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.

Well, ask yourself this: was Governor/Chancellor Saresh good or evil? Was the Trooper good or evil when he gunned down the Imperial "war criminal" on Taris? - I put war criminal in quotes, since you're taking the Imp defector's word as truth. Was the Imp Agent evil or good when he allowed the Decimators or whatever they were called to nuke planets because it killed less and gave him/her the opportunity to isolate and capture Darth Jadus?

More to the point, let me raise a scenario:

Am I evil if I break into your house and set your dog on fire?

Am I evil if I break into your house and set your dog on fire but you find out that I'm a bi-polar paranoid schizophrenic that thought your dog was the devil?

Am I evil if I break into your house and set your dog on fire, as a result of protecting your wife and infant child from being attacked by your dog?

In act #1, I'm a terrible person and nobody would disagree with you. In act #2, that is a horrible act but it is rationalized away because I'm sick. In act #3, it is an act of heroism.

Context is everything but it is also something that can't simply be used to negotiate away the act. In that sense, Governor/Chancellor Saresh was evil, despite her doing what she thought was best. How many atrocities have been committed against non-combatants through out history and rationalized that they were done for greater goods?

Extremists ALWAYS feel that horrid acts are acceptable and even necessary evils because the end goal is good, in their eyes. Ergo, context doesn't make a bad act right. Just like righteous actions sometimes have negative repercussions.

I guess that I should have said that both sides had actors that were rotten to the very core. In the Star Wars universe, the Empire is, and in many cases it is justified, painted with broad strokes as the evil actor with the Republic being the scrappy go getters fighting for the freedom of the 'verse and doing nothing but good. To assume that both of those are truths is the first step down a path that leads to fire. I mean, let's be honest, do you consider Anakin Skywalker to be evil? He was manipulated to following the dark side and committing horrible acts because he feared the loss of his wife and children. He was good once, turned dark (not evil), did evil acts, and then was redeemed. In totality, what was he?

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.

I agree with the stuff above this part, but this is a bit too generous to the Republic; it tries to do the right thing some of the time, and then sometimes accomplishes it. The Republic has a lot of good people, but also plenty of bad ones, and it can be a tossup as to who obtains power (the Empire, admittedly, outright selects for evil people, which is why the Republic is usually better). I also think that you're incorrect about the "Imperial ideals" part: quite a lot of the Republic's bad seeds are venal, greedy, and selfish, and the Empire tends to deal harshly with officials like that (see the fate of the Bounty Hunter's contact on Balmorra). The Sith, of course, are an exception if they have enough power to back it up, but the Sith are an exception in a lot of ways.

There's also one area in which the Republic has repeatedly shown a very nasty side: genocide. Twice, at least, the Republic has attempted to exterminate the Empire entirely (only once in TOR, yes, but it did happen).

Admiral Ivernus didn't want to execute Major Pirrell because of his selfishness or greed, he was going to have him executed for incompetence.

Oh, right. Fair enough, though I still doubt the Empire would tolerate serious corruption if it caught it.

I agree with the stuff above this part, but this is a bit too generous to the Republic; it tries to do the right thing some of the time, and then sometimes accomplishes it. The Republic has a lot of good people, but also plenty of bad ones, and it can be a tossup as to who obtains power (the Empire, admittedly, outright selects for evil people, which is why the Republic is usually better). I also think that you're incorrect about the "Imperial ideals" part: quite a lot of the Republic's bad seeds are venal, greedy, and selfish, and the Empire tends to deal harshly with officials like that (see the fate of the Bounty Hunter's contact on Balmorra). The Sith, of course, are an exception if they have enough power to back it up, but the Sith are an exception in a lot of ways.

 

There's also one area in which the Republic has repeatedly shown a very nasty side: genocide. Twice, at least, the Republic has attempted to exterminate the Empire entirely (only once in TOR, yes, but it did happen).

I do agree that I got a bit carried away and got a bit too generous.

Also, when I was talking about the "imperial ideals", I was mainly talking about cases like Senator Barc's, since the Empire would definitely welcome his ideals of slavery.

