LS Sith Warriors and Inquisitors seem to be involved with the task of trying to fix the Empire from within, but could it truly be done? With the ways of the Sith as they are already influencing a vast majority of the Empire's leaders to follow the dark side, and with their values already heavily imprinted upon their domain, can anything genuinely change for the better, in a lasting manner, that could leave the Empire as being a well-functioning, non-tyrannical society?

LS Sith Warriors and Inquisitors seem to be involved with the task of trying to fix the Empire from within, but could it truly be done? With the ways of the Sith as they are already influencing a vast majority of the Empire's leaders to follow the dark side, and with their values already heavily imprinted upon their domain, can anything genuinely change for the better, in a lasting manner, that could leave the Empire as being a well-functioning, non-tyrannical society?

 

The Sith are a small, but influential part of imperial society. All the LS warrior and inquisitor would have to do is persuade the dark side sith, to become more gray. The Sith crave power, if the Warrior and Inquisitor can show them that being gray or light is more powerful, they might change. Now of course LS is not more powerful than DS but that's a whole different discussion.

Nothing wrong with the Empire baradium warheads won't fix.

The careers of Louis XVI, Napoleon III, and Mikhail Gorbachev would seem to argue against successful reform.

To reform the Empire would be to eliminate is xenophobic traits, reduce the negative impacts of power play and remove Sith elitism. The western word for authoritarian government is not a problem but rather a defining aspect of the Sith Empire. What I suspect you believe to be reforms would be taking both the 'Sith' and the 'Empire' out of Sith Empire.

 

So no, I do not believe the Sith Empire can be reformed in the way you are suggesting, that would involve totally dismantling them and having them absorbed into the Republic. But can its objectively defunct traits be cut away? Yes. I think Malgus got the ball rolling in that respect, but they've got a long way to go, the Galactic Empire being the ideal.

 

Though if that were ever to happen, the Republic would likely be destroyed.

 

P.S. Noting that the concept of a light sided Sith is an impossibility introduced by game mechanics, in my opinion.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Beniboybling

To reform the Empire would be to eliminate is xenophobic traits, reduce the negative impacts of power play and remove Sith elitism. The western word for authoritarian government is not a problem but rather a defining aspect of the Sith Empire. What I suspect you believe to be reforms would be taking both the 'Sith' and the 'Empire' out of Sith Empire.

 

So no, I do not believe the Sith Empire can be reformed in the way you are suggesting, that would involve totally dismantling them and having them absorbed into the Republic. But can its objectively defunct traits be cut away? Yes. I think Malgus got the ball rolling in that respect, but they've got a long way to go, the Galactic Empire being the ideal.

 

Though if that were ever to happen, the Republic would likely be destroyed.

 

P.S. Noting that the concept of a light sided Sith is an impossibility introduced by game mechanics, in my opinion.

Wait, ideal? Hell no. The Galactic Empire, if anything, was even worse than the Sith Empire. And which of my reforms do you consider nonviable?

 

In the end, it probably is best if it just got absorbed into the Republic.

Depends, first off, on whether you believe that in the Star Wars Universe the Dark Side is inherently and inescapably corrupting - which seemed to be Lucas's take on it. If that's the case, then as long as the Sith Empire is under the autocratic rule of the Sith, and as long as the Sith are a group of Dark Siders, then no, it will remain irredeemable.

 

If you don't subscribe to that belief of how the Force/morality works in the Galaxy Far, Far Away, then the answer is: Yes, it is possible, but it is pretty unlikely, especially post-Ilum. Since Malgus believed that the Dark Council was utterly corrupt (or at least justified his power grab by claiming it was), and made his break-away New Empire at Ilum, he created two significant problems for redeeming the Empire from within.

 

First: the most passionate "progressives" within the Empire would have been the ones who jumped ship and sided with Malgus - and since the New Empire was defeated, that means that segment of potential reformers are at best outcasts of the Empire, and more likely are now dead.

 

Second: even those potential reformers who remained part of the Empire now have an uphill battle to implement the sort of reforms Maglus advocated. The traditionalists are likely even more entrenched, and although exceptional individual like Marr have still been able to make some headway (seeing the Cathar more integrated into the military, getting Karrid accepted onto the Council) these concessions have only been managed because of the utter necessity, and have been that much more difficult than if Malgus had worked with Marr, Imperius, and other reformers within the Empire.

