Jump to content

Reasons for being a Light-sided or "Grey" Sith


EAFSAMWISE

Recommended Posts

Before I begin this thread, I know I'll probably receive endless comments of "make what choices you want, its up to you," or "it's just a game, who cares?" Those who aren't serious about discussing this should best leave the thread alone. But for those who would be concerned or interested, I'm curious what the best justification is for being light-sided or "Grey" as a Sith, or to put it a better way, what is the most plausible or realistic way or reason for leaning this way as a Sith in the context of the game. I'd personally rather not play all dark-side decisions or options because frankly I'd rather not just be a murderous psychopath and have some emotional investment in the plot as a genuine story. On the flip-side, it makes no sense in a lot of cases for a Sith to be a "goody two-shoes" and it just seems out-of-character. Thus it would seem to a Sith would need to have selfish or "sith-like" motives that would somehow translate into relatively moderated or light-sided actions. Here are the following motives I'd propose:

1) Those weaker than you are more useful alive--don't wantonly just murder everyone. Those targets aren't honorable kills. I would look to Lord Praven from Jedi Knight story as an ideal on this

2) Peace is a temporal necessity--this doesn't make it my absolute goal but according to Darth Thanaton, "without tradition, the Sith would be so awash in their own blood that they wouldn't see their enemies coming." Obviously some of his other motives were idiotic but I see his point and concern here. A form of peace is in some ways partly necessary in order for people to be able to learn from each other and gain strength, power, freedom, etc (Lana Beniko echoes this too when speaking to Gnost-Dural in Onslaught)

3) Too dangerous to be left alive--some people simply need to be killed because they're a threat to you and/or others and can't be contained. I killed Darth Baras rather than spare him, and I also killed Lord Paladius in the Inquisitors story on Nar Shadaa when I usurped his cult. I also killed Thana Vesh at the end of the Taris story arc due to her unethical behavior.

4) Those stronger than you are a worthy challenge--this is who you seek to rise above and eventually kill. As Lord Kallig says, "beware your master, beware your apprentice." Always be vigilant and ready to strike if you are threatened by either those stronger than you and those below you who seek to match your strength. After all, the Empire isn't safe and you need to be ready for those who would seek to take you down. In either case, power must be cautiously respected for its deadly potential.

 

Please share your thoughts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Those weaker than you are more useful alive--don't wantonly just murder everyone. Those targets aren't honorable kills. I would look to Lord Praven from Jedi Knight story as an ideal on this

As a variation of this, there's always how I justify my Sith, who are mostly goggley-eyed maniacs, when they keep Senya and Arcann alive. There's an aspect of "keep them alive because they are useful alive", but there's also the question of what they are useful *for*. The goggley-eyed maniacs do it out of *spite* against Vaylin.

 

Well, and there's Yerka Kolar, who is about as goggley-eyed as they come, who released (light-side) a certain someone in KotET Chapter VII even though keeping that someone is more useful. She gets occasional episodes of creepy-crawly paranoia, and keeping that someone captive seriously triggered a new episode.

3) Too dangerous to be left alive--some people simply need to be killed because they're a threat to you and/or others and can't be contained. I killed Darth Baras rather than spare him, and I also killed Lord Paladius in the Inquisitors story on Nar Shadaa when I usurped his cult. I also killed Thana Vesh at the end of the Taris story arc due to her unethical behavior.

Funny. I killed her because she's an insufferably petulant *brat*. (That fits with the generally "go with your passions" theme of the Sith code as well.)

 

Then again, much of what you see from the less maniacal Sith is driven by *pragmatism*. The two main examples that I could cite are Darth Marr and Lana Beniko, but they aren't the only ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find Lana Baniko to be a good example of a "good" Sith. She abides by using emotion to empower her use of the Force, but she controls her emotions. She does what she thinks is necessary, no more, no less. I also like her take on power:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Empire is home to plenty of perfectly good people who didn't ask to be born under the government of the bad guys. All it takes is a little imagination to think of how someone who was born in the Empire could develop moral values.