Well, ask yourself this: was Governor/Chancellor Saresh good or evil? Was the Trooper good or evil when he gunned down the Imperial "war criminal" on Taris? - I put war criminal in quotes, since you're taking the Imp defector's word as truth. Was the Imp Agent evil or good when he allowed the Decimators or whatever they were called to nuke planets because it killed less and gave him/her the opportunity to isolate and capture Darth Jadus?

 

More to the point, let me raise a scenario:

 

Am I evil if I break into your house and set your dog on fire?

Am I evil if I break into your house and set your dog on fire but you find out that I'm a bi-polar paranoid schizophrenic that thought your dog was the devil?

Am I evil if I break into your house and set your dog on fire, as a result of protecting your wife and infant child from being attacked by your dog?

 

In act #1, I'm a terrible person and nobody would disagree with you. In act #2, that is a horrible act but it is rationalized away because I'm sick. In act #3, it is an act of heroism.

 

Context is everything but it is also something that can't simply be used to negotiate away the act. In that sense, Governor/Chancellor Saresh was evil, despite her doing what she thought was best. How many atrocities have been committed against non-combatants through out history and rationalized that they were done for greater goods?

Extremists ALWAYS feel that horrid acts are acceptable and even necessary evils because the end goal is good, in their eyes. Ergo, context doesn't make a bad act right. Just like righteous actions sometimes have negative repercussions.

 

I guess that I should have said that both sides had actors that were rotten to the very core. In the Star Wars universe, the Empire is, and in many cases it is justified, painted with broad strokes as the evil actor with the Republic being the scrappy go getters fighting for the freedom of the 'verse and doing nothing but good. To assume that both of those are truths is the first step down a path that leads to fire. I mean, let's be honest, do you consider Anakin Skywalker to be evil? He was manipulated to following the dark side and committing horrible acts because he feared the loss of his wife and children. He was good once, turned dark (not evil), did evil acts, and then was redeemed. In totality, what was he?

Honestly, I don't think there is any point in continuing this conversation since we are obviously in two different sides of it. I mean I keep repeating the points I'm trying to make, and you basically just ignore them and keep trying to prove that evil is subjective, which I totally agree with.

However, I don't agree with the suggestion that the Republic is the lesser evil, instead of the good guys. IMHO the Republic are the good guys, but unfortunately, have quite a few bad apples. In my opinion, what makes the Republic the good guys are the noble ideals that the government is based on and the fact that most members try to uphold them. The Empire, however, has corrupted ideals and most of its members uphold those very same ideals, knowingly.

To consider the Republic a lesser evil, I would have to consider them evil, which I don't, for the same reasons I've stated since the beginning of this thread.

Honestly, I don't think there is any point in continuing this conversation since we are obviously in two different sides of it. I mean I keep repeating the points I'm trying to make, and you basically just ignore them and keep trying to prove that evil is subjective, which I totally agree with.

 

However, I don't agree with the suggestion that the Republic is the lesser evil, instead of the good guys. IMHO the Republic are the good guys, but unfortunately, have quite a few bad apples. In my opinion, what makes the Republic the good guys are the noble ideals that the government is based on and the fact that most members try to uphold them. The Empire, however, has corrupted ideals and most of its members uphold those very same ideals, knowingly.

 

To consider the Republic a lesser evil, I would have to consider them evil, which I don't, for the same reasons I've stated since the beginning of this thread.

I don't disagree with you. To disagree would be to say that you're wrong and I'm right, when the entire point is subjectivity and context. It would be completely wrong of me to say that the Republic isn't the more "good" leaning side, especially give the situation that they're trying to free themselves of their defined tyranny. It just kind of bothers me when people paint groups with broad strokes. Know what I mean? There is always good and bad on both sides of conflict.

