but I suspect that you can guess the example I would use.

 

Second, there is the matter of what practices are condoned within the respective governments. Yes, Senator Barc may want to legalize slavery in the Republic, seeing it as one of the advantages of the Empire, but it doesn't happen. During the mission you have the choice to destroy those Rylothian control chips or return them to Senator Barc. It is a choice that is ultimately meaningless because within just the timeline of the game slavery never becomes legal within the Republic and is always condemed. The mission happens because one morally questionable Senator decides to do something morally questionable. That doesn't make the Senate or the Republic evil or morally questionable just Senator Barc. One morally questionable Senator who wants to legalize slavery is not equatable to the Empire where slavery is legal and frequently practiced. Having a prison is not morally questionable. Forcing those prisoners to fight each other in a secret program to study them is, which is probably why Senator Tudos worked so hard to keep the program secret. Going so far as to silence anyone who expressed ethical concerns. If the Republic is corrupt and evil why the need for such secrecy? Project Noble Focus is not the same as encouraging escaped slaves to kill each other, or helping with research to develop a serum to kill said slaves in a slow and agonizing manner; all of which is very public and you're rewarded for both actions. Corruption, morally questionable and unethical actions, outright evil. These all flourish in the Empire where such actions are often rewarded and encouraged. In the Republic they wither when brought into the light. Kill hostages/captives, destroy medicine and collect the poison, blackmail people, setup booby traps to kill civilians, kill an officer because they take exception to you killing their child, build a weapon to kill your own people if they get a little uppity; all perfectly acceptable actions within the Empire.

 

The actions of a few corrupt or morally questionable individuals, even if the writers liberally seeded the Republic with them, does not make the Republic corrupt, morally questionable, evil, or on par with the Empire. Yes, the Republic is flawed, it's leaders are flawed, and they make mistakes. They are not necessarily corrupt or unethical they are merely flawed and that is the price of democracy. In every case within the game the corrupt and morally questionable bad actors act in a manner that is in opposition to the ideals of the Republic, and more often than not they want to keep their corruption and morally questionable actions a secret. Why? Because they know that if their deeds were to come out those deeds would not be accepted, they would be condemned, and they would often face consequences. They have to act in the shadows because they know they can't do what they do in the light. The must work under the cover of secrecy, anonymity, and confidentiality for a reason.

 

Reactions within the story and from NPCs are a separate issue, but that reflects on the writers and programmers not the Republic. The fact that you can be a dark V knight and Satele barely comments on it, and you're still made a master, or that a trooper can do things that would be considered war crimes if committed in the real world and pretty much no one comments on it or does anything about it doesn't make the Republic corrupt. It just means that the writers and programmers didn't build in enough nuance or consequence into the game. The fact that the writers went overboard with morally questionable leaders in the Republic doesn't reflect on the Republic, or make the Republic equivalent to the Empire, it just means that the writers favored caricatures over fully fleshed-out characters and put the spotlight on those characters (as admitted by Charles). I admit that this can be a problem for the Empire, too. There are a few too many puppy-kicking Sith. I guess the writers just find over-the-top evil Sith fun to write, too.

 

I completely agree with you. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that if you're a DS JK at the end of the class story, Satele won't make you a master. She does eventually make you a battlemaster, so I suppose it works out.

 

On the flip side, if you're a DS consular who just killed hundreds of jedi masters indirectly in order to kill the Plaguemaster, they still make you a master in Act 2 regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Setting aside the actions of particular senators, there's still some seriously not right aspects to the Republic. On Belsavis you have the Cathar Prince and his followers who were imprisoned simply for speaking out against joining the Republic, and you have the Condemned. Their only 'crime' is they were born to prisoners but are still imprisoned because the Republic doesn't want anyone knowing what's going on at Belsavis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole discussion and the question about the Republic being "the good guys" seems predicated on false equivalency to me. The Republic is (if taken as a single entity), unquestionably, the good guy in this Republic/Empire dichotomy. Are there actors within the Republic who are not "good guys"? Absolutely, but you have to look at the situation systemically. First, there's this where Charles Boyd said (emphasis mine):

 

Which comes from the recent news article "A Look Behind the Scenes with Ossus." By Charles' own admission they have overdone it with the morally questionable Republic leaders.

