Well, if you tell her to make Lorman a slave she calls it "a truly excellent idea." And later she sends you an email calling him

 

Darth Marr's exact line in "The Hunt" was "I did not ask for your assessment. Speak only when you have an update, or you will lose your tongue."

 

The Republic didn't strike first on Iokath, the Republic and Empire both got the data about the Superweapon at the same time. But the conflict on Iokath doesn't seem to be framed as the start of the current war, Ossus is.

 

So I would assume Iokath was more like a limited scale war in a similar vein as the Chapter 2 conflicts on Taris and Balmorra.

I would characterize Lorman's weakness as treachery, personally, so it might not fall into the same category as other forms of slavery. But that's speculative, admittedly.

I do think that Iokath was a seminal event. It didn't restart the war because the Alliance could still clamp down on it at the time, but that ended after Nathema.

With a good ruler the Empire could become good guys. Maybe even better, than the Republic. The problem is, that somehow pretty much every sith are evil in story. The only exception is Lana who seems to be more like neutral. She doesn't care for the small people, or innocents, and always looks for the greater picture. Sacrifice half of the city to give better chance for the galaxy. Or eliminate the mandalorians to ensure, that they pose no threat later for the cause. However i don't think, that even her would make the changes, that i find as primary problem in the empire.

1. Slavery. It's evil. I'm fanatic egalitarian in Stellaris, and i prefer that style to the point, that even machines with true AI should have rights. Your freedom is granted, because you got the intellect, and knowledge to have it. And will be taken if you use these against the laws.

2. The Sith training. It's cruel, sometimes luck based, and many dies. I don't mind through training, but sending all those people to death is over the limit. Not to mention, that it encourages conflict with other sith.

3. Racism. Now that's something Lana would probably change, and seems changing. Malgus is perfect example as he wanted to erase racism for his empire.

4. Sith rights. Specifically the fact, that sith can do anything with anyone. The only barrier is killing the other sith who is stronger, but beside that no one cares, if a sith kills, or tortures their own man. Or even other sith's man. Except that other sith who may, or may not punish the subject.

Republic has problems, but it tries to solve it. The only problem, that they don't even try to solve is the jedi training. And while joining the jedi order is not a matter of choice in most cases, but staying in it is. Officially if a jedi don't like being part of the order, then (s)he can just leave. Of course the rest of the order will be suspicious about it, but beside being watched no action will be taken unless it's required.

The republic is generally good, but there are bad guys in it. The Empire got evil leadership, and i rarely found any imperial officer who are good guys. One of the revanite on Dromund Kass seemed to be good person, but that's all i can remember suddenly. The rest are all megalovaniac selfish evil. The only other good imperial was met on republic storyline on Hoth. Though i haven't finished any Imperial storyline yet, but played until the end of Hoth recently with my Inquisitor.

Well, if you tell her to make Lorman a slave she calls it "a truly excellent idea." And later she sends you an email calling him

I took that option first time ever, on my fully light-sided Consular (well, not so fully light--sided anymore after that I guess), just because I wanted to see how the option would be. I have to say, while my Consular got dark side points, I found it somehow satisfying to give Lorman such punishment after everything he had done.

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.

This lol. Every time I see someone writing, "Well, it depends how you define good..." on this thread, I facepalm so hard I get a nose bleed. They are defending evil through relativism. And their arguments are made as though they absorbed cliches through their fingers from their keyboard, then spat them out in the forum.

This lol. Every time I see someone writing, "Well, it depends how you define good..." on this thread, I facepalm so hard I get a nose bleed. They are defending evil through relativism. And their arguments are made as though they absorbed cliches through their fingers from their keyboard, then spat them out in the forum.

Asking for a person's definition of good and claiming that this is defending the Empire through relativism is a massive category error. It would be relativism if the person claimed "this is good or evil for/to me." It's not relativism to ask, however, what is meant by "good" as this is a term loaded with (in real life) theological/philosophical commitments and meanings which many people reject.

Personally, I play as a Sith who is disgusted by some of the Imperial tactics is loyal to it because its his home and he wants to improve it from the inside.

This lol. Every time I see someone writing, "Well, it depends how you define good..." on this thread, I facepalm so hard I get a nose bleed. They are defending evil through relativism. And their arguments are made as though they absorbed cliches through their fingers from their keyboard, then spat them out in the forum.