EDIT: For the record, I do think that the quest writing has a lot to do with how this conversation is skewed. I'm playing through the Trooper right now and it couldn't be any more rainbow and kittens. Hell, most of the time you have an option to yell, "For the Republic!" and the dark side options aren't really dark. All of the Empire people, in which you run into with the Trooper, are all "monsters" and war criminals or your prior Havoc Squad team members that defected - for whatever reason, killing them wasn't even that dark. Meanwhile, on the Empire side, it feels like your options are killing everyone with a smile and just killing everyone.

As I said earlier, some of this is contrived by the story. There wasn't a lot of bias, in the Agent story. So, I felt like I could actually be me and make decisions based upon both the situation at hand and what could be gained from that decision (killing someone versus capturing them and extracting intel). It is the only character that I felt was truly morally ambivalent.

I don't disagree with you. To disagree would be to say that you're wrong and I'm right, when the entire point is subjectivity and context. It would be completely wrong of me to say that the Republic isn't the more "good" leaning side, especially give the situation that they're trying to free themselves of their defined tyranny. It just kind of bothers me when people paint groups with broad strokes. Know what I mean? There is always good and bad on both sides of conflict.

 

EDIT: For the record, I do think that the quest writing has a lot to do with how this conversation is skewed. I'm playing through the Trooper right now and it couldn't be any more rainbow and kittens. Hell, most of the time you have an option to yell, "For the Republic!" and the dark side options aren't really dark. All of the Empire people, in which you run into with the Trooper, are all "monsters" and war criminals or your prior Havoc Squad team members that defected - for whatever reason, killing them wasn't even that dark. Meanwhile, on the Empire side, it feels like your options are killing everyone with a smile and just killing everyone.

 

As I said earlier, some of this is contrived by the story. There wasn't a lot of bias, in the Agent story. So, I felt like I could actually be me and make decisions based upon both the situation at hand and what could be gained from that decision (killing someone versus capturing them and extracting intel). It is the only character that I felt was truly morally ambivalent.

I totally understand this. I'm now playing the Imperial agent story for the 5th time and I'm still finding new ways to shut Darth Jadus up, so hey that's pretty awesome. Also, it's truly incredible how much freedom of choice the story gives you.

I totally understand this. I'm now playing the Imperial agent story for the 5th time and I'm still finding new ways to shut Darth Jadus up, so hey that's pretty awesome. Also, it's truly incredible how much freedom of choice the story gives you.

 

 

I mean it's the only class that truly allows you to change factions if you want.

 

Isn't it? I kind of like the Trooper, though I'm getting nauseated by all of the rainbows and kittens garbage. I lasted to level 20 on both the Shadow and the Sentinel, before I gave up. Just easier to Youtube the stories than to go through it. On the flip side, the non-Agent stories were just really heavy handed to the opposite side. But, wow, the Agent is just that balanced. It would be really interesting to document where you could make decisions, throughout the story, to make it feel different. I find that, with any story that isn't the Agent, I'm kind of spamming the Space Bar midway through the conversation. General Garza, case in point, is pretty much the same thing over and over again. Give me Keeper and the Minister all day, every day. Hell, I was SUPER pumped when

. Seriously, I'd pay hefty money for an Imperial Agent movie. Soo good!!!

On the flip side, I'm glad that we found some common ground. Didn't want that conversation spiraling out of control.

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.

Couldn't agree more. Well said.

The idea that the Empire is somehow noble for at least being honest about what it is doesn't make sense to me at all. No, that just shows it's shameless and implacable about its evil. A wish to hide a wrongdoing does in some ways compound the wrongdoing, yet it also shows that at least the person can recognise the wrongdoing was bad enough to want to hide it, and thus has some potential for remorse and positive transformation.

Or maybe the wrongdoer doesn't believe it was bad, but knows others believe it was bad and wants to hide the action from those others - wants to avoid "bad press." But that admits a vulnerability to those others, a fear of the justice or revenge that could come about if the truth is known. As such, this wrongdoer is always in danger of being overcome, and thus somewhat less to be feared.