 

...But then again he wouldn't be Malgus if he had believed in or settled for incremental change rather than violent, transformative revolution.

 

In the end, violence and destruction are at the core of Sith philosophy, so even at it's best, a Sith Empire may still be irredeemable. The Fel Empire we see in Legacy may be a redeemed Empire, but that's only because it disavowed the Sith.

In the end, violence and destruction are at the core of Sith philosophy, so even at it's best, a Sith Empire may still be irredeemable. The Fel Empire we see in Legacy may be a redeemed Empire, but that's only because it disavowed the Sith.

And even the Fel Empire consisted of expansionist ******es, so... perhaps the entire edifice is fundamentally doomed to failure. Oh well. I'd begin to fear as much.

 

Was there ever, by the way, a reason given as to why you couldn't side with Malgus?

Edited January 14, 2014 by Xilizhra

I said it in another post several months ago: based on EU novels, all it takes is the removal of the Sith and other power hungry "governors"/"warlords" and progressive leadership on both sides with the common sense to realize that the "Empire" can exist side-by-side with the "Republic." It happened circa 45 ABY...only 3500+ years after the events of SWTOR.

Was there ever, by the way, a reason given as to why you couldn't side with Malgus?

 

An in-Universe reason? Nope, other than the Grand Moff Regus, the Dark Council Members on Ilum and Mandalore all putting forth an argument that: "Malgus is going to fail, and the longer this fight drags out the weaker the Empire will be at the end of it - so help us stop him now."

 

Real world reason?: It would have really, really, really complicated future potential storylines and just basic gameplay if it had to account for some players supporting Malgus and others opposing him. The "New Empire" was always just meant to be a common enemy so both Republic and Empire characters could fight and defeat an iconic enemy like Malgus (and so there didn't have to be separate elder-game FPs designed for each side).

Wait, ideal? Hell no. The Galactic Empire, if anything, was even worse than the Sith Empire. And which of my reforms do you consider nonviable?

 

In the end, it probably is best if it just got absorbed into the Republic.

Well its a matter of perspective. From the perspective of an Imperial citizen the Galatic Empire would be the ideal. It may be more morally repulsive than the Sith Empire (though I'm not sure I'd agree on that) but it its far more well-functioning, as you put it. So we have to consider what the Empire are being redeemed from.

 

If we are attempting to redeem them on moral grounds, then its impossible. Tyranny and authoritarian leadership are synonymous, and authoritarian leadership is the staple-point of any empire. And then of course we have the Sith ideals, which are likely wholly incompatible with whatever you regard to be "better."

 

All in all it just doesn't seem right to say the Empire is flawed because its not like us.

And even the Fel Empire consisted of expansionist ******es, so... perhaps the entire edifice is fundamentally doomed to failure. Oh well. I'd begin to fear as much.

 

Was there ever, by the way, a reason given as to why you couldn't side with Malgus?

Again, and I don't been to be that annoying person, I feel its very subjective to claim that the Fel Empire is a fail because they encouraged expansion and domination. We are denouncing the Empire on moral and philosophical grounds, but those terms are extremely relative. We can only claim the Empire to be non-functioning in terms of deficiency i.e. xenophobia, its called a phobia for a reason, because its irrational.

 

And again by purely considering objective flaws, I'd say yes the Empire can be "redeemed".

Edited January 14, 2014 by Beniboybling

I said it in another post several months ago: based on EU novels, all it takes is the removal of the Sith and other power hungry "governors"/"warlords" and progressive leadership on both sides with the common sense to realize that the "Empire" can exist side-by-side with the "Republic." It happened circa 45 ABY...only 3500+ years after the events of SWTOR.

Shameless triple post but I don't think that could ever happen. I don't know much about the Fel Empire and what not so maybe I'm talking about of my rear here, but to be Imperial is to be expansionist. You can't expect an Empire to stay within its borders and be content. Nor can you expect a democratic govt. to sit by and allow authoritarian rule to exist.

 

It could work, I suppose, but it would be a fragile alliance at best.