The better question is. Good for who? The Empire's authoritarian philosophy might be heaven for the powerful sith lords, but hell for the slaves. So for a small number of person they are good guys. It's also good to make the galaxy generally stronger, if they are willing to promote hard workers. Free the slaves who are working hard enough. That would give motivation for the rest, and would allow for the better genes to pass on easier. Or make it similar to Sith training. In every X time the best slaves gets freed. For example one slave each year. That would also give motivation, and competition. Though that requires change in the system.

Also think about what your character gets in the end.

Republic: some nice medals, or big wealth as Smuggler. Or a title as jedi. It's not exactly great power. The only one ending with real power is the evil sided smuggler who might have his own criminal empire, and in theory swimming in credits.

Empire: The siths became second only to the Emperor, and equal with the council members. They can do pretty much anything as long as they don't directly harm other council members. Buy their own slaves, have huge luxury, or just kill randomly. Many people has the dark desire to own slaves.

For Bounty Hunters, and Agents situation is not that bright. Officially they are still below the Sith. Still the BH might have enough money to buy what he wants.

Asking for a person's definition of good and claiming that this is defending the Empire through relativism is a massive category error. It would be relativism if the person claimed "this is good or evil for/to me." It's not relativism to ask, however, what is meant by "good" as this is a term loaded with (in real life) theological/philosophical commitments and meanings which many people reject.

 

Personally, I play as a Sith who is disgusted by some of the Imperial tactics is loyal to it because its his home and he wants to improve it from the inside.

I look at it, through the lens of the Agent. This is why I'm taking the point of, it depends. Military personnel don't have the luxury of arguing good vs evil. You either do the task at hand and eat the results or you refuse and eat the results. Plus, your concept is sort of painting a wide brush. Based upon what you're saying, there is no such thing as a good SS soldier. Yet, if you research Kurt Knispel, you'll find that he 100% did not follow the SS doctrine and was largely demoted and put into crappy situations because he tried to save captured enemy soldiers.

In SWTOR, the agent is a glorified police detective. Chapter 1 = finding out who attacked Drommund Kas and bringing the terrorist cells to justice. Chapter 2 is going undercover with the SIS to defeat Ardun Kothe. And Chapter 3 is bringing the end of the Shadow Cabal. While you have Light side and Dark side choices, none of it is about the "evil" that is attached to the Empire. You're finding enemies and bringing them to justice - it is, almost 100%, the same story arc as the Republic Trooper. My agents are there to serve and protect. I don't judge what you do, why you do it, or to whom you do it. You're my charge and I'll shield you from harm, or avenge you, as best that I can.

The Bounty Hunter isn't even really associated with the Empire yet its story CAN be super dark. Hello cutting off heads and handing them to the former owner's wife. Or, do I kill the woman, kill her lover (bounty target), or freeze her lover? Hey look, this Republic chic has a price on her head - let's kill her! Choices!!!

Nobody is going to correctly and intelligently argue that the Empire are the good guys. As I've said before, when you bombard worlds, conquer galaxies, enslave people, and experiment upon the downtrodden, you're not in the position to be labeled as the "good guys". BUT, that isn't to say that everyone involved wears a tall black hat while twisting their long black mustache. All nations and armies have monsters. But, monsters do not make up the entirety of nations and armies. The Pubs have their bads, too. It is just easier to forget that, thanks to the extremely polarized story line that is purposely biased, based upon the movies and cannon. How boring would Star Wars, as a product, be if both sides were kittens and rainbows? Would you want to see a fight scene between Obi Wan and Darth Vader, Vader and Luke, or Vader and the Emperor, if both sides kept apologizing to each other because they're both trying to hug each other first?

Really depends on who is running the empire.

Vitiate as emperor = cartoon evil.

When Marr was head of state = lawful neutral

Acina as empress = chaotic neutral.

Not really true. The core values of the Empire stay the same with all of those leaders and they're certainly not "neutral" of any kind.

Not really true. The core values of the Empire stay the same with all of those leaders and they're certainly not "neutral" of any kind.

Yeah, at best I'd say then went from Super Neutral Evil to Lawful Evil under Marr and Acina.

This is why I dislike terms such as 'good' and 'evil'. Those terms extremely subjective.

For giggles, let's compare the two opposing 'codes';

There is no emotion, there is peace.

There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.

There is no passion, there is serenity.

There is no chaos, there is harmony.

There is no death, there is the Force.