 

Those morally questionable leaders appear in almost every class story and in many planet arcs. Half the side missions on Coruscant deal with corrupt or morally questionable leaders, but you deal with exposing their corruption or unethical behavior. That is one major difference between the Republic and the Empire; in the Republic corruption and unethical behavior is not condoned, it's not accepted, and will often result in consequences for the perpetrator. We don't always see the consequences but that doesn't mean they don't happen. For example, we see Senator Kayl resign but not what happens with Senator Nalrin Daheel's colleague or Senator Barc. For someone to say, "well, the Empire is evil, but the Republic has bad actors, too, so they're evil, as well" reeks of whataboutism. Leontyne Saresh is as representative of the Republic, and the Republic's ideals, as is Supreme Chancellor Palpatine. I'd bring up a real world example but that might be construed as discussing politics, but I suspect that you can guess the example I would use.

 

Second, there is the matter of what practices are condoned within the respective governments. Yes, Senator Barc may want to legalize slavery in the Republic, seeing it as one of the advantages of the Empire, but it doesn't happen. During the mission you have the choice to destroy those Rylothian control chips or return them to Senator Barc. It is a choice that is ultimately meaningless because within just the timeline of the game slavery never becomes legal within the Republic and is always condemed. The mission happens because one morally questionable Senator decides to do something morally questionable. That doesn't make the Senate or the Republic evil or morally questionable just Senator Barc. One morally questionable Senator who wants to legalize slavery is not equatable to the Empire where slavery is legal and frequently practiced. Having a prison is not morally questionable. Forcing those prisoners to fight each other in a secret program to study them is, which is probably why Senator Tudos worked so hard to keep the program secret. Going so far as to silence anyone who expressed ethical concerns. If the Republic is corrupt and evil why the need for such secrecy? Project Noble Focus is not the same as encouraging escaped slaves to kill each other, or helping with research to develop a serum to kill said slaves in a slow and agonizing manner; all of which is very public and you're rewarded for both actions. Corruption, morally questionable and unethical actions, outright evil. These all flourish in the Empire where such actions are often rewarded and encouraged. In the Republic they wither when brought into the light. Kill hostages/captives, destroy medicine and collect the poison, blackmail people, setup booby traps to kill civilians, kill an officer because they take exception to you killing their child, build a weapon to kill your own people if they get a little uppity; all perfectly acceptable actions within the Empire.

 

The actions of a few corrupt or morally questionable individuals, even if the writers liberally seeded the Republic with them, does not make the Republic corrupt, morally questionable, evil, or on par with the Empire. Yes, the Republic is flawed, it's leaders are flawed, and they make mistakes. They are not necessarily corrupt or unethical they are merely flawed and that is the price of democracy. In every case within the game the corrupt and morally questionable bad actors act in a manner that is in opposition to the ideals of the Republic, and more often than not they want to keep their corruption and morally questionable actions a secret. Why? Because they know that if their deeds were to come out those deeds would not be accepted, they would be condemned, and they would often face consequences. They have to act in the shadows because they know they can't do what they do in the light. The must work under the cover of secrecy, anonymity, and confidentiality for a reason.

 

Reactions within the story and from NPCs are a separate issue, but that reflects on the writers and programmers not the Republic. The fact that you can be a dark V knight and Satele barely comments on it, and you're still made a master, or that a trooper can do things that would be considered war crimes if committed in the real world and pretty much no one comments on it or does anything about it doesn't make the Republic corrupt. It just means that the writers and programmers didn't build in enough nuance or consequence into the game. The fact that the writers went overboard with morally questionable leaders in the Republic doesn't reflect on the Republic, or make the Republic equivalent to the Empire, it just means that the writers favored caricatures over fully fleshed-out characters and put the spotlight on those characters (as admitted by Charles). I admit that this can be a problem for the Empire, too. There are a few too many puppy-kicking Sith. I guess the writers just find over-the-top evil Sith fun to write, too.

I think that you're whitewashing Belsavis kind of a lot. I mean, Noble Focus is pretty much the same thing as encouraging captured slaves to kill each other, to say nothing of the fact that its leaders are almost certainly just fall guys for a project backed by the Republic's leadership in general, but the entire concept of Belsavis is screwy. The Condemned are an obvious atrocity, but even the idea of a secret prison destroys all possible public accountability for its operators and can't really exist for any purpose other than to ignore the Republic's own constitution when the Senate deems it expedient.

 

Also, the Republic--who in the Republic authorized it is unknown, but it happened--helped orchestrate Revan's attempted genocide campaign with the Foundry.

 

I'm not saying that the Empire isn't evil, or even that it isn't worse, but while the Senate doesn't flaunt its corruption, I have a hard time believing that it's not utterly riddled with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evil is a point of view. :)

 

As well as Good. It always depends on the user/ player/ person who to see as the "villain" and as the "hero".

E.g. I know that some may say that some things of the Sith are not that "good", but I still like them over the Jedi because of those "bad" things they do, as for me it's not bad but for rather good. It may differ on each player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally can't understand how people can say that the Republic is just as bad as the Empire.