It's worth bearing in mind that if the Empire is the bad guys, the best the Republic can offer is being the other bad guys, and the hypocritical ones at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's worth bearing in mind that if the Empire is the bad guys, the best the Republic can offer is being the other bad guys, and the hypocritical ones at that.

 

Definitely worth considering but the average person would probably prefer the Republic in the end despite it's hypocrisies. They abuse their power sometimes but that's not the norm and/or doesn't affect the average citizen on a daily basis. By contrast, the Empire practices slavery and is controlled ultimately by a cult of impulse-driven sadists who manipulate things at will. The only bulwark against this is Sith "traditionalists" like Thanaton and Tremmel who believe in pragmatic restraint but also support hereditary discrimination on the basis of lineage and species. The main downside of the Republic is its hypocrisy & corruption in the military and the fact that it seems to benefit criminals and the underworld more, as is shown in the Smuggler story

Edited by EAFSAMWISE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sith Code mentions "passion" explicitly but says nothing about fear, anger or hatred. I have always interpreted Sith philosophy as harnessing emotions to use the Force, as opposed to the Jedi philosophy of rejecting emotions for the same purpose. I have never seen an explicit rule applicable to all Sith mandating or prohibiting the harnessing of specific emotions.

 

Most Sith seem to rely on the usual defaults of fear, anger, and hatred, but it is plausible for a Sith to instead harness love, compassion and/or empathy instead, which does not appear to contradict Sith doctrine. I don't think it matters where the passion comes from or what emotions are amplified.

 

The Jedi in SWTOR always come across to me as pretentious, deficient in empathy and unavoidably hypocritical. In real life, a person who feels a limited range of emotions and lacks empathy is usually a psychopath. I'm not demonizing the Jedi or saying that they're psychopaths, but they seem far too cold to be as morally wholesome as one might assume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sith Code mentions "passion" explicitly but says nothing about fear, anger or hatred. I have always interpreted Sith philosophy as harnessing emotions to use the Force, as opposed to the Jedi philosophy of rejecting emotions for the same purpose. I have never seen an explicit rule applicable to all Sith mandating or prohibiting the harnessing of specific emotions.

 

Most Sith seem to rely on the usual defaults of fear, anger, and hatred, but it is plausible for a Sith to instead harness love, compassion and/or empathy instead, which does not appear to contradict Sith doctrine. I don't think it matters where the passion comes from or what emotions are amplified.

 

The Jedi in SWTOR always come across to me as pretentious, deficient in empathy and unavoidably hypocritical. In real life, a person who feels a limited range of emotions and lacks empathy is usually a psychopath. I'm not demonizing the Jedi or saying that they're psychopaths, but they seem far too cold to be as morally wholesome as one might assume.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong about the Sith code itself but my criticisms are directed more at how it plays out and is practiced

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this thread.

 

So, to answer your question I can be a Grey Sith by virtue of what ties into my own personal morality. More so, alot of Empire light sided options are not by virtue of them being Lightside, good options. Instead, they are pragmatic options that would ultimately help the Empire in the long run.

 

I will further explantion, I don't like the some of the light sided options within the Sith Inquisator storyline because I do not believe in reforming the Empire, I rather believe the Empire should use its resources better. I also play my characters with my own headcannon in mind and as such being Grey can work to that.

 

However with all that I have mentioned, I do have some characters where I stick completely to the Darkside or the Lightside because those characters were built that way. I know I rambled a bit, but thats my thoughts on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this thread.

 

So, to answer your question I can be a Grey Sith by virtue of what ties into my own personal morality. More so, alot of Empire light sided options are not by virtue of them being Lightside, good options. Instead, they are pragmatic options that would ultimately help the Empire in the long run.