Being honest and open about evil is the most blatant assertion of a strong and wicked power structure. "Yes, I did it. I would do it again. And you can't stop me." That's the Empire. Many of my characters serve it happily and willingly, but that's a reflection of the various ways in which they've fooled themselves. Those may be interesting stories to tell, but I have no interest in myself being a person who sees things the Empire's way.

Couldn't agree more. Well said.

 

The idea that the Empire is somehow noble for at least being honest about what it is doesn't make sense to me at all. No, that just shows it's shameless and implacable about its evil. A wish to hide a wrongdoing does in some ways compound the wrongdoing, yet it also shows that at least the person can recognise the wrongdoing was bad enough to want to hide it, and thus has some potential for remorse and positive transformation.

 

Or maybe the wrongdoer doesn't believe it was bad, but knows others believe it was bad and wants to hide the action from those others - wants to avoid "bad press." But that admits a vulnerability to those others, a fear of the justice or revenge that could come about if the truth is known. As such, this wrongdoer is always in danger of being overcome, and thus somewhat less to be feared.

 

Being honest and open about evil is the most blatant assertion of a strong and wicked power structure. "Yes, I did it. I would do it again. And you can't stop me." That's the Empire. Many of my characters serve it happily and willingly, but that's a reflection of the various ways in which they've fooled themselves. Those may be interesting stories to tell, but I have no interest in myself being a person who sees things the Empire's way.

I completely agree with you here, as well. What I mainly don't understand is why a lot of imperial players think like this. Honestly, I love the Empire, but I love it for what it really is.

I don't try to justify what the Empire does, all of my dark side imperial characters realize what the Empire is and they stand behind those morals.

I love the Empire, but I love it for what it really is. I don't try to justify what the Empire does, all of my dark side imperial characters realize what the Empire is and they stand behind those morals.

That's exactly how it is for me too. When I see so many people arguing that the Empire is somehow the good side, it makes me wonder if I'm losing my mind, so thanks for your posts. At least if I am losing it, I'm not alone.

I completely agree with you here, as well. What I mainly don't understand is why a lot of imperial players think like this. Honestly, I love the Empire, but I love it for what it really is.

 

I don't try to justify what the Empire does, all of my dark side imperial characters realize what the Empire is and they stand behind those morals.

All of my characters are LS. The only Imperial I've been able to really enjoy playing long-term is my Inquisitor, who would be happy for the Empire to have a different government, but doesn't remotely trust the Republic to be a better solution for the Empire's people.

EDIT: For the record, I do think that the quest writing has a lot to do with how this conversation is skewed. I'm playing through the Trooper right now and it couldn't be any more rainbow and kittens. Hell, most of the time you have an option to yell, "For the Republic!" and the dark side options aren't really dark. All of the Empire people, in which you run into with the Trooper, are all "monsters" and war criminals or your prior Havoc Squad team members that defected - for whatever reason, killing them wasn't even that dark. Meanwhile, on the Empire side, it feels like your options are killing everyone with a smile and just killing everyone.

If that's your opinion, fine, but the Trooper story has plenty of nuance. It sounds like you're on Taris. The planets after that are more subtle in their portrayal of both the Havoc traitors and the imperials: NS for the latter and Tat for the former. Before that, you have the option - and Garza specifically asks you - to bring Jek Kargan in alive on Coruscant. The Dark options aren't really dark? Like killing the room full of maybe cyborg civilians?

If that's your opinion, fine, but the Trooper story has plenty of nuance. It sounds like you're on Taris. The planets after that are more subtle in their portrayal of both the Havoc traitors and the imperials: NS for the latter and Tat for the former. Before that, you have the option - and Garza specifically asks you - to bring Jek Kargan in alive on Coruscant. The Dark options aren't really dark? Like killing the room full of maybe cyborg civilians?

Compared to "Light == kill rebellious slaves by generously poisoning their water so they die quickly, Dark == kill them with just enough poison, so they die very slowly and in very great pain", no, they aren't dark at all.

That's exactly how it is for me too. When I see so many people arguing that the Empire is somehow the good side, it makes me wonder if I'm losing my mind, so thanks for your posts. At least if I am losing it, I'm not alone.

