Lit Bright Sith - Should we see them outside of the Old Republic?

This issue comes up within the game. More or less, the Sith Warrior and Sith Inquisitor are required to murder their way to the stop of the Sith food chain.

Which is helped by the fact the Sith tend to be real scumbags.

Revan's infiltration of the Sith Academy also comes to mind.

 

But Lucen Draay wasn't masking himself, Self delusional yes, masking himself? He did not have the subtly to even try by his actions within the story. The whole issue I thought of when I think of Lucen Draay if you can convice yourself you are not a dark sider, are you one?

When you look at Lucen's motivations in comparison to Conan's, or James Bond, or Malcolm Reynolds, or James T. Kirk.
Yes they are not Star Wars characters but the personalities and motivations of these should exist in the GFFA and if they do and they are Force users would they darksiders?

 

In my opinion? Yes. Being a Light Sider and Dark Sider is independent of one's beliefs about oneself. Vader, after all, believed he could bring order to the galaxy.

Malak and Revan also believed they were absolutely necessary to save the world.

I guess my point is that a Lightside Sith would be as invisible to the Sith as Palpatine was to the Jedi.

 

Saving the slaves in impractical given the need to stay within the Empire. That's why the option is not there. Because unnecessary heroics would defeat the purpose, which is to make the Empire stronger through unconventional means. Hence the Warrior saying "You must keep your thoughts on the goal. And be ready to do whatever it takes." The bottom line is that in TOR, even a "light" Sith does some pretty nasty things. There's no such thing as a light Sith as you want to conceive of it.

 

The thing is, 'Staying within the Empire' is mandated by game mechanics for the PCs, not by any storytelling reason. Jedi and Sith can and do switch sides during these wars, in fact the Jedi Knight storyline in TOR allows you to redeem a high-level Sith lord who later shows up to fight by your side. It is just that the game mechanics don't allow any Imperial or Republic characters to actively switch sides. This is one of the least convincing elements of TOR and it is very clear that it occurs via developer fiat rather than any appropriate in-universe justification (which from a game perspective is fine, but it cannot inform us much more about the Star Wars universe as a result).

When an official determination is made it is almost certain that the Sith Warrior and Sith Inquisitor characters will be dark side oriented, and their Jedi counterparts light side affiliated (Wookieepedia already functions under this assumption), the respective stories simply do not make a whole lot of sense otherwise. In those particular instances the idea that factional allegiance trumps moral imperative completely and fully is strained past the point of plausibility - your characters are independent operators with their own ships and support teams, they could cut and run to the Republic, or just for the Unknown Regions, at any time if they wanted to.

Despite there the general concept that factional allegiance does not constantly map to the moral compass of light vs. dark is not unreasonable as a whole. The Dark Jedi serving the Republic side is actually much more believable - a Jedi who falls during the war may be so motivated by the hate of the Empire that he or she continues fighting it with nominal Republic support, though they probably duck out of council meetings a lot. There are also probably Sith with low profile positions who find almost everything the Empire does repugnant and try to make it better in their own way, but lack the agency to escape its grasp, in part because their light side affiliation has such massive social cost that they never advance.

It is just in the principal characters, who have epic heroic agency, that the structure breaks down. The light side Sith Warrior and Sith Inquisitor mouth poorly rationalized justifications about 'reforming the Empire from within' and other garbage when it is obvious to bother characters that the Empire is rotten to the core and they'd do a lot bettr off destroying it, especially given that by the conclusion of both storylines it is obvious that the Empire is getting its hide kicked by the Republic.

 

I'm not sure I agree with the immediate assumption that this is a matter purely based in mechanics and not motivated by any storytelling purposes. Regardless of whatever a player might want to think, Kallig and the Wrath are defined characters with certain limits and traits. I'd say it's less a matter of mechanics meant to restrict the player (although that's partially in play, certainly) as it is that there's immutable traits to the characters that are not changed by their alignment. Among these is dedication to the Empire. That's a constant which does not change because it is a trait of the character themselves. We're dealing with PCs that are not quite the cipher that Revan was. You can't, say, compare the Wrath to Praven because they are different individuals with different qualities.

EDIT: I should add that this is partially the reason that we don't get @Charlemagne19's alternative to the slave conundrum. It is partially rested in the mechanical need to duality for dichotomous choices but also a reflection of the characters. Cipher Nine has to, at least until the end, follow a chain of command. The Warrior and Inquisitor are bound by their loyalty to the Empire. The Bounty Hunter's morality is looser, plus they need to ensure they can operate in Imperial Space. This is true, too, for something such as Kallig's choice whether or not to free the bound spirits they've accumulated throughout their story. The dichotomy of the choice is tied up in Kallig's relationship to Force rituals; either treated as things of convenience or things of continued exploitation. Hunter choices for bounties are largely based on their personal code about their targets. Etc, etc.

 

No, a jedi is a person who have been trained in the jedi way and follows it something that’s involves using the Force and caring lightsabre (after all "It is dangerous to go alone! Take this.")

