The Living Force. Considering that the Unifying Force theory was discredited. I believe Yoda also disagreed with the 'Unifying Force" theory.

He 'disagreed' with it because Unifying force was a theory proposed by writers that was rejected by George Lucas because he wanted to keep the dichotomy from the movies. Among other things, he also desired the death of Anakin Solo due to the similarities he shared with Anakin Skywalker and insisted that the Yuuzhan Vong be star-trek aliens. When they were originally proposed to be the original Sith race twisted over eons, and were originally supposed to be dark-side force wielders, as opposed to some random aliens who the force rejected because they were teh evilz.

In other words, the EU and George Lucas have always been at odds, he personally never would have allowed the light-sided Sith that we see in TOR, as that would have destroyed the good vs evil red vs blue dichotomy that he constructed.

He 'disagreed' with it because Unifying force was a theory proposed by writers that was rejected by George Lucas because he wanted to keep the dichotomy from the movies. Among other things, he also desired the death of Anakin Solo due to the similarities he shared with Anakin Skywalker and insisted that the Yuuzhan Vong be star-trek aliens. When they were originally proposed to be the original Sith race twisted over eons, and were originally supposed to be dark-side force wielders, as opposed to some random aliens who the force rejected because they were teh evilz.

 

 

In other words, the EU and George Lucas have always been at odds, he personally never would have allowed the light-sided Sith that we see in TOR, as that would have destroyed the good vs evil red vs blue dichotomy that he constructed.

However while Lucas may make it that there is a distinction, he's not afraid to blur the lines e.g. Ventress. Not a Lucas creation no, but he did play a significant part in TCW and therefore her story. He may not have accepted it but its got the firm Lucas stamp of approval.

Amusingly, despite the way the alignment system rates them, I'm not so sure that the light side Sith in game are light side so much as not as bad as they COULD be. I mean they still brutally kill people, they just also try to get around killing people sometimes by making up practical sounding excuses and playing chess and mindgames with the other Sith.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NobleDemon

(Traditional tvtropes warning: You might spend hours on here if you click too many links. Beware)

So I was reading the "Journal of Master Gnost-Dural" that came with my Collector's Edition last night, and I came across this tidbit on page 52:

 

 

 

Now correct me if I'm wrong but... isn't this -genocide-? Korriban was left completely lifeless; That means that unarmed men, women, and children who may not have even had anything to -do- with the Hyperspace War were murdered in cold blood after the actual fighting was over. And that one line is the only mention of it! There's nothing preceding or written after it to suggest that Master Gnost-Dural feels even a hint of regret at the loss of life, and in fact, after that one line I posted it is never mentioned again.

 

I'm pretty sure saying that "Well they did x and y to us, so it was fair!" is just not an appropriate excuse here. War or not, a group claiming to stand for justice and democracy should not be committing wholesale slaughter. I'll admit I was a bit surprised to read this in the journal- So what other instances of meditated evil by the Republic have I missed?!

You're assuming there where unarmed men, women and children on Korriban. In game, I never got the impression of any of those being on Korriban.

And here's a group who's sole purpose is to basically kill everyone else who stands in their way or at the very least, enslave them.

And outside of a players character, we've seen nothing to suggest anyone would be lightside or against the Sith way of life, when put on the planet. Infact, you're told being lightside will kill you on the planet, and everyone else is basically shown as evil, or evil yet cowardly.

One could say that to survive on Korriban, one has to become evil, but then, why spare them? Also, you're at war. Many other wars would be avoided if you finish off your enemies once and for all, instead of leaving a few left alive to rebuild

Many other wars would be avoided if you finish off your enemies once and for all, instead of leaving a few left alive to rebuild

That is a horrible, horrible justification for genocide. And to assume there were no civilians and noncombatants at all is not a smart concept; It is racist to assume that literally -every- being on Korriban is evil just because the regime and a sizeable portion of the population is. It certainly does not justify exterminating all life from several whole planets.

Steam. No but really if you have the time, and your not put off by the graphics, these games are worth a try. Truly excellent RPGs.