Let's take a quick look at the Jedi Code first. It disavows the existence or need of emotion, ignorance, passion, chaos and death. This completely forgoes the possibility of love, empathy, caring, etc. Without ignorance, you cannot discover knowledge. If there is no passion, there is no drive to do anything on a personal level. You are a robot who receives orders and executes said orders. The universe itself is smörgåsbord of chaos. And denying the existence of death makes it reek of a religious sermon.

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.

Through passion, I gain strength.

Through strength, I gain power.

Through power, I gain victory.

Through victory, my chains are broken.

The Force shall free me.

Now the Sith Code. Nowhere in the Sith code is there any mention of violence or corruption, like many assume. In fact, all this seems to describe is a way to channel your emotions in order to better yourself. To what end? It doesn't make any assumptions about that. That is something purely in the mind of the one who reads it. To me it simply reads as a saying which is simply aimed at bettering oneself, using the tools that life gives you. It only becomes evil if you interpret it as such.

For me, personally, I find the Jedi Code completely apprehensible as it basically tells you to get rid of anything that makes you human. In my eyes, it makes it evil by default. While the Sith Code makes no such harsh claim and might be something worth adhering to, depending on how you interpret it. It is not evil be default.

Naturally, others may think differently. It just goes to show that my initial point of 'good' and 'evil' being subjective applies. The same applies to many aspects throughout SWTOR. I simply don't think you can comprehensibly classify one side or the other as 'good' or 'evil'. There are those in the Empire who genuinely want whats best for everyone in it, while there are those in the Republic senate that would sell their own mothers if it got them ahead.

First of all, I would like the say that no one in this thread is questioning the subjectivity of evil.

This is why I dislike terms such as 'good' and 'evil'. Those terms extremely subjective.

 

For giggles, let's compare the two opposing 'codes';

 

There is no emotion, there is peace.

There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.

There is no passion, there is serenity.

There is no chaos, there is harmony.

There is no death, there is the Force.

 

Let's take a quick look at the Jedi Code first. It disavows the existence or need of emotion, ignorance, passion, chaos and death. This completely forgoes the possibility of love, empathy, caring, etc. Without ignorance, you cannot discover knowledge. If there is no passion, there is no drive to do anything on a personal level. You are a robot who receives orders and executes said orders. The universe itself is smörgåsbord of chaos. And denying the existence of death makes it reek of a religious sermon.

 

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.

Through passion, I gain strength.

Through strength, I gain power.

Through power, I gain victory.

Through victory, my chains are broken.

The Force shall free me.

 

Now the Sith Code. Nowhere in the Sith code is there any mention of violence or corruption, like many assume. In fact, all this seems to describe is a way to channel your emotions in order to better yourself. To what end? It doesn't make any assumptions about that. That is something purely in the mind of the one who reads it. To me it simply reads as a saying which is simply aimed at bettering oneself, using the tools that life gives you. It only becomes evil if you interpret it as such.

 

For me, personally, I find the Jedi Code completely apprehensible as it basically tells you to get rid of anything that makes you human. In my eyes, it makes it evil by default. While the Sith Code makes no such harsh claim and might be something worth adhering to, depending on how you interpret it. It is not evil be default.

Well, the Jedi and Sith codes aren't really the best way to show the subjectivity of evilness, since it doesn't really matter what they say. What matters is what their users do and an undeniable truth is that, at least in SWTOR, most sith we meet are bloodthirsty and evil and most Jedi are inherently good.

Naturally, others may think differently. It just goes to show that my initial point of 'good' and 'evil' being subjective applies. The same applies to many aspects throughout SWTOR. I simply don't think you can comprehensibly classify one side or the other as 'good' or 'evil'. There are those in the Empire who genuinely want whats best for everyone in it, while there are those in the Republic senate that would sell their own mothers if it got them ahead.

As was already said in this thread before, a few members of an entire faction DO NOT represent the entirety of it. Just because some imperials don't want to torture you for the simple act of breathing, that doesn't mean the Empire is good, just like a few corrupt senators don't make the Republic evil.

This is why I dislike terms such as 'good' and 'evil'. Those terms extremely subjective.

 

For giggles, let's compare the two opposing 'codes';

 

There is no emotion, there is peace.

There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.

There is no passion, there is serenity.

There is no chaos, there is harmony.

There is no death, there is the Force.

 

Let's take a quick look at the Jedi Code first. It disavows the existence or need of emotion, ignorance, passion, chaos and death. This completely forgoes the possibility of love, empathy, caring, etc. Without ignorance, you cannot discover knowledge. If there is no passion, there is no drive to do anything on a personal level. You are a robot who receives orders and executes said orders. The universe itself is smörgåsbord of chaos. And denying the existence of death makes it reek of a religious sermon.