 

I will further explantion, I don't like the some of the light sided options within the Sith Inquisator storyline because I do not believe in reforming the Empire, I rather believe the Empire should use its resources better. I also play my characters with my own headcannon in mind and as such being Grey can work to that.

 

However with all that I have mentioned, I do have some characters where I stick completely to the Darkside or the Lightside because those characters were built that way. I know I rambled a bit, but thats my thoughts on the matter.

 

Even the Darkest NPCs accept some of your Light choices. Obviously the script forces the outcome of the choice, but rather you'll get spoken approval or acceptance. They don't see it as a Light choice, only how it benefits the Empire or at least defer to your Judgment out of respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My more "light leaning" Sith (and here I mean light leaning in the context of the game choices, not as a philosophy) usually have a pragmatic approach. For example to not waste a potential asset. A lot of LS/DS choices are kill or imprison, alt. keep as an ally, where I choose to keep people alive for information or to keep allies when possible. Killing a devoted ally because they screwed up a mission is also a no go for such a character. It is also more effective to try to negotiate with an enemy than right on kill them. Maybe they have vital information one can use, and so on ...

 

My most light sided Sith is a SI who believes in strength and power through hard work and devotion to a cause (whichever cause that is). She believes that everyone who is strong should have the possibility to use that strength for the good of the Empire, so she is against slavery and discrimination of other species since she sees it as ineffective. But even she chooses DS options when appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Empire is home to plenty of perfectly good people who didn't ask to be born under the government of the bad guys. All it takes is a little imagination to think of how someone who was born in the Empire could develop moral values.

 

This is part of my issue w/ being a Light-sided Sith Warrior. It makes no sense to willingly be Baras' lackey and just follow his plan to start a war and assassinate random people. It gets even worse with LS Jaesa bc she criticizes the pragmatism of the LS Warrior and asks how I am different, if at all, from her former master Nomen Karr. Plus if she stays LS, it makes zero sense for her to betray the Republic but then turn around and follow the Empire with the same exact pragmatism which she saw in Nomen Karr and made her see hypocrisy in him. Again, it makes no logical sense but then playing as a DS Warrior w/ DS Jaesa makes me feel like scrap bc I seem to just be serving no higher purpose or ideal and it feels empty and wrong. Thus simply being "born into it" is the best explanation for an LS Warrior I'm my opinion, especially since the Sith Warrior seems to be someone from noble or privileged lineage by imperial standards and Overseer Tremmel really emphasizes this. Darth Baras basically forces the Warrior to earn their place and prove themselves via merit so perhaps blindly following orders could be seen as part of the Warrior's initial struggle to prove themselves

Edited by EAFSAMWISE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have a neutral SW that takes the "honor" approach. It's easier on the SW since the storyline references honorable choices. As mentioned previously, you can take the Praven approach and seek challenges while sparing those weaker than you.

 

I also like that being honorable does NOT imply being rational or pragmatic, it means you believe in the higher ideals of what it is to be imperial or Sith. So you can be xenophobic and pro-slavery, for example, because those are the values that the Empire stands on. My SW had a lot of great convos with Vette where she'd say things like "yes, your people make good slaves!" and not intend to be cruel about it. That's just imperial culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a neutral SW that takes the "honor" approach. It's easier on the SW since the storyline references honorable choices. As mentioned previously, you can take the Praven approach and seek challenges while sparing those weaker than you.

 

I also like that being honorable does NOT imply being rational or pragmatic, it means you believe in the higher ideals of what it is to be imperial or Sith. So you can be xenophobic and pro-slavery, for example, because those are the values that the Empire stands on. My SW had a lot of great convos with Vette where she'd say things like "yes, your people make good slaves!" and not intend to be cruel about it. That's just imperial culture.

 

I mostly agree with this, and I too play my Sith Warrior as an "honorable" character. I do diverge a bit on preserving the traditions of the the Sith Empire, and also on my character's precise motivation for showing mercy or generosity when appropriate.