Same. Sometimes I'm like am I the crazy one? At least we won't lose our minds alone.

I completely agree with you here, as well. What I mainly don't understand is why a lot of imperial players think like this. Honestly, I love the Empire, but I love it for what it really is.

 

I don't try to justify what the Empire does, all of my dark side imperial characters realize what the Empire is and they stand behind those morals.

I don't think that you can, with a straight face, look at the Imperials as the "good guys" when they're conquering people, enslaving people, and coming up with weapons of extreme mass destruction that typically exists on a planetary, and even solar system, scale. But, I think that you do have the potential to look at the conflict in the present as simply a fight between two sides, thus you stop looking at good and bad and just pick someone that you'd like to win.

If that's your opinion, fine, but the Trooper story has plenty of nuance. It sounds like you're on Taris. The planets after that are more subtle in their portrayal of both the Havoc traitors and the imperials: NS for the latter and Tat for the former. Before that, you have the option - and Garza specifically asks you - to bring Jek Kargan in alive on Coruscant. The Dark options aren't really dark? Like killing the room full of maybe cyborg civilians?

I just finished up Balmora. I've played the Trooper before but it was back in 2013, so I don't remember the story lines. I remember everything about the IA because I've done it like 7+ times. Anyway, SteveTheCynic put it, you can't compare choosing to shoot a traitor to cutting off a guy's head and sending it to his wife or killing a guy's wife and then waiting for him to show up, only to beat him and then kill him. Even the example that you posed, which was killing the Cyborgs on Nar Shada isn't even that dark - it was a grey choice in that you could save them and risk having them go "live" and killing everyone or accept the body count. A LOT of the Empire side's LS choices are, point of fact, still dark. Again, as Steve mentioned, you can kill slaves for fun and to end their rebellion or you can kill slaves slowly and painfully for fun and to end their rebellion. Where is the "Light" in that? First off, they're enslaved people (bad). Then you're killing them, for fighting for their freedom - they're not doing a great job of that, btw (bad) OR you're doing that and making them pay for it, as an example to any would be rebels (bad).

As I said before, so much of this is writing and the bias that comes with it. I didn't especially find the Sith Warrior or Inquisitor that dark. But, the influence of the movies tends to push both the writing and player choices purposely towards the darker side. The Bounty Hunter started out kind of dark and then mellowed out. All of the Republic side has dark side choices, obviously, but they, too, are lightened by the skew of what the movies made the Republic to be. That isn't to say that there aren't cruel choices - I killed the Balmorran at the end of the Trooper story, despite him not having a gun. The difference is THAT is considered Dark for the Republic where as that so greatly pails in comparison to the dark choices of the Empire.

In this discussion, none of us are right or wrong, since we all have opinions. But, I personally think that this game would be drastically different if:

• There was the option for players to defect and

• The Light/Dark options were "side ambivalent", thus allowing a Jedi to be as Dark as a Sith or a Bounty Hunter to be as squeaky clean like Mark Wahlburg in "The Big Hit" (Melvin Smiley -

If you could honestly and actually be what you wanted to be and every story was really dictated by choice, this game could be even more amazing. As it stands, the Pubs will be the Diet Cola of Dark and the Empire will be angry Chihuahua Light. I'm just happy that my Op can swim in the entire ocean of choice and be whatever he wants to be. Too bad that everyone else doesn't have that option (or as rich of a class story).

Frankly, it depends on what you mean by "good." If you're asking, "Does the Empire adhere to the Light Side of the Force?" then the answer is a categorical 'no.' If, on the other hand, you're asking, "Does the Empire adhere to a certain morality that is defined as 'good,'" then the question is really what standard of morality you're using.

You have the concept of racal superiority that the Empire was founded with. The Sith as a race and as a Force-sensitive class were viewed as superior to everyone else. Notice: were. It's clear that they began to revise this after Malgus' failed bid for the New Empire.