 

I mean, I'll be the first one to admit the Republic has an incredible amount of flaws, but their biggest problem is corruption in a government that TRIES to stand for freedom and equality.

 

The Empire has literally legalized slavery, speciesism, and murder. If I had a credit for every time I saw a sith killing an imperial just for fun, I would be rich by now. They don't even try to hide it, they will literally tell you they were bored and felt like killing someone.

 

The Republic certainly isn't perfect, but it will never be as bad as the Empire, because, at the very least, they try to do the right thing.

 

The Republic has great ideals but is rotten to its core, with corruption. The Empire is simply single-minded and without boundaries in how they achieve their goals. While the Republic would save your entire body to keep you alive only to watch you die, while the Empire would just as soon cut off your arm if it would save you.

 

The whole problem with this argument is that we tend to look at it, in terms of absolutes. Characters are ok with the Republic's corruption because they try to do so for the greater good. Evil for the greater good is still evil. Meanwhile, the Empire gets dumped upon because their absolute solutions are extremes. It is like saying that a white lie is ok but a full out lie is worthy of going to Hell.

 

Anyway, the Empire's actions are really driven by the plague that is the Sith. Take that away and what do you have? That's right - the Republic. The bolstering of the Sith is what leads to the actions by the Empire. After all, you're talking about an entire society predicated upon backstabbing and betraying people for more power. Ergo, that gets forced into all other facets of the society and much of it occurs out of self preservation.

 

In reality, this isn't a question of good versus evil. Rather, it is a question of which is the greater evil? Do you support evil for the greater good? Or, do you support enforced evil for self preservation? Both paths lead to fire!

 

Just to bring real life into context, would you consider the murder of civilians during war to be evil? Because:

 

- Great Britain did it when they bombed Dresden

- Churchill allowed it when he didn't tell the residents of Coventry to evacuate, for fear of letting the Germans know that the Allies cracked the Enigma code

- the US did it when they fire bombed Tokyo and again with the two nuclear bomb drops

- the Soviet Union massacred more people, both Russian and foreigners, after the revolution, during WW2, and afterwards, eclipsing what the Nazis did (also really bad)

- China continues to murder its populace and force them into hard labor death camps

- the Middle East is all manners of jacked up for what they do

- etc.

 

You can't look at any of that and say that those actions weren't evil. Yet, we give most of that a free pass because it achieved a positive (of sorts). The world isn't black and white. And, we have our own evil means of rationalizing bad things which, in no way shape or form, makes those actions actually good.

Edited by Trauglodyte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

- the Soviet Union massacred more people, both Russian and foreigners, after the revolution, during WW2, and afterwards, eclipsing what the Nazis did (also really bad)

Not to go too far into it, but this is actually false. I think saying anything more would start breaking politics rules, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire time ive played this game Ive thought people who play for the empire viewed them as the good guys and same thing with republic, However after reading some threads it seems most just prefer their class stories and dont actually support the Empire and view them as the good guys.

 

This is vary disappointing because I actually do prefer the Empire to the Republic and view them as the good guys, I wont state my reasons unless someone asks, but I want to know who else views the empire as the good guys?

 

This is a flame post right? lol The "SITH" Empire practices slavery, and is ruled by an evil 'Dark Council', who are ruled by a genocidal psychopath... XD Darth Jadus is considered the ultimate embodiment of the Sith next to Vitiate, and he fills everyone he meets with a sense of palpable dread. He psychologicaly tortured a starship full of people, and hoped to do the same to the entire galaxy. Not to mention all of the brainwashing shenanigans, student deaths, and show trials that go on... The Sith Empire is 1984 with space magic. Everyone is watched, everyone is controlled, there is a strident hierarchy with no social mobility, (unless you are a force user, and if you are you have to be able and willing to kill other people to stay at the top).

Edited by BellumEstBellum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a flame post right? lol The "SITH" Empire practices slavery, and is ruled by an evil 'Dark Council', who are ruled by a genocidal psychopath... XD Darth Jadus is considered the ultimate embodiment of the Sith next to Vitiate, and he fills everyone he meets with a sense of palpable dread. He psychologicaly tortured a starship full of people, and hoped to do the same to the entire galaxy. Not to mention all of the brainwashing shenanigans, student deaths, and show trials that go on... The Sith Empire is 1984 with space magic. Everyone is watched, everyone is controlled, there is a strident hierarchy with no social mobility, (unless you are a force user, and if you are you have to be able and willing to kill other people to stay at the top).