 

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.

Through passion, I gain strength.

Through strength, I gain power.

Through power, I gain victory.

Through victory, my chains are broken.

The Force shall free me.

 

Now the Sith Code. Nowhere in the Sith code is there any mention of violence or corruption, like many assume. In fact, all this seems to describe is a way to channel your emotions in order to better yourself. To what end? It doesn't make any assumptions about that. That is something purely in the mind of the one who reads it. To me it simply reads as a saying which is simply aimed at bettering oneself, using the tools that life gives you. It only becomes evil if you interpret it as such.

 

For me, personally, I find the Jedi Code completely apprehensible as it basically tells you to get rid of anything that makes you human. In my eyes, it makes it evil by default. While the Sith Code makes no such harsh claim and might be something worth adhering to, depending on how you interpret it. It is not evil be default.

 

Naturally, others may think differently. It just goes to show that my initial point of 'good' and 'evil' being subjective applies. The same applies to many aspects throughout SWTOR. I simply don't think you can comprehensibly classify one side or the other as 'good' or 'evil'. There are those in the Empire who genuinely want whats best for everyone in it, while there are those in the Republic senate that would sell their own mothers if it got them ahead.

Your post reads as a very surface level interpretation of the two codes. Like one who takes an intro to philosophy class and thinks they understand Nietzsche. First and foremost, the Sith code is well established in the lore to be a corruption of the Jedi code, so while I'm only going to delve into the Jedi code with my post quite often one can flip the narrative when applied to the Sith code.

There is no emotion, there is peace.

This line does not deny the existence of emotion, as you claim. If fact it acknowledges that everyone feels emotion. It is also one of the most important lines of the Jedi code. What it is saying, quite simply, is that a Jedi must always act with peace and clarity of mind. One is more apt to do or say something when feeling strong emotions. A person may lash out with anger, be paralyzed by fear, or make a wrong choice when their thoughts are clouded by jealousy or an attachment to a single individual. Take the trolley problem. Put simply, would you sacrifice one life to save five. Would it matter if that one life is a stranger. What if it was your child or spouse/partner? While there is no right answer to the problem a Jedi must ensure that their choice is not clouded by emotion. Did you allow the trolley to kill the five people because that was the circumstance or because of your attachment to the other person? Did you sacrifice the one life because someone you cared for was among the five? That would be a choice made out of emotion and selfishness. A Jedi wields great power, and they must only use that power for the greater good. Not out of vengeance, anger, spite, or even love for a particular person, which may cause them to place the well being of that individual over others.

There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.

Ignorance is a fact of life. This line doesn't deny that fact. We are all ignorant of something and Jedi are no exception. But a Jedi wields great power. That power should not be used in ignorance. It reminds a Jedi to not act with rashness. A Jedi must always seek knowledge. Only with knowledge can one act with wisdom.

There is no passion, there is serenity.

In many ways this line of the code is closely tied to the first line. It is not bad to be passionate about something, but that passion can lead one to poor choices. One thing to note in particular, this line does not speak to the passion that one can feel about an endeavor. I am passionate about my photography and astronomy. One can feel passion for their art or craft. This line does not speak to that; it speaks to passionate emotions and beliefs. It reminds a Jedi not to be too sure in what they believe. Being too sure of one's belief can lead to a closed mind.

There is no chaos, there is harmony.

So much of the Jedi code has to do with thought and this line is no exception. A chaotic mind breeds rashness. One can not have clarity of thought with a chaotic mind. One can not take the wise course of action if their thoughts are disordered. This line of the code reminds a Jedi that harmony of the mind and clarity of thought is required if they are to act for the greater good.

There is no death, there is the Force.

This is, perhaps, the most simple line of the Jedi code. Death is a fact of life. Quite often Jedi are asked to place their lives on the line for others. To borrow a line from the game, when one recognizes that death is not your enemy it loses its power over you and becomes an ally. When one fears death that fear can cloud their judgement and influence their choices. A Jedi must not fear death. That doesn't mean they should seek death, or that they should have no sense of self preservation, but that they must not allow the possibility of death be the determining factor in whether they take or do not take an action. It does not mean that life is not valuable. It reminds a Jedi that death is not the end; it is only one step on the natural cycle.