 

It is my perception that the Sith Empire values order, and it's rulers are well-equipped to stamp out corruption when they choose to do so (Empress Acina comes to mind, though I haven't actually played anything beyond Shadow of Revan yet, I just watched some of KotFE and KotET over my wife's shoulder, so I could be mistaken). It could be argued that such a system of government confers advantages to its populace, and it could further be argued that the traditions making that system possible and stable are worth preserving.

 

I diverge on issues like slavery and xenophobia, as there is no context in which such practices could be anything but wrong, but I think it is reasonable to say that every society has flaws and life (in an aggregate sense) is a never-ending quest to address those flaws. However, I have observed that the Sith Empire keeps at least xenophobia more or less in check, and as far as I can tell, non-humans/non-purebloods face fewer obstacles in the Sith Empire than I expected them to when I first started playing SWTOR almost ten years ago. That doesn't make it right that they face any additional obstacles, but if degree means anything in this context, the Sith Empire gets a little bit of credit for that.

 

As far as motivations go, my SW does value honor/pragmatism and will kill NPCs who clearly deserve it and also preserve potential resources, but in my mind some of her words and merciful/generous actions are motivated by compassion rather than honor or pragmatism. The Sith Code mandates passion, but the source of that passion is at the discretion of the individual Sith. Compassion and empathy are no less valid choices than the usual defaults of fear, anger and hatred. This is the source of my main criticism of the Jedi. Explicitly rejecting emotion and emotional commitments may clear the mind, but it can just as easily lead to devaluing people as if they are means rather than ends. In this era of the Star Wars universe, it wouldn't take much for the Sith to become unambiguously "good" and for the Jedi to become heartless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mostly agree with this, and I too play my Sith Warrior as an "honorable" character. I do diverge a bit on preserving the traditions of the the Sith Empire, and also on my character's precise motivation for showing mercy or generosity when appropriate.

 

It is my perception that the Sith Empire values order, and it's rulers are well-equipped to stamp out corruption when they choose to do so (Empress Acina comes to mind, though I haven't actually played anything beyond Shadow of Revan yet, I just watched some of KotFE and KotET over my wife's shoulder, so I could be mistaken). It could be argued that such a system of government confers advantages to its populace, and it could further be argued that the traditions making that system possible and stable are worth preserving.

 

I diverge on issues like slavery and xenophobia, as there is no context in which such practices could be anything but wrong, but I think it is reasonable to say that every society has flaws and life (in an aggregate sense) is a never-ending quest to address those flaws. However, I have observed that the Sith Empire keeps at least xenophobia more or less in check, and as far as I can tell, non-humans/non-purebloods face fewer obstacles in the Sith Empire than I expected them to when I first started playing SWTOR almost ten years ago. That doesn't make it right that they face any additional obstacles, but if degree means anything in this context, the Sith Empire gets a little bit of credit for that.

 

As far as motivations go, my SW does value honor/pragmatism and will kill NPCs who clearly deserve it and also preserve potential resources, but in my mind some of her words and merciful/generous actions are motivated by compassion rather than honor or pragmatism. The Sith Code mandates passion, but the source of that passion is at the discretion of the individual Sith. Compassion and empathy are no less valid choices than the usual defaults of fear, anger and hatred. This is the source of my main criticism of the Jedi. Explicitly rejecting emotion and emotional commitments may clear the mind, but it can just as easily lead to devaluing people as if they are means rather than ends. In this era of the Star Wars universe, it wouldn't take much for the Sith to become unambiguously "good" and for the Jedi to become heartless.