 

But in terms of books I would suggest the Star Wars: The Old Republic Encyclopedia - its basically what it says on the tin, 'The Definitive Guide to the Epic Conflict.' Packed full of Lore surrounding TOR and touches on events of KOTOR and KOTOR II as well as interesting insight into the future of the story as a whole.

I'll definitely check on getting a copy of the encyclopedia! I'm sure KOTOR and KOTOR II are great games, but in general I prefer to spend my time reading over playing single player games. I still might pick them up at some point, though.

That is a horrible, horrible justification for genocide. And to assume there were no civilians and noncombatants at all is not a smart concept; It is racist to assume that literally -every- being on Korriban is evil just because the regime and a sizeable portion of the population is. It certainly does not justify exterminating all life from several whole planets.

And this is why the side that doesn't give a damn about morality will always have advantage.

And this is why the side that doesn't give a damn about morality will always have advantage.

Funny how that doesn't match either real-world or Star Wars experience at all.

Funny how that doesn't match either real-world or Star Wars experience at all.

I think it does. I think if they followed moral rules, they would lose much harder and faster. I think the problem is elsewhere. But I could be wrong, it happens to me sometimes.

Funny how that doesn't match either real-world or Star Wars experience at all.

It worked for the Russians in WW2.

At least as far as their own troops were concerned.

I think it does. I think if they followed moral rules, they would lose much harder and faster. I think the problem is elsewhere. But I could be wrong, it happens to me sometimes.

I'm struggling and failing to come up with an example of a clearly "moral" side fighting against an equally clearly "immoral" side in a historical war, and the "immoral" side winning. And I have no idea how one would demonstrate that the immoral side's victory, in such a case, was due to its employment of immoral means, as opposed to other factors.

Think about it like this. When the United States and its allies invaded Germany in 1944 and 1945, their invasion was accompanied by a massive air bombing campaign targeting a wide spectrum of the German military-industrial complex. USAAF bombers closed what were deemed to be "strategic bottlenecks", in the production of things like ball bearings (didn't work) and high-octane fuel (worked extremely well). But they also pursued the alternative of terror bombings directed against the German populace. British bombers wiped out Hamburg, American ones flattened Dresden, and those were just the most famous instances. In the coterminous Pacific War, American bombers set fire to Japan's greatest cities and inflicted more casualties than did the later nuclear attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yet these terror bombings - a decidedly immoral method of waging war - produced a meaningful result of precisely zero for the Allied war effort. German citizens did not surrender or rebel against their leaders. They did not stop working in war factories or participating in the Nazi economy. Same with Japanese civilians. Allied bomber advocates claimed that the immorality of these attacks directly against civilian targets was justified because it would shorten the war: enemies would refuse to fight because of fear. Nowhere was that in evidence in the Second World War.

So all those mass bombing attacks, the literally - and deliberately - wanton destruction visited upon the civilians of Europe and Asia, were effectively wastes of resources. Millions of gallons of aircraft fuel, countless man-hours of preparation and flight time, thousands upon thousands of tons of bombs, all essentially thrown down a rat hole because of the belief that immorality offered expediency.

And think about it another way. Japan suffered 2.1 million military dead as a result of the war. Tack on maybe another million in civilian dead. In order to get that result, about three to four million Chinese soldiers died, a couple hundred thousand Americans died, a bit less than a hundred thousand total Commonwealth soldiers died, and so on and so forth. Not counting civilian casualties, which were utterly gruesome, chiefly among the Chinese. Okay, so Japan's population at the time was over seventy million. All those Allied soldiers died to kill about four percent of Japanese. That leaves ninety-six percent to go, according to your "immoral ways of war = best ways of war"/"kill 'em all so nobody is left to fight against you" viewpoint. Can you imagine the sort of cost that killing the rest of the Japanese would inflict on the Allied countries?

The Allied countries did not kill every Japanese or German civilian during the war, yet the Allied countries committed numerous atrocities against the civilian populations of both countries. If we take your claims seriously, this would only have made both Japan and Germany hardened, embittered, irreconcilable enemies of America, Britain, and so on. And yet, since 1945, no Japanese or German politician has seriously contemplated a resumption of war. Nobody in either country has desired it save for the tiny lunatic fringe.