 

I was thinking something similar, but instead in the Roman Empire before it's fall. If the Sith weren't capable to use the force, then that Empire would inevitably fall from within.

 

Also think about this. If you were randomly born into that universe for one side or another, then where you got better chance for a decent life?

 

As a force user you kinda f*cked up in both case, but in the Republic you won't realize it, and you can simply leave the jedi order, if you are really not into it.

 

In the republic as a non-force user the worst is being poor. You have several ways to get out from there, and earn money for decent living.

1. You can join the army. It's not a mansion, but i would chose over being a beggar.

2. Officialy you can travel anywhere, and try to take any job. So you might try to get some lowly work.

3. You can join local criminal gangs.

Not sure how education works in the Republic. If it's like in modern countries, then you can take that, and if you are good enough, then get decent living.

 

In the Empire.

You are a slave, and you gona live and die as one. Probably worked to death. If you are a pretty woman, then might end up as a pleasure slave, or get raped to death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to go too far into it, but this is actually false. I think saying anything more would start breaking politics rules, though.

 

Don't want to bring politics into it. Simply pointing out that, from the Red Revolution to the breaking down of the wall (and even today), the body count is stupidly high. And, for what reasons or motivations?

 

Personally, I feel the entire concept of "evil", especially in this regard, is muddled and that most people don't understand what it is that they're talking about, simply because true evil isn't something that you really see. Most atrocities that people dub as evil are simply the actions taken by someone that has lived a life of abuse and/or has chemical and mental issues. Just my opinion but I find the concept to be too binary and that what people consider to be evil is more of a lack of good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't want to bring politics into it. Simply pointing out that, from the Red Revolution to the breaking down of the wall (and even today), the body count is stupidly high. And, for what reasons or motivations?

 

Personally, I feel the entire concept of "evil", especially in this regard, is muddled and that most people don't understand what it is that they're talking about, simply because true evil isn't something that you really see. Most atrocities that people dub as evil are simply the actions taken by someone that has lived a life of abuse and/or has chemical and mental issues. Just my opinion but I find the concept to be too binary and that what people consider to be evil is more of a lack of good.

 

Well there are levels of evil. Any act is dependent to be good or evil on the reasons behind the act. I won't involve real life politics, but killing millions of civilians, or letting them die is evil unless the reason behind them is something extremely important. The only example i can tell is in the Watchmen movie/comic. In there killing millions was justified by saving BILLIONS. Though it can still be considered as an act of evil, but far less evil, than letting millions die just to show false information to the world.

 

If i were give a definition of evil, then it would be something like this: Evil act is when you harm others, or other's property for your own selfish goals, that is not directly connected to your basic survival, or stopping another act of evil. Exception is when all members of the act are agree on the act. (for example when 2 jedi sparing) Stealing is considered harming other's property.

 

Now based on this the Empire does a lot of evil. Their slavery itself is evil as they harm slaves with the collars, and the goal is not basic survival. Also most slaves are not criminals so their slavery is not about preventing them from committing crimes.

Another great act of evil is the way they treat force users. How many apprentice dies in the trials of Korriban? And they aren't dying only, because a trial is hard, and they are weak, and foolish enough to get killed. If you fail a trial in Korriban, and retreat, then the instructor kills you for it. At least that's the normal way for them. This entire system involves a lot of killing, that isn't about stopping another act of evil, or basic survival.

Last but not least the siths also kill each others all the time. In all cases one fights for their survival by defending him/herself, and the other attacks, or send attackers for some selfish goal.

 

The primary reason, that makes the Empire evil is that 2 of these are entirely legalized, and the 3. is ignored in most cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Republic has great ideals but is rotten to its core, with corruption. The Empire is simply single-minded and without boundaries in how they achieve their goals. While the Republic would save your entire body to keep you alive only to watch you die, while the Empire would just as soon cut off your arm if it would save you.

 

The whole problem with this argument is that we tend to look at it, in terms of absolutes. Characters are ok with the Republic's corruption because they try to do so for the greater good. Evil for the greater good is still evil. Meanwhile, the Empire gets dumped upon because their absolute solutions are extremes. It is like saying that a white lie is ok but a full out lie is worthy of going to Hell.

 

Anyway, the Empire's actions are really driven by the plague that is the Sith. Take that away and what do you have? That's right - the Republic. The bolstering of the Sith is what leads to the actions by the Empire. After all, you're talking about an entire society predicated upon backstabbing and betraying people for more power. Ergo, that gets forced into all other facets of the society and much of it occurs out of self preservation.

 

In reality, this isn't a question of good versus evil. Rather, it is a question of which is the greater evil? Do you support evil for the greater good? Or, do you support enforced evil for self preservation? Both paths lead to fire!