Again, and I don't been to be that annoying person, I feel its very subjective to claim that the Fel Empire is a fail because they encouraged expansion and domination. We are denouncing the Empire on moral and philosophical grounds, but those terms are extremely relative. We can only claim the Empire to be non-functioning in terms of deficiency i.e. xenophobia, its called a phobia for a reason, because its irrational.

 

And again by purely considering objective flaws, I'd say yes the Empire can be "redeemed".

What exactly is the problem with denouncing the Empire on morally relative grounds? If you're a moral relativist, that is how morality works. I believe something is morally wrong, based on personal or cultural standards, so I say "that is wrong". The fact that morality comes from a culturally or individually relative place doesn't change that, and doesn't prevent anyone from expressing their moral beliefs in those terms.

 

Putting it another way: Star Wars is a fictional universe being expressed in a specific cultural context: Late 20th/Early 21st Century, Post-WW2 Western Society. In that culture, militant expansionism, racism, domination, etc. are all morally blameworthy attributes. An SS officer in 1941 Germany may look at the actions of the Sith Empire and say "looks good to me", but that's the reason that SS Officers themselves are a go-to "bad guy" in our culture when we want to quickly set up an utterly reprehensible "it is perfectly okay for the hero to shoot this person" villain.

 

So, with that in mind, it is perfectly fine to say the Sith Empire is morally reprehensible, regardless of your meta-ethics:

 

If you are a moral absolutist: "The Sith Empire is objectively evil based on the universal morals that exist regardless of time, culture or circumstance."

If you are a cultural relativist: "The Sith Empire is evil based on my culture's definitions of evil, and based on the definitions of evil present in the culture that produced the fictional work it is appearing in."

If you are an ethical subjectivist: "The Sith Empire is evil based on my personal definitions of moral evil."

If you are a nihilist: ...well, then no one cares what you have to say.

Edited January 14, 2014 by DarthDymond

 

P.S. Noting that the concept of a light sided Sith is an impossibility introduced by game mechanics, in my opinion.

 

What are you saying?

The Sith control the Sith Empire, so I don't think so. Getting rid of the Sith would be the only way to do that and it wouldn't really be the same anymore.

What are you saying?

Well Sith gain power from negative emotions, so surely if a Sith started acting all nice they would lose the ability to draw on the dark side and do things like shoot bolts of pure hate?

 

Its theoretically possible, but more likely they'd abandon the Sith, be excommunicated or killed. Just my opinion.

Well Sith gain power from negative emotions, so surely if a Sith started acting all nice they would lose the ability to draw on the dark side and do things like shoot bolts of pure hate?

 

Its theoretically possible, but more likely they'd abandon the Sith, be excommunicated or killed. Just my opinion.

 

Sith is just a title, it bears no meaning when it comes to the abilities and powers of a force user. If Dark Jedi can exist why cant LS Sith? Jedi gain their power from their calm and clarity, so therefore, dark Jedi should be an improbability.

 

By "bolts of pure hatred" im going to assume your talking about Force Lightning. If a Sith really wanted to use lightning, he could just use Electric Judgment. Plo Koon is a practitioner of said ability.

 

I didn't come here to start a debate, enough of that reading your Kaggath Tourney. I just wanted to know what you meant, thanks Beni.

What exactly is the problem with denouncing the Empire on morally relative grounds? If you're a moral relativist, that is how morality works. I believe something is morally wrong, based on personal or cultural standards, so I say "that is wrong". The fact that morality comes from a culturally or individually relative place doesn't change that, and doesn't prevent anyone from expressing their moral beliefs in those terms.

 

Putting it another way: Star Wars is a fictional universe being expressed in a specific cultural context: Late 20th/Early 21st Century, Post-WW2 Western Society. In that culture, militant expansionism, racism, domination, etc. are all morally blameworthy attributes. An SS officer in 1941 Germany may look at the actions of the Sith Empire and say "looks good to me", but that's the reason that SS Officers themselves are a go-to "bad guy" in our culture when we want to quickly set up an utterly reprehensible "it is perfectly okay for the hero to shoot this person" villain.

 

So, with that in mind, it is perfectly fine to say the Sith Empire is morally reprehensible, regardless of your meta-ethics:

 

If you are a moral absolutist: "The Sith Empire is objectively evil based on the universal morals that exist regardless of time, culture or circumstance."