Undertaking genocide is not a simple affair. It is insanely costly, both in terms of finances and materiel but also in terms of man-hours; the Holocaust absorbed resources that the Nazis could very well have thrown at the Red Army or the Western Allies instead. There is a high probability of resistance in most circumstances (with the Holocaust being virtually the single counterexample in human history, of a genocide that was, insanely, unopposed even by the people who were being slaughtered). It is difficult to verify, if not impossible, with definitions of who is or is not in a given group subject to a great deal of mutability and interpretation.

Chancellor Pultimo's Final Solution to the Sith Question was clearly intended to be the exact same sort of solution that you advocate for the efficient end to war. Kill all of the Sith so they would never menace the rest of the galaxy again. But problems intrinsic to that solution prevented it from ever being realized. How could anybody possibly account for every Sith in the galaxy? Or even every Sith on Korriban? Once accounted for, how much of a strain on the Republic's resources would it be to have them all killed? It was inevitable that Sith, even millions of Sith, would fall through the cracks, no matter what Pultimo and his genocideers intended.

It was not inevitable that many of those Sith would attempt to seek revenge, but considering the kind of people that tended to take charge in Sith Empires, it was pretty likely. Had the Republic chosen not to pursue this Endlösung der Sithfrage, might the remnant of the Sith Empire have remained at peace with the Republic later on? Maybe, maybe not. Would it have been any more or less of a threat? Impossible to say. What is incontrovertible is that the way the Republic ended its first war with the Sith directly shaped the later conflict. The Republic tried genocide, and a millennium and change later, the Sith paid it back with the most serious galactic conflicts since the Alsakan wars.

I'm struggling and failing to come up with an example of a clearly "moral" side fighting against an equally clearly "immoral" side in a historical war, and the "immoral" side winning. And I have no idea how one would demonstrate that the immoral side's victory, in such a case, was due to its employment of immoral means, as opposed to other factors.

 

Think about it like this. When the United States and its allies invaded Germany in 1944 and 1945, their invasion was accompanied by a massive air bombing campaign targeting a wide spectrum of the German military-industrial complex. USAAF bombers closed what were deemed to be "strategic bottlenecks", in the production of things like ball bearings (didn't work) and high-octane fuel (worked extremely well). But they also pursued the alternative of terror bombings directed against the German populace. British bombers wiped out Hamburg, American ones flattened Dresden, and those were just the most famous instances. In the coterminous Pacific War, American bombers set fire to Japan's greatest cities and inflicted more casualties than did the later nuclear attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Yet these terror bombings - a decidedly immoral method of waging war - produced a meaningful result of precisely zero for the Allied war effort. German citizens did not surrender or rebel against their leaders. They did not stop working in war factories or participating in the Nazi economy. Same with Japanese civilians. Allied bomber advocates claimed that the immorality of these attacks directly against civilian targets was justified because it would shorten the war: enemies would refuse to fight because of fear. Nowhere was that in evidence in the Second World War.

 

So all those mass bombing attacks, the literally - and deliberately - wanton destruction visited upon the civilians of Europe and Asia, were effectively wastes of resources. Millions of gallons of aircraft fuel, countless man-hours of preparation and flight time, thousands upon thousands of tons of bombs, all essentially thrown down a rat hole because of the belief that immorality offered expediency.

 

And think about it another way. Japan suffered 2.1 million military dead as a result of the war. Tack on maybe another million in civilian dead. In order to get that result, about three to four million Chinese soldiers died, a couple hundred thousand Americans died, a bit less than a hundred thousand total Commonwealth soldiers died, and so on and so forth. Not counting civilian casualties, which were utterly gruesome, chiefly among the Chinese. Okay, so Japan's population at the time was over seventy million. All those Allied soldiers died to kill about four percent of Japanese. That leaves ninety-six percent to go, according to your "immoral ways of war = best ways of war"/"kill 'em all so nobody is left to fight against you" viewpoint. Can you imagine the sort of cost that killing the rest of the Japanese would inflict on the Allied countries?