You have the dedication to the Dark Side of the Force. For some, this is an automatic BADGUYSEVILOMGSTOPTHEM. But that would, again, be ignoring the changes brought about under Empress Acina and the multitude of Sith Lords who were not sniveling, psychotic murderers (i.e. Lana Beniko, Darth Marr, etc.). The concept of "Light = Good, Dark = Bad" is just overly simplified.

You have the dedication of a people to a history and a culture that spans thousands of years with rulers who have developed a civilization and philosophy that values emotions, as opposed to the Jedi who suppress them. Only one of those keeps a person in touch with their natural personhood; the other seeks to suppress it.

The Empire is much less "BAD GUYZ" than Pubs like to paint it

If that's your opinion, fine, but the Trooper story has plenty of nuance. It sounds like you're on Taris. The planets after that are more subtle in their portrayal of both the Havoc traitors and the imperials: NS for the latter and Tat for the former. Before that, you have the option - and Garza specifically asks you - to bring Jek Kargan in alive on Coruscant. The Dark options aren't really dark? Like killing the room full of maybe cyborg civilians?

Those cyborgs are quite a threat. Who knows what kind of secret programming they might have. Such as reach a strong state, then blow up the senate, or join the army, then sabotage everything, or just sabotage stuff in a factory. They are dangerous, but all options are wrong.

Killing them is an obvious solution, but it's a waste of resources, and i don't really trust my enemy.

Letting them go simply is also a bad solution, because what if they truly dangerous.

Taking their IDs, and letting them go is same as second. If they are that good, then losing their IDs will not stop them.

The solution i would had: Force them to go to an army clinic where they get searched deeply. Literary. If nothing found, then they can go freely, and if anything found, then remove them if possible.

• There was the option for players to defect and

That would be great, and i think we gona have it in future content. After all in the last 2 content we could take sides regardless of our class. But yeah my Sith Inquisitor would sabotage the Empire's war effort, or even defect without a second. In my story he wants to change the Empire, and erase racism and slavery. The only reason he doesn't defect is, because he don't want to get brainwashed for months by the jedi.

Frankly, it depends on what you mean by "good." If you're asking, "Does the Empire adhere to the Light Side of the Force?" then the answer is a categorical 'no.' If, on the other hand, you're asking, "Does the Empire adhere to a certain morality that is defined as 'good,'" then the question is really what standard of morality you're using.

 

You have the concept of racal superiority that the Empire was founded with. The Sith as a race and as a Force-sensitive class were viewed as superior to everyone else. Notice: were. It's clear that they began to revise this after Malgus' failed bid for the New Empire.

 

You have the dedication to the Dark Side of the Force. For some, this is an automatic BADGUYSEVILOMGSTOPTHEM. But that would, again, be ignoring the changes brought about under Empress Acina and the multitude of Sith Lords who were not sniveling, psychotic murderers (i.e. Lana Beniko, Darth Marr, etc.). The concept of "Light = Good, Dark = Bad" is just overly simplified.

 

You have the dedication of a people to a history and a culture that spans thousands of years with rulers who have developed a civilization and philosophy that values emotions, as opposed to the Jedi who suppress them. Only one of those keeps a person in touch with their natural personhood; the other seeks to suppress it.

No one mentioned the different side of the force, we are talking solely based on the actions of the faction as a whole. Dark side and light side have no business in this discussion.

The Empire is much less "BAD GUYZ" than Pubs like to paint it

This isn't entirely true. No one here has even mentioned the force in the multiple reasons that were given for The Empire's evilness. No, we've proved it by using facts and the actions of the faction as a whole. Now ofc the Empire isn't all bad, but it certainly isn't even close to not being bad.

I really don't know why people keep bringing up Acina as is she's some kind of good Sith.

She's extremely pro-slavery, apparently takes pleasure in spilling Republic blood, and she finds the Dreadseeds to be inspired technology and was full of praise for Lord Fullminiss for designing them. If she's still Empress, she's also the one who strikes the first blow in the coming war on Ossus.