 

This isn't entirely different from what I do with my LS Inquisitor except I tend to support reform on slavery and xenophobia. However aside from that, I basically choose to be the "cautious reformer who builds on tradition" instead of tearing it down. In a way as Darth Imperious, you have the potential to not simply tear down the entire system but instead prove that you're better and more efficient than Thanaton at keeping up the Sith traditions and axioms themselves while opposing the prejudice hereditary favoritism in the Empire which you feel are corrupting the traditions. Technically there's nothing in the Sith Code which justifies what Thanaton is doing in terms of his class and/or hereditary prejudice and there are ways to at least partially reform the way the Sith code is understood so that it can be followed in a "light" or "grey" way, which is part of what Ashara Zavros tries to do. Not to mention Thanaton breaks the rules of the Kaggath and runs away when you first defeat him, which you actually get a message about from one of the Moffs telling you he's a hypocrite in terms of his arch-traditionalism. I actually find it short-sighted that many people miss this and assume it's more "canonical" for the Inquisitor to be DS b/c in terms of the details, they could actually be either one and it could be justifiable. I also played the Story-Arc on Dromund Kaas with the Revanites and had my Inquisitor act sympathetic both to their cause (I made him lie about Darth Charnus to protect the actual leader) as well as to preserving Revan's Jedi/Light side history at the end and recognizing the value of pulling up the weak in order for them to be useful and a source of power since the character himself is a former slave.

Edited by EAFSAMWISE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't entirely different from what I do with my LS Inquisitor except I tend to support reform on slavery and xenophobia. However aside from that, I basically choose to be the "cautious reformer who builds on tradition" instead of tearing it down. In a way as Darth Imperious, you have the potential to not simply tear down the entire system but instead prove that you're better and more efficient than Thanaton at keeping up the Sith traditions and axioms themselves while opposing the prejudice hereditary favoritism in the Empire which you feel are corrupting the traditions. Technically there's nothing in the Sith Code which justifies what Thanaton is doing in terms of his class and/or hereditary prejudice and there are ways to at least partially reform the way the Sith code is understood so that it can be followed in a "light" or "grey" way, which is part of what Ashara Zavros tries to do. Not to mention Thanaton breaks the rules of the Kaggath and runs away when you first defeat him, which you actually get a message about from one of the Moffs telling you he's a hypocrite in terms of his arch-traditionalism. I actually find it short-sighted that many people miss this and assume it's more "canonical" for the Inquisitor to be DS b/c in terms of the details, they could actually be either one and it could be justifiable. I also played the Story-Arc on Dromund Kaas with the Revanites and had my Inquisitor act sympathetic both to their cause (I made him lie about Darth Charnus to protect the actual leader) as well as to preserving Revan's Jedi/Light side history at the end and recognizing the value of pulling up the weak in order for them to be useful and a source of power since the character himself is a former slave.

 

I believe I wrote poorly in my last post. When I play my Sith Warrior, I too support eliminating slavery and xenophobia when I have a chance to do so. My paragraph about xenophobia being kept in check was merely a comment on the severity (or lack thereof) of xenophobia in the Sith Empire. My post or comment was not meant to condone the Stih penchant for slavery/xenophobia.

 

Based on what you wrote, I feared you may have inferred something else, and I just wanted to get that out there.

 

Beyond that, I really enjoyed reading about your Sith Inquisitor, and I play my own Inquisitor in a similar way.

 

Ironically, I don't "RP" in most games, and if I do, it's just my own nebulous understanding of my own character that I rarely share or even think about, but SWTOR is basically a movie starring the player and it's hard not to get wrapped up in the characters.

 

I love this game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I wrote poorly in my last post. When I play my Sith Warrior, I too support eliminating slavery and xenophobia when I have a chance to do so. My paragraph about xenophobia being kept in check was merely a comment on the severity (or lack thereof) of xenophobia in the Sith Empire. My post or comment was not meant to condone the Stih penchant for slavery/xenophobia.

 

Based on what you wrote, I feared you may have inferred something else, and I just wanted to get that out there.

 

Beyond that, I really enjoyed reading about your Sith Inquisitor, and I play my own Inquisitor in a similar way.

 

Ironically, I don't "RP" in most games, and if I do, it's just my own nebulous understanding of my own character that I rarely share or even think about, but SWTOR is basically a movie starring the player and it's hard not to get wrapped up in the characters.