 

The Allied countries did not kill every Japanese or German civilian during the war, yet the Allied countries committed numerous atrocities against the civilian populations of both countries. If we take your claims seriously, this would only have made both Japan and Germany hardened, embittered, irreconcilable enemies of America, Britain, and so on. And yet, since 1945, no Japanese or German politician has seriously contemplated a resumption of war. Nobody in either country has desired it save for the tiny lunatic fringe.

 

Undertaking genocide is not a simple affair. It is insanely costly, both in terms of finances and materiel but also in terms of man-hours; the Holocaust absorbed resources that the Nazis could very well have thrown at the Red Army or the Western Allies instead. There is a high probability of resistance in most circumstances (with the Holocaust being virtually the single counterexample in human history, of a genocide that was, insanely, unopposed even by the people who were being slaughtered). It is difficult to verify, if not impossible, with definitions of who is or is not in a given group subject to a great deal of mutability and interpretation.

 

Chancellor Pultimo's Final Solution to the Sith Question was clearly intended to be the exact same sort of solution that you advocate for the efficient end to war. Kill all of the Sith so they would never menace the rest of the galaxy again. But problems intrinsic to that solution prevented it from ever being realized. How could anybody possibly account for every Sith in the galaxy? Or even every Sith on Korriban? Once accounted for, how much of a strain on the Republic's resources would it be to have them all killed? It was inevitable that Sith, even millions of Sith, would fall through the cracks, no matter what Pultimo and his genocideers intended.

 

It was not inevitable that many of those Sith would attempt to seek revenge, but considering the kind of people that tended to take charge in Sith Empires, it was pretty likely. Had the Republic chosen not to pursue this Endlösung der Sithfrage, might the remnant of the Sith Empire have remained at peace with the Republic later on? Maybe, maybe not. Would it have been any more or less of a threat? Impossible to say. What is incontrovertible is that the way the Republic ended its first war with the Sith directly shaped the later conflict. The Republic tried genocide, and a millennium and change later, the Sith paid it back with the most serious galactic conflicts since the Alsakan wars.

I dont think comparing this situation to the real history cases is such a good idea. For example I guess It would be much easier in star wars to kill whole planet population than one nation in the 20th century. Due to advanced technology. And since the war would be over by the time Republic would do this. The amount of resources put into it is not relevant anyway.

Also they didn't plan to do this to discourage Sith from raising again. They wanted just wipe them out, which is IMO undeniably the best way to prevent such thing. I think the reason of failure here (the fact that remaining imperial forces were able to escape and hide) is poor execution, not the false idea.

This is not real life example, but Im going to mention it anyway - you see it all the time in the movies. A villain kills somebody for whatever reason, but lets the small child live, because he's not "that bad". What happenes next? The kid grows up and takes revenge (or justice), resulting in villain's death. Of course it wouldn't happen if he wasn't soft and killed that child years ago.

And this is why the side that doesn't give a damn about morality will always have advantage.

1. Authoritarian dictatorships: the Empire are all about power power power, centralized in a handful of beings who abuse and misuse it and take satisfaction from oppressing their underlings. However the upshot of this is when one of them gets taken out (e.g. the Sith Emperor) the Empire is thrown into disarray with a massive power vacuum. However when Chancellor Janarus was killed he was merely replaced by a more competent and more driven one.
    
    
   
2. Backstabbing: the Empire also encourage malicious rivalry and bloodshed between their ranks in order to climb the ladder. This leads to infighting and a lack of unity, making them easy picking for their united enemies.
    
    
   
3. Speciesism: the Empire illogically rejects all species other than Human and Pureblood wasting swathes of manpower and potential.
   

So while in certain situations the immoral move may reap the greatest rewards, as a whole it is ineffective and inpractical. Nazi Germany is a good example of this, if it wasn't for Hitler's deposition of the Jews he wouldn't have rushed into the Russia which may have lost him the war. And maintaing the Holocaust was a drain of resources.

I'll definitely check on getting a copy of the encyclopedia! I'm sure KOTOR and KOTOR II are great games, but in general I prefer to spend my time reading over playing single player games. I still might pick them up at some point, though.

That is a horrible, horrible justification for genocide. And to assume there were no civilians and noncombatants at all is not a smart concept; It is racist to assume that literally -every- being on Korriban is evil just because the regime and a sizeable portion of the population is. It certainly does not justify exterminating all life from several whole planets.