Nowhere in there is a Jedi denied feeling love, or empathy, or compassion. The danger is in attachment. A Jedi must love all equally and not place anyone above others. That means a Jedi must love their enemy as much as their ally. A Jedi is not denied anger, or compassion, or any emotion. A Jedi can feel anger over an injustice, but they can not act from a place of anger. They must always be mindful of their emotions and their motivations. Jedi Knight Revan would not have gone to face the Mandalorians if not for compassion. Remember, it was not the Mandalorian War that caused Revan and Malak to fall but the influence of the Emperor. Nor was it the cause of Meetra becoming disconnected from the force. Meetra's compassion was so great, she felt so strongly the loss of so many lives at Malachor V, that it was the impetus for her force blindness.

The Jedi code can not be taken literally. The code does not deny the existence of emotions or passions. It reminds us that when one is ruled by their emotions and passions they can not find peace and serenity. It does not deny ignorance. It reminds us that we should always seek knowledge and that knowledge must be the basis for our actions. In saying that there is no chaos it is not denying the existence of chaos in the galaxy. It is acknowledging that a chaotic, undisciplined mind can not find harmony. It doesn't deny that death exists. It tells us that death is a natural part of the force.

You are basically making my point for me; good and evil are open for interpretation. In fact, I believe your post shows just how many assumptions one can make from just a few lines of text. Most of which I disagree with.

Since I have to go to work in just a few minutes I can't go into your entire post, but this example is pretty much what my reply would boil down to;

You say 'This line does not deny the existence of emotion, as you claim. If fact it acknowledges that everyone feels emotion.'. I say, the fact that the code literally states 'There is no emotion' makes your statement faulty. The only way you can reason your statement is by extending into further Jedi beliefs outside of the code itself. The code on it's own quite literally denies the existence of emotion.

You reason in exactly the same way for each line of the Jedi code. Only by interpreting it in a certain way, outside of the context of the code itself, would you arrive at your conclusions. I am not saying your wrong. Not at all. I am merely saying that by it's very definition, it depends on who reads the code that determines it's meaning and moral alignment. I find it a reprehensible code to live by, you don't. And the funny thing is, neither of us is actually wrong.

Just like the Sith code, the Jedi code can be both good and evil at the same time. The same way that a Sith might consider the Empire a force for good and the Republic a force of evil. It depends on the point of view.

If you want to argue if either the Empire or the Republic is a negative influence of the galaxy by imperical and measurable means, that would be a whole different argument. And one that would actually be more productive than trying to argue something that has different meanings for everyone.

His point is that taking the code literally is ridiculous. If you take it literally then it also denies the existence of chaos, passion, ignorance, and death.

Those are all observably false, and the Jedi have never believed any of those things to be the case. If they believed there was no chaos, why would they strive to bring order? If they believed there was no emotion, why would they warn people to guard against it? If they believed there was already no ignorance, why would they strive for knowledge? If they believed there was no death, why would they try to save people's lives? They obviously do all those things, even before that version of the Jedi Code came to be, so the Code was never meant to be taken literally.

You are basically making my point for me; good and evil are open for interpretation. In fact, I believe your post shows just how many assumptions one can make from just a few lines of text. Most of which I disagree with.

 

Since I have to go to work in just a few minutes I can't go into your entire post, but this example is pretty much what my reply would boil down to;

 

You say 'This line does not deny the existence of emotion, as you claim. If fact it acknowledges that everyone feels emotion.'. I say, the fact that the code literally states 'There is no emotion' makes your statement faulty. The only way you can reason your statement is by extending into further Jedi beliefs outside of the code itself. The code on it's own quite literally denies the existence of emotion.

 

You reason in exactly the same way for each line of the Jedi code. Only by interpreting it in a certain way, outside of the context of the code itself, would you arrive at your conclusions. I am not saying your wrong. Not at all. I am merely saying that by it's very definition, it depends on who reads the code that determines it's meaning and moral alignment. I find it a reprehensible code to live by, you don't. And the funny thing is, neither of us is actually wrong.

 

Just like the Sith code, the Jedi code can be both good and evil at the same time. The same way that a Sith might consider the Empire a force for good and the Republic a force of evil. It depends on the point of view.

 

If you want to argue if either the Empire or the Republic is a negative influence of the galaxy by imperical and measurable means, that would be a whole different argument. And one that would actually be more productive than trying to argue something that has different meanings for everyone.

As I said, a surface level interpretation. The code is not literal it is a philosophy. Which is why it takes a Jedi years of study to interpret and put into practice the code. See the cutscenes from the Inquisitor story on Taris as an example where Ashara is explaining what various lines of the code mean. If you can not see beyond the words to the deeper meaning, if all you're going to do is a literal reading of the code and never delve deeper into the code, then you will never understand the code.