 

I love this game.

 

Totally agreed, I was just building off of what you said regarding xenophobia and slavery in the Empire. I do try to play both the Warrior and Inquisitor in a more realistic way but also one which is redeemable and/or conflicted. THIS in my view is what would make a Sith or DS character interesting, not simply making them a murderous psychopath. For example, I don't agree to remove the shock collar from Vette right away when she asks me the first time but I wait until perhaps the 2nd or 3rd time because it just seems too implausible. Again, it's hinted a lot that the Warrior is someone from a more privileged upbringing and background and most likely has a lot of Sith blood so they were probably born and raised in a culture where it was acceptable. However, I try to avoid meaningless cruelty or anything that makes my Warrior look *cartoonishly* evil. The privileged upbringing, combined w/ a desire to prove themselves to Sith leadership and "earn" their place despite being brought in due to preferential treatment, provide an excellent reason why a light-leaning Warrior would still be pro-Empire and help Baras with Plan Zero, for example. Finally, I also build it up to a sense of distrust of the Empire, with the Warrior becoming more distrustful or cautious especially after being betrayed by Baras in Chapter 3. The Inquisitor, by contrast, is someone who has come up from a harsh and oppressed background. They have the choice to become bitter and resentful and want to control others by becoming powerful or they have the chance to "reform" Sith tradition and seek to improve the way it is interpreted and practiced in light of the background they came from--this LS Sith in particular would be more conducive to Revanite teachings on helping the weak in order to become stronger, due to the slave background. Lord Kallig (the Inq's ancestor) being "oddly pro-alien" according to Talos Drellik, also paralleling Revan's stances, further cements this fit.

Edited by EAFSAMWISE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, honor is not synonymous with pragmatism. In fact, a truly pragmatic sith would only take lightside options that benefited the Empire, NOT ones that showed mercy to conquered enemies. But that's something an honorable sith would do.

 

I see honor as being part of Sith and imperial culture, a tradition they are supposed to follow that few if anyone actually does. So, if honor is part of their culture then it makes sense to me that an honorable Sith is pro-slavery and xenophobia because those are also cultural traditions, and they connect very tightly to the traditional view of the Empire with its top down "one man leads and everyone follows", as well as the Imperial idea that only humans and purebloods are valuable, everyone else is excluded unless, like the Inquisitor, they can survive the obstacles in their way. To be accepted, aliens, even Chiss, have to be exceptional, and it's done on a case-by-case basis.

 

Why would an alien inquisitor want to reform the system to make it easier for aliens? If it had been done for them, they wouldn't have been forced to become as powerful as they had in order to defeat Thanaton. Why would a human/pureblood warrior want to reform the system to make it easier for aliens? His privilege got him where he was on Korriban, but it didn't make it easier, it made it harder thanks to Tremeth's scheming. The system WORKS.

 

The only thing that doesn't really work is alien Sith Warriors. I've made a couple but they just don't make a lot of sense for the story, and there's never any cues to explain how a Rattataki Sith could be so well-respected out the gate, while over on the inquisitor storyline, they are getting humiliated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, honor is not synonymous with pragmatism. In fact, a truly pragmatic sith would only take lightside options that benefited the Empire, NOT ones that showed mercy to conquered enemies. But that's something an honorable sith would do.

 

I see honor as being part of Sith and imperial culture, a tradition they are supposed to follow that few if anyone actually does. So, if honor is part of their culture then it makes sense to me that an honorable Sith is pro-slavery and xenophobia because those are also cultural traditions, and they connect very tightly to the traditional view of the Empire with its top down "one man leads and everyone follows", as well as the Imperial idea that only humans and purebloods are valuable, everyone else is excluded unless, like the Inquisitor, they can survive the obstacles in their way. To be accepted, aliens, even Chiss, have to be exceptional, and it's done on a case-by-case basis.