Darth Marr and Lana aren't exactly the nicest folks either.

Darth Marr's preferred method of interrogation is torture. We saw him threaten to cut out the tongue of a subordinate for delivering bad news out of turn. And he sent Darth Lachris to brutalize the people of Balmorra.

She's less sinister than most Sith, but even Lana can encourage some pretty callous behavior in the name of pragmatism.

Frankly, it depends on what you mean by "good." If you're asking, "Does the Empire adhere to the Light Side of the Force?" then the answer is a categorical 'no.' If, on the other hand, you're asking, "Does the Empire adhere to a certain morality that is defined as 'good,'" then the question is really what standard of morality you're using.

 

You have the concept of racal superiority that the Empire was founded with. The Sith as a race and as a Force-sensitive class were viewed as superior to everyone else. Notice: were. It's clear that they began to revise this after Malgus' failed bid for the New Empire.

 

You have the dedication to the Dark Side of the Force. For some, this is an automatic BADGUYSEVILOMGSTOPTHEM. But that would, again, be ignoring the changes brought about under Empress Acina and the multitude of Sith Lords who were not sniveling, psychotic murderers (i.e. Lana Beniko, Darth Marr, etc.). The concept of "Light = Good, Dark = Bad" is just overly simplified.

 

You have the dedication of a people to a history and a culture that spans thousands of years with rulers who have developed a civilization and philosophy that values emotions, as opposed to the Jedi who suppress them. Only one of those keeps a person in touch with their natural personhood; the other seeks to suppress it.

 

The Empire is much less "BAD GUYZ" than Pubs like to paint it

Well, as I mentioned before, the Empire is the more bad side. When a group of people conquers and enslaves other people, that is a gross wrong. Continuing the process just makes them more wrong.

I think the question is more this: Is the Republic or Empire more or less bad, since the conflict began?

I brought up WW2, earlier in this. Once the war began and nations joined in, the argument of who was or wasn't bad went out of the window because each side made decisions and took actions that were clearly in the wrong. Yet, history tells us that Germany, early Russia, Italy, and Japan were well within the wrong. When you start killing innocent civilians, the moral high grounds becomes a sink hole and the high horse is now dead.

Putting it in SWTOR context, a good example is the Barrager quest on Balmorra for the Pubs. The Barrager essentailly eats the planet's energy stores, turning it into a dead rock. BUT, it can wipe out an entire fleet in orbit. Major Nadine wants that weapon, both because of the deterrent that it represents and what it could achieve, if used. That is not a morally light choice or desire. Ergo, both sides make dark choices for the purposes of winning battles, conflicts, and ultimately the war. The body count and collateral damage simply justifies the end result and will be subsequently forgotten, since the victors write history.

PS> The "winner's" version of history is, in itself, an evil because it casually and selectively hides the dark truths that allowed them to win.

I really don't know why people keep bringing up Acina as is she's some kind of good Sith.

 

She's extremely pro-slavery, apparently takes pleasure in spilling Republic blood, and she finds the Dreadseeds to be inspired technology and was full of praise for Lord Fullminiss for designing them. If she's still Empress, she's also the one who strikes the first blow in the coming war on Ossus.

 

Darth Marr and Lana aren't exactly the nicest folks either.

 

Darth Marr's preferred method of interrogation is torture. We saw him threaten to cut out the tongue of a subordinate for delivering bad news out of turn. And he sent Darth Lachris to brutalize the people of Balmorra.

 

She's less sinister than most Sith, but even Lana can encourage some pretty callous behavior in the name of pragmatism.

"Extremely" pro-slavery? I'll need a citation on that, since the Empire is now manumitting non-Force-using slaves, which it previously didn't. I'd also say that the war didn't begin on Ossus, but rather Iokath, where the Republic struck first.

As for Darth Marr, the incident you mention, IIRC, was for producing unnecessary comm chatter (while his flagship was being torn apart), not bringing bad news (also, it was Darth Baras who made the tongue-cutting threat). I'll give you Darth Lachris, though.

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.