 

Just to bring real life into context, would you consider the murder of civilians during war to be evil? Because:

 

- Great Britain did it when they bombed Dresden

- Churchill allowed it when he didn't tell the residents of Coventry to evacuate, for fear of letting the Germans know that the Allies cracked the Enigma code

- the US did it when they fire bombed Tokyo and again with the two nuclear bomb drops

- the Soviet Union massacred more people, both Russian and foreigners, after the revolution, during WW2, and afterwards, eclipsing what the Nazis did (also really bad)

- China continues to murder its populace and force them into hard labor death camps

- the Middle East is all manners of jacked up for what they do

- etc.

 

You can't look at any of that and say that those actions weren't evil. Yet, we give most of that a free pass because it achieved a positive (of sorts). The world isn't black and white. And, we have our own evil means of rationalizing bad things which, in no way shape or form, makes those actions actually good.

 

Implying the Republic is rotten to the core is a very bold claim. Does corruption exist in the Republic? Certainly. However, it has been shown in isolated cases. First with Senator Vanara Kayl and Senator Barc and afterward with the fall of Saresh. You can also talk about Belsavis, but that has as much good as it has evil. Saying that the Republic is corrupt to its core is nothing more than a bold claim and a false one.

 

The Empire isn't "simply single-minded" and without boundaries. "The Empire has literally legalized slavery, speciesism, and murder." They kill anyone they want and do whatever they want without any consequences. And this is coming from someone who loves the Empire.

 

No one here is dealing with absolutes. We all know the Republic has some level of corruption in it and that the Empire isn't all bad. However, "the Republic will never be as bad as the Empire, because, at the very least, they try to do the right thing." And that is exactly my point, the only reason why there even is a war is because of the Empire. The Empire attacked first. The Empire enslaved. The Empire wants to conquer the galaxy. Another bold claim is stating that if you take away the Sith, the Empire becomes the Republic. Without the Sith, there would be no Empire. The Empire itself was made FOR the Sith. There is no way to know what the Empire would become without the Sith or if it would even exist.

 

The reason why the Republic isn't just a lesser evil is that they try to do the right thing and they actually accomplish it most of the time. Players like to say that the Republic is just as bad as the Empire or that it's simply the lesser evil when in reality the only thing they can say about the Republic is that it has corruption. The Empire isn't fundamentally good and is corrupted by certain members, it is corruption itself. All of the "corrupted people" in the Republic are in fact considered corrupted by showing imperial ideals. Most of these so-called corrupted members would have been welcome with open arms in the Empire.

 

I won't talk about the real-life problems, simply because I feel they serve no purpose in this discussion. There is no point in making this political. If you want to give examples, use ones of this universe.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Implying the Republic is rotten to the core is a very bold claim. Does corruption exist in the Republic? Certainly. However, it has been shown in isolated cases. First with Senator Vanara Kayl and Senator Barc and afterward with the fall of Saresh. You can also talk about Belsavis, but that has as much good as it has evil. Saying that the Republic is corrupt to its core is nothing more than a bold claim and a false one.

 

The Empire isn't "simply single-minded" and without boundaries. "The Empire has literally legalized slavery, speciesism, and murder." They kill anyone they want and do whatever they want without any consequences. And this is coming from someone who loves the Empire.

 

Dictatory can be very good, or bad depending on the dictator. A good hearted Sith Emperor could reform the Empire in a few months into a system better, than the republic, and another can ruin it just as fast.

 

Democracy is always on the middle ground. It's never best, because corruption is inevitable amont the many influental people. Part of their leaders will always be evil, and corrupt preventing the perfection. But it never gets that bad, because the good part prevents it. If some crazy megalovaniac gets elected, then the senate makes it impossible to him/her to rule, and eventually swithes out.

 

Because of this the Republic always gona be a mostly good, but with little evil, and the Empire remains chaotic until a strong ruler comes. However it also means, that the efforts of the light sided SI, and SW are more than reasonable and possible. If a light sided SI becomes Emperor, then (s)he can reform the Empire into a better system. And becoming Emperor is only a matter of strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is a nuanced depiction of the Sith or the Empire out there somewhere, that might suggest they're the good guys and the Republic is the bad guys, or at least that the lines are blurred, I have to tell you that this is not the story you're looking for. For Imperials I might claim Pellaeon's Empire Remnant, and for the Sith I might claim Lumiya's Sith, but it is certainly not the cartoonish, moustache-twirling Empire of this game. It's bizarre to see players who genuinely can't tell the difference. Without getting into irl politics, that strikes me as a bad sign, lol.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...