If you are a cultural relativist: "The Sith Empire is evil based on my culture's definitions of evil, and based on the definitions of evil present in the culture that produced the fictional work it is appearing in."

If you are an ethical subjectivist: "The Sith Empire is evil based on my personal definitions of moral evil."

If you are a nihilist: ...well, then no one cares what you have to say.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. This isn't a question of what is fine or not. Or anything like that. I'm not denying that you can say the Sith Empire is morally reprehensible. You can. Heck you should.

 

My argument is that in this case moral accusation against the Sith Empire isn't I feel relevant here. If your morals are, from the perspective of our culture, reprehensible, that doesn't mean your society is broken. You wouldn't call say Nazi society broken and in need of a fix. It functions, society perpetuates, people thrive. Its a legitimate political system because it doesn't break down into anarchy like if the Monster Raving Looney Party came into power.

 

So when I approach the Sith Empire with the word reform, I look at the flaws that hold in back from functioning, xenophobia, power play, elitism etc. not slavery, expansionism and authoritarian government. Because as much as we may dislike it these policies are often effective, Nazi Germany for example was an extremely powerful nation. It was very well functioning, its only downside from a completely objective perspective were the same problems that plague the Sith.

 

Simply put, we can't say "the Fel Empire/Sith Empire was a failure" anymore than we can say "Nazi Germany was a failure" (WW2 aside) because these things simply aren't true, morality doesn't come into this, only results.

 

But that's partly besides the point, I'm merely approaching this from an objective perspective, which means putting aside my moral preferences. I realise that others are approaching this from subjective perspectives. Which is fine.

 

But if we do that, the question "can the Empire truly be redeemed" is really a categorical no. Societies are fundamentally built upon morality and culture, and these are the very things we are challenging here. The culture and morality of the Sith Empire, if we remove those there is no Sith Empire. The system would cease to exist.

 

Again, to compare, its like saying "Can Nazi Germany truly be redeemed?" Of course not! To do that we've have to throw out the Nazi's completely and then some, and then it would not longer be Nazi Germany, it would even be close.

 

To summarise, because I ramble and waffle:

 

Can the Sith Empire be redeemed on objective grounds? Perhaps.

 

Can the Sith Empire to redeemed on subjective grounds? No.

 

P.S. I do personally find it distasteful to assert what I believe to be subjective i.e. morality, as objective. Which is what I feel is being done here. By assuming the Empire needs to be redeemed we are assuming that we are right and they are wrong - I don't think we have the authority to do that. I also feel that it helps to be objective more often, not only does it make us more understanding of others, but it helps us see our own flaws. But that's just me. And I mean no offense.

 

P.P.S. I don't like putting myself in boxes, boxes are for squares.

Sith is just a title, it bears no meaning when it comes to the abilities and powers of a force user. If Dark Jedi can exist why cant LS Sith? Jedi gain their power from their calm and clarity, so therefore, dark Jedi should be an improbability.

 

By "bolts of pure hatred" im going to assume your talking about Force Lightning. If a Sith really wanted to use lightning, he could just use Electric Judgment. Plo Koon is a practitioner of said ability.

 

I didn't come here to start a debate, enough of that reading your Kaggath Tourney. I just wanted to know what you meant, thanks Beni.

Sith is more than a title, its a philosophy. And that philosophy is completely incompatible with the light side of the Force. So in order to be a Light Sith or a Grey Sith or whatever, you'd have to abadon that philosophy and the dark side completely. Yet the IQ and SW still use dark side powers.

 

But yes, if we suspend our disbelief and assume that they don't use dark side powers. It could work. But the game doesn't do that for us, so it would make for quite the immersion breaking experience.

 

And debate is my middle name, hit me.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Beniboybling

Sith is more than a title, its a philosophy. And that philosophy is completely incompatible with the light side of the Force. So in order to be a Light Sith or a Grey Sith or whatever, you'd have to abadon that philosophy and the dark side completely. Yet the IQ and SW still use dark side powers.

 

But yes, if we suspend our disbelief and assume that they don't use dark side powers. It could work. But the game doesn't do that for us, so it would make for quite the immersion breaking experience.