And that is?

Why do you think that?

Do we know the meaning/origin of the Darth title?

That is easy = Inquisitors are Inquisitors; Dark Side Elite are Dark Side warriors; Emperor's hand are Force adepts; the Sorcerers of Rhand are Sorcerers of Rhand; Prophet of the Dark Side are Prophet of the Dark Side; etc., etc.

 

In some sense yes, but at the root, the trait of loyalty to the Empire, or at least willingness to operate within the Imperial power structure rather than challenge it, given that depending on how you play the Warrior or Inquisitor they don't necessarily display a whole lot of 'loyalty' to anything but themselves, is a character trait derived from the game mechanics phenomenon that you cannot change sides. If TOR had been developed to allow a character to change sides then the characters would at least potentially be different - which is what governs the extrapolation. Just because a 'light' Kallig or Wrath remain loyal to the Empire does not mean that another character could not make a different choice.

As a result the limits placed around those two characters are fairly unique, and tell us little about the possibility for any random Sith to 'go light.'

 

The idea of making sure the Empire is not conquered by the Republic and that the Sith race should be protected from both the Jedi as well as the Republic's forces becomes a moral imperative the moment you discover the Flashpoint where Revan (with Republic support) is going to unleash a droid army of genocide. At that point, the Sith is morally obligated to defend the Sith Empire against the Republic and Jedi.

He's probably WRONG that the Jedi and Republic are all behind this but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Also, bluntly, the idea that "Light Side Sith" stories "do not make a whole lot of sense otherwise" is kind of insulting to all the hard hours of work Bioware put into them as well as the fans who enjoy them.

In Cipher Nine and the Bounty Hunter's case, you can defect. However, the Sith Lords trait is that they can possibly reform the Empire.

No different from Roan Fel and the Imperial Knights in that respect or Pellaeon.

End slavery and restore the Sith Empire to the ways of the Light.

We just know they fail.

 

I consider "light" in this conversation to be little more than pragmatic. But in relation to a group and not their own needs. Marr partially embodies this ideal, which is why I brought him up. Although his martial nature may or may not fit in with the image we're trying to create here; I'm honestly not sure. But "light" in this context denotes traits such as prudence and restraint, for starters. I'd say it also entails a sense of obligation to the collective. Perhaps, too, there is a component of equity in place or of relative fair sport (ie. someone who might openly challenge their opponent to an "honorable duel"). Banite Sith immediately fall out of this category because the Rule of Two cannot align with these things, philosophically. I don't even count someone like Vectivus as an example because of his experiments. Emperor's Hands or other such servants are fair game though, provided there's some notion of "fair play" in their actions.

I don't think such a Sith can exist outside of an organization. Be it the Brotherhood or Darkness, the One Sith, Vitiate's Empire, or any other of the various Sith organizations we've had. I'd say that one of the essential things for a character of this nature is service to a purpose higher than themselves. So, as a hasty example, we might consider any Sith who favors a strong code of honor to be in this category or one who does not, say, merely slaughter for the sake of it, as many Sith do.

More than anything else though, I think there's a true language limitation in this discussion because "light" denotes certain qualities which do not necessarily align with the type of character we're trying to define. The concept of "light" might as well simply mean less severe or less sociopathic. So, I believe these characters can exist, certainly but I also think they are the result of very specific circumstance. What I also think, however, is that the characters, by virtue of serving a dark master or dark goals (such as domination), are also dark individuals. They're merely "less dark". Not "light".

 

They aren't a Sith anymore. They can "identify" all they want, but are just a force user.

 

And I disagree with this assumption.

But have nothing to further to say on the subject.



Now I'll go talk about things other than definitions.

 

Really, though, I'd be curious what sort of place a Bright Sith would have in the EU and what sort of stories could be told about them.

 

I'm curious, do you really have a desire to see a "Bright Sith," as you've termed it, which I've taken to mean a Sith that was trained exclusively as a Sith and found his or herself becoming selfless and serving a greater good?

Or are you more interested in something along the lines of the Middle Way, not so much a neutral character -- as the light and dark sides aren't dualistically opposed in an alignment sense, but complementary pieces of a whole -- but a character that transcends the apparent opposites of the dialectic and has reached a greater level of understanding? Because we have seen that...

 

It strikes me that in the context of "dark Jedi" as a phrase, "Jedi" is being used as a generalized version of a brand name. Like how "Kleenex" is often used when one means "tissue," or "Band-Aid" for "bandage." Here, galactic citizens use it for "Force user."

 

Dark Jedi existed as a concept necessarily in the early 90s to describe a Jedi that had fallen to the dark side. No one knew what the Emperor was, Darth Vader was known in supplementary material as the Dark Lord of the Sith but was otherwise more or less considered a "Dark Jedi" himself, and there just wasn't language to describe anything besides Jedi.