 

Why would an alien inquisitor want to reform the system to make it easier for aliens? If it had been done for them, they wouldn't have been forced to become as powerful as they had in order to defeat Thanaton. Why would a human/pureblood warrior want to reform the system to make it easier for aliens? His privilege got him where he was on Korriban, but it didn't make it easier, it made it harder thanks to Tremeth's scheming. The system WORKS.

 

The only thing that doesn't really work is alien Sith Warriors. I've made a couple but they just don't make a lot of sense for the story, and there's never any cues to explain how a Rattataki Sith could be so well-respected out the gate, while over on the inquisitor storyline, they are getting humiliated.

 

Fair enough on all counts. I guess my point with the Sith Warrior is less that they'd want to reform it and more that they would be swayed to treat Vette nicely and be more moderate due to personal experiences combined with a sense of honor. I wouldn't necessarily say they'd be all about abolishing slavery or giving aliens equal rights but their personal experiences could lead them to question things or make exceptions. In the Inquisitor's case, being more pro-alien and possibly favoring at least a reform of the system regarding slavery and treatment of lower classes would be due to hypothetical Revanite influence. His pro-alien stances could also parallel those of their ancestor Kallig. Again, I wasn't saying this **had** to be true but I saw good potential in it. Also, the system "working" for the Inquisitor would not automatically mean they would just simply "go with it" but that they may try to reform things for the sake of efficiency. The Inquisitor actually has to jump through hoops and deal with inconsistent treatment during their trials from ppl like Overseer Harkun whose corruption they may come to see as a strain on the system. The fact that Zash basically stepped in the stop the Overseer from making corrupt deals with other acolytes to kill the inquisitor only further proves the point. The system was in fact not efficient. Acolytes killing each other? Okay. Overseers discriminating based on heritage, lineage, background? Not efficient. And it stunts potential growth. The Inquisitor seeing this great potential unleashed in themselves and proving the system wrong would very much want to change it in some way. The real question is whether they'd want to be patient and reform it or whether they'd want to just tear the whole system down in rage. That is their ultimate dilemma

Edited by EAFSAMWISE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My light side SW is that way because he's a genuinely empathetic man. Sure, honor is a part of his philosophy but honor can be bent to suit the morality of an individual too, for example the Mandalorian clans appear to have somewhat variable codes of honour.

 

He's a pragmatist too though, but not in regards to lives lost or taken. He's a pragmatist in the sense that he knows how the empire works and what he needs to do to attempt to reform it. He is a Sith, he believes in power and strength and that those who are willing to lead should be able to if they prove their worth. He beleives however, that those with power has to follow codes of ethics, that those with less power aren't just tools to further the goals of the selfish.

 

Ultimately he becomes disillusioned with the Empire and wishes to join the republic. If he could be allowed to he would form a new force-school to challenge the Jedi (who he generally views as cultish, like the imperial Sith) within the legal framework of the Republic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Light sided Sith in this game are literally that. They use the light side of the force. We are shown/told this ingame. The warrior quest on Tattoine at the hidden pool is a good example. We get told more powerful Sith will sense the light within us. Inq campaign, the Jedi on Alderaan will say he cannot sense the taint of the dark side. This has nothing to do with your ideals and everything to do with the way you are using the force.

 

Light sided Sith are essentially Jedi with looser morals and better fashion sense.

 

Some people seem to conflate ideals such as honour, pragmatism, compassion with the light. You can have all of these qualities and still be dark sided. Lana and Marr spring to mind. Although Lana does seem to get a bit white washed. Let's not forget she wanted to cut a Jedis head open and experiment on her brain. Marr's face is said to be so twisted by the dark side that a Moff went insane when he saw it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Light sided Sith in this game are literally that. They use the light side of the force. We are shown/told this ingame. The warrior quest on Tattoine at the hidden pool is a good example. We get told more powerful Sith will sense the light within us. Inq campaign, the Jedi on Alderaan will say he cannot sense the taint of the dark side. This has nothing to do with your ideals and everything to do with the way you are using the force.