1) It's not racist, as the Sith isn't a race, it's an Order. Unless it's not the Sith Order, but the Sith Race itself. Then that's specism.

2) This is Star Wars, not real life, so the idea that there were no civilians or noncombatants, is plausible.

3) Doubtful they killed the obviously innocent. Nowhere have I read they killed every last man woman and child in site.

I would disagree. I mean lets take a look at the Sith Empire. Three of their major weaknesses stem from their immorality.

 

 

1. Authoritarian dictatorships: the Empire are all about power power power, centralized in a handful of beings who abuse and misuse it and take satisfaction from oppressing their underlings. However the upshot of this is when one of them gets taken out (e.g. the Sith Emperor) the Empire is thrown into disarray with a massive power vacuum. However when Chancellor Janarus was killed he was merely replaced by a more competent and more driven one.
    
    
   
2. Backstabbing: the Empire also encourage malicious rivalry and bloodshed between their ranks in order to climb the ladder. This leads to infighting and a lack of unity, making them easy picking for their united enemies.
    
    
   
3. Speciesism: the Empire illogically rejects all species other than Human and Pureblood wasting swathes of manpower and potential.
   

 

So while in certain situations the immoral move may reap the greatest rewards, as a whole it is ineffective and inpractical. Nazi Germany is a good example of this, if it wasn't for Hitler's deposition of the Jews he wouldn't have rushed into the Russia which may have lost him the war. And maintaing the Holocaust was a drain of resources.

That's interesting, but I don't think any of these have much to do with original subject, which is immoral acts to defeat your enemies, possibly during the war.

1) Dictatorship is a political system. And every political system has flaws. The main flaw of every state based on leader principle is the fact that taking out the leader causes problems. Dictatorship itself is not evil thing, it's just a type of ruling. For example if Yoda or Satele Shan were dictators in the Republic, it would most likely be better for it's citizens than democracy.

2) Backstabbing is common for both Republic and Empire. The only difference is that imperial leaders have Force powers and there is nobody to oversee them, like Jedi do in the Republic. So backstabbing is not there because the moral difference beetween these two factions.

3) I don't think this is a question of morality either. More like question of traditions for whatever reason. But I doubt imperial citizens view this as they are doing something bad. It's simply their way, as I said, for whatever reason.

That's interesting, but I don't think any of these have much to do with original subject, which is immoral acts to defeat your enemies, possibly during the war.

 

1) Dictatorship is a political system. And every political system has flaws. The main flaw of every state based on leader principle is the fact that taking out the leader causes problems. Dictatorship itself is not evil thing, it's just a type of ruling. For example if Yoda or Satele Shan were dictators in the Republic, it would most likely be better for it's citizens than democracy.

 

2) Backstabbing is common for both Republic and Empire. The only difference is that imperial leaders have Force powers and there is nobody to oversee them, like Jedi do in the Republic. So backstabbing is not there because the moral difference beetween these two factions.

 

3) I don't think this is a question of morality either. More like question of traditions for whatever reason. But I doubt imperial citizens view this as they are doing something bad. It's simply their way, as I said, for whatever reason.

For example dictatorships, they may not be immoral inherently, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. And corruption can be seen as immoral, as can repression - which are by products of dictatorships. In a moral society such rulership would never be accepted. For example the majority of dictatorships today occur in third-world countries which often lack of strong sense of morality, or at least a lack of audible voices to express that morality.

Backstabbing is I believe more common in the Empire because its legal e.g. the Kaggath, and we're not talking about political maneuverings we are talking about internal wars and murder of the opposition. That doesn't happen in the Republic, and its certainly not legal. And this is a byproduct of their arguably immoral philosophy.

Racism is often 'tradition' or part of one's culture. By that doesn't make it above moral judgement. If its part of my culture to elevate white people and enslave black people, its still immoral. What I'm trying to say here is that if the Empire weren't a war-mongering nation who uphold the tenants of the Sith Code, slavery wouldn't exist. This is really the crux of my argument, if you continually commit immoral acts it becomes part of your culture.