 

That's what I meant. The Bpfasshi dark Jedi... was he supposed to be a fallen member of the Jedi Order, or just a dark sider? What about the guys Corran's grandfather, A'kla, and Desert Wind (Anakin? Obi-Wan?) fought? It was sort of a catch-all term. "Jedi" was probably used for similar reasons both in and out of universe: "Jedi" was the most familiar term for Force-user.

 

I'm less interested in "middle road" philosophy than seeing if we can do stories with the Sith where they aren't one-dimensional.

Mostly as an alternative to repeating the same stories we've done a hundred times before.

Before they became as common as Skittles, the Sith and Dark Jedi were differentiated a great deal. Apparently, it being possible for Jedi Knights to fall to the Dark Side without embracing the Sith code. These individuals made up a large number of Palpatine's grunts versus Vader who was instructed in Sith techniques.

The problem is, as we later learn, 90% of being a Sith is being trained as a Jedi except fueling yourself with the Dark Side.

Which if you think that--means the Sith will never truly die.

 

The term 'dark Jedi' has a canonically vague application, but avoiding the shackles of bad terminology, it can clearly be stated that not all Jedi who fall to the dark side are to be considered Sith. The Sith are a series of cultural and political traditions that hold utilization of the dark side in common, an individual who does not espouse certain distinct tenets of Sith practice (which vary depending on the Sith tradition in question), can draw on the dark side as much as they want, and still not be Sith. Jerec is a good example - he was plenty dark, but he was not a Sith.

The heart of the question as to whether there can be a 'light side Sith' is actually whether or not a member of a dark side associated Force tradition can be in tune with the light side instead and yet still consider themselves part of that culture. The best answer to this question is that such a thing is theoretically possible, but in practice would be extremely rare. There are simply too many limitations on such a individual, whether its the social cost of their unwillingness to perform evil actions, their inability to risk using powers or knowledge that is corrupting in and of itself - ie. Force lightning, and the probability that once exposed to other cultures they would almost certainly face an extraordinary temptation to jump ship.

The case of Vestara Khai is illustrative - while she is clearly not a 'good' person or affiliated with the light side, her loyalty to the Sith cause was not a matter of personal choice so much as childhood indoctrination and family bonds, and when she was presented with an alternative she was sorely tempted to make the switch, though she ultimately rejected it. A hypothetical 'Bright Sith' would simply be a considerably more extreme case.

Personally, I think this scenario is actually more likely to occur within a dark side Force tradition other than the Sith, due to the choices of powers and cultural structure of Sith society. A Force tradition that does not draw on the dark side with Sith levels of directness and functions in a more subtle societal role rather than as a magocracy would allow such a person to develop far more easily.

 

I think I get what you're saying. I think the character needs to have a well executed origin story like Starkiller (IMO). One of my desires that has become potentially more likely to happen due to Episode VII is for Starkiller to become a prominent character in the post-Return of the Jedi stories. In The Force Unleashed II, I'd argue that Starkiller is very much what I, at least, would like to see of this sort -- his motivation is no different than Anakin's in Episode III, but he doesn't have a Darth Sidious dangling a carrot in front of him to induce him to slaughter children and betray his surrogate family (though Vader briefly did only to throw it away). There's a lot of potential places that you can take the character after the cliffhanger ending, and plausible ways to explain his absence during the OT that makes him accessible to use as a character afterward.

 

I don't know the origin or meaning of Darth title, which is why I would have loved for them to elaborate on that in TOR. Apparently they pick it based on personality, or degree of alignment to the dark side in the game. As a dark-side player, I didn't want to be given the light or neutral titles, which makes me wonder if Darths were ever slapped with names by their masters that they didn't want, or were insulting to some degree. And that's kind of fridge brilliance, imo - because giving Sith a name they don't like would only strengthen them in the dark side by annoying them.

 

I'm still convinced that Darth had its origins as a given name rather than as a title. Then Lucas had his little "oh it'd be an interesting twist if Darth Vader was actually Anakin Skywalker" brainstorm and suddenly Vader goes from a surname to a pseudonym and the "Lord" in "Lord Vader" becomes redundant in the face of "Darth".

As far as in-universe origins go... we haven't really been given a solid look into its meaning or origins, only its significance in usage.

 

Actually, we did get an origin for the meaning in one of the magazine articles. Sadly, it's very obscure.

It was apparently a title for "Conqueror of Death" and "King."

So, I suppose that means Voldemort was a Darth.

 

My head-cannon is that the title 'Dark lord' that the sith used in the Golden age of the sith to address their leader (like Marka Ragnos and Naga Shadow) is the origin for the Darth title; just like kejsare, kaiser and tsar comes from Caesar

Powerful and still wanting more? Check; Don't really care for his minions or their ideals? Check; Extremely selfcentred? Check; Physically distorted by his powers? Check.

Conclusion: Tom Riddle can without any problem call himself Darth Voldemort

 

Honestly, I'd love to see another Starkiller story. I'd also like him formally recognized as a Sith.