His point is that taking the code literally is ridiculous. If you take it literally then it also denies the existence of chaos, passion, ignorance, and death.

 

Those are all observably false, and the Jedi have never believed any of those things to be the case. If they believed there was no chaos, why would they strive to bring order? If they believed there was no emotion, why would they warn people to guard against it? If they believed there was already no ignorance, why would they strive for knowledge? If they believed there was no death, why would they try to save people's lives? They obviously do all those things, even before that version of the Jedi Code came to be, so the Code was never meant to be taken literally.

Well, the truth of the matter is that the current code is a mangled form of the original, which went "Emotion, yet peace; ignorance, yet knowledge," etc. Why they did that, I truly don't know.

Well, the truth of the matter is that the current code is a mangled form of the original, which went "Emotion, yet peace; ignorance, yet knowledge," etc. Why they did that, I truly don't know.

Blame Odan-Urr.

It's possible they wanted to emphasize the inspirational goals of the code more.

Although, I was sort of under the impression that the out of universe reason was that the new code was originally developed for the "Well meaning, but flawed" Jedi doctrine of the PT era, for when the Jedi Order falls. Don't quote me on that though.

First of all, I would like the say that no one in this thread is questioning the subjectivity of evil.

If we're taking about the in-game universe, that's debatable. If we're talking about the real world, I certainly hope you don't want to argue evil is subjective.

It just goes to show that my initial point of 'good' and 'evil' being subjective applies. The same applies to many aspects throughout SWTOR. I simply don't think you can comprehensibly classify one side or the other as 'good' or 'evil'. There are those in the Empire who genuinely want whats best for everyone in it, while there are those in the Republic senate that would sell their own mothers if it got them ahead.

Yeah, but institutionalised racism.

Yeah, but totalitarian government.

Yeah, but slavery.

I'm pretty comfortable classifying the Empire as evil. Not everyone in it, certainly, but the system as a whole.

I always found the widespread use of slavery to be a little strange. The old meme of "Slavery gets #### done" might be true, but in the real world we didn't have access to such insanely good technology. If we can easily make droids that can understand advanced combat tactics why do we need slaves? You can have droids with barely any sentience at all, if any, to do basic commands of work and labor. Droids you don't need to feed, don't need to sleep, don't get complex medical conditions, don't get pregnant, don't grow old...

You plug them in instead of having them sleep, replace a few parts instead of needing healthcare, and the truly ancient are replaced. So why isn't 90% of all labor in the galaxy droid based?

At this point I think the widespread slavery bit is just used to add more cartoon evil to bad guys to make them more bad guy-ish.

I always found the widespread use of slavery to be a little strange. The old meme of "Slavery gets #### done" might be true, but in the real world we didn't have access to such insanely good technology. If we can easily make droids that can understand advanced combat tactics why do we need slaves? You can have droids with barely any sentience at all, if any, to do basic commands of work and labor. Droids you don't need to feed, don't need to sleep, don't get complex medical conditions, don't get pregnant, don't grow old...

 

You plug them in instead of having them sleep, replace a few parts instead of needing healthcare, and the truly ancient are replaced. So why isn't 90% of all labor in the galaxy droid based?

 

At this point I think the widespread slavery bit is just used to add more cartoon evil to bad guys to make them more bad guy-ish.

Yeah, it's more of a worldbuilding tool to make Empires seem evil, although there are a few droid-based evil civlization out there. Even within SWTOR, The Eternal Empire seems to have slaves as we've seen in KOTET but also have an over-reliance on droids, the builders of Iokath as well.

I always found the widespread use of slavery to be a little strange. The old meme of "Slavery gets #### done" might be true, but in the real world we didn't have access to such insanely good technology. If we can easily make droids that can understand advanced combat tactics why do we need slaves? You can have droids with barely any sentience at all, if any, to do basic commands of work and labor. Droids you don't need to feed, don't need to sleep, don't get complex medical conditions, don't get pregnant, don't grow old...

 

You plug them in instead of having them sleep, replace a few parts instead of needing healthcare, and the truly ancient are replaced. So why isn't 90% of all labor in the galaxy droid based?

 

At this point I think the widespread slavery bit is just used to add more cartoon evil to bad guys to make them more bad guy-ish.

Star Wars is a setting that uses a lot of sci-fi and fantasy tropes, it's not trying to be realistic in every aspect.