All of the above are part of imperial culture and have been born out of an acceptance and advocation of the immoral. The fact that they do not exist in the Republic is testament to this, a culture with a strong set of moral values has done away with slavery and dictatorships and frowns upon backstabbing and disunity. So while in the short-term it may seem practical to commit mass genocide etc. but continually performing such acts will have an impact on society. E.g. If we can slaughter people in the millions, why can't we enslave them?

1) It's not racist, as the Sith isn't a race, it's an Order. Unless it's not the Sith Order, but the Sith Race itself. Then that's specism.

 

2) This is Star Wars, not real life, so the idea that there were no civilians or noncombatants, is plausible.

 

3) Doubtful they killed the obviously innocent. Nowhere have I read they killed every last man woman and child in site.

I used the term racist because as far as I know 'speciesist' is not a word.

Entire planets were purged of all life. That is not just attacking the Sith Order, that is organized genocide. And no, it is -not- plausible to think there were no noncombatants; Any society requires people in civilian capacities to function, even a highly militaristic one. The Journal of Gnost-Dural, which is a canon source for this game, has a picture of Republic soldiers kicking down the door of a very poor, normal looking house on Korriban next to the relevant passage about killing all life on the planet.

I used the term racist because as far as I know 'speciesist' is not a word.

 

Entire planets were purged of all life. That is not just attacking the Sith Order, that is organized genocide. And no, it is -not- plausible to think there were no noncombatants; ANY society requires people in civilian capacities to function, even a highly militaristic one. The Journal of Gnost-Dural, which is a canon source for this game, has a picture of Republic soldiers kicking down the door of a house on Korriban next to the relevant passage.

You have two major fractions...Empire vs Republic.

If you want to keep the other fraction completely gone, you get rid of the whole fraction. Keeping the non-combatant part of the fraction alive, leads to them rising back up and going back after you.

Not to mention, in war (which this was), there is bound to be civilian casualties, if the civilians live in the war zone (which Korriban was).

You have two major fractions...Empire vs Republic.

 

If you want to keep the other fraction completely gone, you get rid of the whole fraction. Keeping the non-combatant part of the fraction alive, leads to them rising back up and going back after you.

 

Not to mention, in war (which this was), there is bound to be civilian casualties, if the civilians live in the war zone (which Korriban was).

You have two major fractions...Empire vs Republic.

 

If you want to keep the other fraction completely gone, you get rid of the whole fraction. Keeping the non-combatant part of the fraction alive, leads to them rising back up and going back after you.

 

Not to mention, in war (which this was), there is bound to be civilian casualties, if the civilians live in the war zone (which Korriban was).

Okay- So the Galactic Empire's destruction of Alderaan several thousand years past all this was totally reasonable and justified by that logic. After all, Alderaan was a hotbed of the enemy! Who cares if there was a massive civilian population, right? Or is genocide only morally okay when the designated 'good guys' use it?

Okay- So the Galactic Empire's destruction of Alderaan several thousand years past all this was totally reasonable and justified by that logic. After all, Alderaan was a hotbed of the enemy! Who cares if there was a massive civilian population, right?

Okay- So the Galactic Empire's destruction of Alderaan several thousand years past all this was totally reasonable and justified by that logic. After all, Alderaan was a hotbed of the enemy! Who cares if there was a massive civilian population, right? Or is genocide only morally okay when the designated 'good guys' use it?

Different motivations actually.

Korriban is a planet that is nothing but basically terrorists in the making. That's what Korriban is, a planet who's sole purpose is to turn people into psychotic sociopaths. They even say, if you plan to survive on Korriban, you can't give into the lightside.

So you're thought is, spare some terrorists, and they'll learn from the mass deaths of the others...and...totally...change their ways? o.O

Alderaan was not about "Oh, planet full of enemies" Alderaan's destruction was all about "Show the galaxy we can eliminate a whole planet, and the rest will fall in line."

One action was "Stop evil" the other was "Show off our power"

They even state as much in the movie, "Dantoine is far to remote to be a proper demonstration." (I know I'm remembering the line wrong)

But yes, removing the Sith and those who would house/hide them? Tends to be a good call, when you want to eliminate a great evil.