 

Light sided Sith are essentially Jedi with looser morals and better fashion sense.

 

Some people seem to conflate ideals such as honour, pragmatism, compassion with the light. You can have all of these qualities and still be dark sided. Lana and Marr spring to mind. Although Lana does seem to get a bit white washed. Let's not forget she wanted to cut a Jedis head open and experiment on her brain. Marr's face is said to be so twisted by the dark side that a Moff went insane when he saw it.

 

I completely disagree with this. I recently made a new Sith Jugg and I am playing lightside and its not about using lightside powers at all, but rather having a more level headed, pragmatic approach to power and influence. That is not say that he is afraid to punish those who deserve it, he just does not murder or not use a resource for the sake of it.

 

So yeah no, he is no Jedi and has morals and is ever a Sith. He just uses everything he has not just "moar power moar"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Star Wars Palpatine was able to hide his presence in the force from the whole Jedi Council, etc. This "masking" or "cloaking" of ones force alignment was said to be a Sith ability.

In my head canon, this ability did not originate with Palpatine, but was rather something that worked for both alignments, but was still something that was passed down by the Sith.

 

For my LS Darth Imperious, she discovered this ability while still on Dromund Kaas, it was one of the things imparted to her when she decided to save the Light-sided Sith teachings from the Dark temple (sidequest).

It was further developed through long conversations with her "Jedi" apprentice.

 

She did stay as a loyalist to the Empire, though, because she feels that she can accomplish more change in that way, by being among the Empire's most powerful, than by running away to the Jedi and becoming just one more person opposing the Empire. Besides, she feels that certain emotions, passions can serve the Light as well as the Darkness, and she feels that the Jedi code snuffs out what should be empathy towards others. That being said, she opposes slavery, although that was one of the obstacles she herself overcame and made her more powerful, there are plenty of other obstacles to overcome in the path to power, and she does not feel that slavery is needed for that reason. If labor is needed, there are plenty of droids after all, (as long as they are not sentient - she saved Scorpio during KOTFE). She expressed the same in the episode with the "Brothers" and would end them if possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a theory that the Force is actually more complex than just light and dark, and that both sides has at least two "subtypes" - Corrupting and Creating. They exist for both sides but usually Creating subtype is more associating with the Light side.

 

At the same time, what is traditionally seen as Dark side is not Dark side as a whole, but instead it's Corrupting Dark side. That's why it changes appearance of Dark side users and sometimes even drives them mad. And most of the Sith have literally built a cult around Corrupting Dark side.

 

On the other hand, there's also Creating Dark side. And it's actually way closer to what is written in the Sith code - it's using your passions and transforming it into your power but it doesn't automatically mean to use this power for doing cruel things, unlike Corrupting Dark side which entire existence depends on hate and anger. Lana Beniko is a potential example of a majorly Creating Dark side user, even if she doesn't realize that - she is definitely not a random-kill-just-because-I-can type of person, she pretty often appreciates when you show mercy towards some people, and in general while not being a saint, she is a caring and loyal person. Lord Scourge shows the same tendencies time to time, but he's a more difficult case to judge because of his blocked emotions.

 

And if we take this theory into account, then both LS Sith characters and other Sith treating them as "hidden Jedi" seem pretty logical. For both Sith classes we start as a young acolyte, and young people often tend to be either too easily influenced by the opinion of older ones, or to rebel against them - especially if they see that a traditional way to do things makes no sense, besides of serving someone's sadistic tendencies, + Inq is a former slave so they have even less reasons to have a traditional maniacal behavior. So they may make Light side decisions just because they're not brainwashed by the older Sith yet, and keep to do the same when they realize that hey, it works. And this way, they accidentally discover not actually the Light side, but Creating Dark side.

 

But most of the people around them don't know that it's a thing at all and mistake it for the Light side, while it's actually all about not using corruption but not the Dark side itself.

Edited by AtinShogalaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...