 

And debate is my middle name, hit me.

 

I'm going to have to disagree that Sith is a philosophy incompatible with the light side. Its up to the user the degree to which they want to follow said philosophy. By the logic you stated, Jedi should also be a philosophy that is incompatible with the Dark side, yet we get Dark Jedi.

 

I'm going to agree, however, that the game messes things up. Its not logical that a LS inquisitor uses force lighting, that's why in my head canon its Electric Judgment. Its also illogical for a Jedi to claim "peacefulness" then go out and kill 40 mobs because the bonus mission gives good XP.

Edited January 14, 2014 by ShadowMudkip

The Empire was never designed to be a fully functional political entity, but, rather, an instrument of an insane dude who wants to consume life to gain power.

 

I do not think that the Empire would be this way if not for the Emperor. If Darth Marr keeps handling big decisions, I think the Empire will start moving more toward the grey region and become more functional.

 

As far as the influence of a LS Sith character, they can speak their mind and lead by example, but just like in the Republic, Force philosophy only goes so far.

 

My prediction for the future is that the Republic is going to underestimate the Empire's strength, overreach despite warning signs, and pay terrible consequences. The Empire's swing back will be a lot different, though, because the leaders are not on a galactic consumption power trip, but on actually defeating the enemy.

I'm going to have to disagree that Sith is a philosophy incompatible with the light side. Its up to the user the degree to which they want to follow said philosophy. By the logic you stated, Jedi should also be a philosophy that is incompatible with the Dark side, yet we get Dark Jedi.

 

I'm going to agree, however, that the game messes things up. Its not logical that a LS inquisitor uses force lighting, that's why in my head canon its Electric Judgment. Its also illogical for a Jedi to claim "peacefulness" then go out and kill 40 mobs because the bonus mission gives good XP.

Dark Jedi is simply a fallen Jedi who has not adopted Sith teachings, they have no connections to the light.

 

The Sith philosophy epouses use of passions to gain power and use that power to exert dominance over others. The light side of the Force can only be used when emotions are put to one side and through inner peace, one has to accept oneself as a tool of the Force which a Sith, who demands the Force bends to his will, cannot do.

 

If you want to explain how one can draw on the light and follow Sith philosophy then please do.

 

Sith philosophy is build around the dark side, it just cannot work.

Well the Sith Code makes it easy.

 

At the end of the Code, you have been freed by the Force, and does not require any particular use of it. That's the biggest difference between Sith and Jedi - the Jedi control everything about what they are supposed to think, while the Sith are individualistic to a fault.

 

In that sense, you can look at the Sith as having the strength and passion to live as they choose, with the traditions and governments as a gentlemen's agreement and desire for a society.

 

Tradition does attempt to dictate that all Sith live to master only the dark side, but the Sith Code does not prevent anyone from using their understanding of passion to love, protect, and negotiate illusory peace while continuing efforts to destroy their enemies.

 

Peace is a Lie can be interpreted as an option for all Sith to pretend to be peaceful in intention, while acting on their passions using that deception to their advantage. Peace is temporary and inner peace is personal, total peace for all is impossible, per the Code.

Well its a matter of perspective. From the perspective of an Imperial citizen the Galatic Empire would be the ideal. It may be more morally repulsive than the Sith Empire (though I'm not sure I'd agree on that) but it its far more well-functioning, as you put it. So we have to consider what the Empire are being redeemed from.

 

If we are attempting to redeem them on moral grounds, then its impossible. Tyranny and authoritarian leadership are synonymous, and authoritarian leadership is the staple-point of any empire. And then of course we have the Sith ideals, which are likely wholly incompatible with whatever you regard to be "better."

 

All in all it just doesn't seem right to say the Empire is flawed because its not like us.

It was functioning so well that it spawned a whole Rebellion and a constant stream of defectors to hack away at it? And when said rebels took out the head of state, it immediately collapsed into an anarchy of feuding warlords? That doesn't sound well-designed to me.

 

The Nazi state wasn't made well either. Its economy could only function by constantly plundering its neighbors, and Hitler set up various government offices to constantly fight each other for funding and domains of control, to see who'd emerge as the strongest. Ultimately, it was terribly inefficient and only ever looked good in the short term.