Lit Chaotic Evil or Lawful Evil? Or perhaps Chaotic Good? Hypocrisy of the Sith

But only a Sith deals in absolutes!
*performs waterfowl-related exit*

 

Take Plagueis and Sidious, they wanted to make the Galaxy, namely the Republic a better place. Which they had a point. But why start a war, divide the Galaxy, and kill countless beings? Why not go ahead and use Damask Holding and the positions of Senator and finally Chancellor to accomplish these goals and actually make the Republic better? They could have if they really wanted to, but in the end they are selfish, power hungry, and want the Galaxy for themselves.

 

You ever come across those students who failed the Sith Maths test? No? Exactly.

 

Where's the fun in that?

 

But Troy Denning writes D&D.

 

So did Elaine Cunningham, Christie Golden, Jeff Grubb, and R. A Salvatore.

All of whom have also written Star Wars stuff.

 

I can't speak for Jeff Grubb, but there seems to be a commonality there otherwise.

 

Cunningham, Salvatore and Grubb were all pretty prolific D&D writers. Golden tended to write more for Ravenloft than Forgotten Realms though.

 

Well, as someone who used to read a lot of D&D tie-in novels, I never found Denning's much good (and this was well before I started to hate him as a Star Wars writer), but not so much the others.

 

I think he meant Cunningham, Golden and Salvatore are comparable to Denning when it comes to Star Wars? The commonality being their poor quality Star Wars work.

I like Salvatore from Vector Prime, but Cunningham, Golden and Denning are not good company to be in when it comes to Star Wars. Imo.

I, too, am unfamiliar with Grubb's Star Wars work.

 

Grubb's book was Scourge. It's a good standalone story.

I liked Dark Journey (and Paul Kemp's books: Crosscurrent, Riptide, and that one TOR book - he wrote the Forgotten Realms Erevis Cale trilogy too.)

 

Grubb's book, Scourge, was unique in that it was based on a WotC adventure he wrote, Tempest Feud. I haven't read it yet, because I have basically been too busy to find time to read much until today, since I now have a nice break from my Master's courses, but it has been on my to do list for a while now.

 

It seems to be fairly popular:

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/the-jc-lit-reviews-special-scourge-spoilers.50003219/

 

I've read Scourge. It's more solid than standout, but it's the kind of novel there should have been more of - a self-contained story involving no movie characters and no BIGGEST THREAT TO THE GALAXY EVER, yet managing to be entertaining without that.

 

The methods they used had the end goal in mind, nothing else. There was no concern for collateral damage to the Republic and its citizens. The evil rests in their actions - because as you note, it was a choice to proceed the way they did. Sidious orchestrated each conflict and every war, with his desire to reshape and control the galaxy as he saw fit.

 

Well the D&D alignment doesn't really work for Star Wars, or even modern roleplaying. Or just about any modern source of fiction. Things aren't really black and white. As for the question, a Sith can really be anything personality-wise. We've seen a lot of diverse ones. The same goes for Jedi, even if the diversity's a bit less there since they're a more centralized organisation.

As to Palpatine, he picked power over control. The two aren't necessarily always compatible. Using a WW2 example, Stalin wanted control so stuck to the USSR and his expansion plans were (relatively) small, meanwhile Hitler wanted as much power as he can, even if his followers feuded all the time, just like Palpatine's Moffs. Palpatine-Hitler is basically what we had, Palpatine-Stalin would've long purged guys like Tarkin and maybe even Vader eventually. The Empire would've gradually folded back instead of imploding. Probably, maybe.

Obviously, both were totalitarian dictators, which is my point. Some Sith opt to be smaller scale but have a higher survival rate, while there are others who have an even bigger ego and want to be remembered even if they fail in the end.

 

Thanks for the replies. I'll start out with a few of my responses (though this thread is not necessarily about me or my original questions, nor do I believe that everything is black and white)

Nobody said that, but good vs evil is a theme in literature, and it is obviously a big theme in star wars. If we are exploring good and evil, it would make sense to see more "evil" characters as purely chaotic and destructive. It is often implied that the Sith are as such, but there are not so many examples of this.

It's not, I don't believe I ever said it was. But killing lots of people to reach that goal is far less defensible.

FWIW, I believe the Sith and the Jedi both struggle with different kinds of hypocrisies. The greatest hypocrisy I often see of the Sith is that their actions regularly do not agree with their code. If the ultimate goal is naked self-centered power, most Sith would go on destructive rampages far more often than they do. If this is a problem with authors, then it would seem most authors create hypocrital Sith characters.

I don't necessarily believe all of them should be. I'm just asking why there aren't more chaotic, destructive Sith. If this is literature, and good/evil is a major theme, you'd think there would be more of this. Or at least that's what I would think.

One reason Star Wars (and good literature) is so interesting to me is because it is an exploration of many great themes, one of them being good and evil.

The Joker is relevant because I am often thinking about good and evil, and The Joker is, in my mind, and in my fluid definition of evil, perhaps the most evil character ever written. Yet he is just a man, and the Sith are supposed to have access to mystical powers. It's interesting to me, that's why.

Hmm, I'm not even interested in D&D, I just think these concepts are a good way (though not the only way) to frame the discussion of good and evil and their nuances.

 

Power - in this case, means power to do anything, if you enjoy it. Perhaps many Sith just don't enjoy rampaging?

 

Perhaps, actually that would be a very plausible explanation since most Sith don't go off rampaging.

Also, I think the Sith code is only one interpretation of the Sith. It is likely that many who claim themselves "Sith" (or even those who do not), do not believe that the ultimate goal is pure power of the self. There are definitely many characters in literature who do just want to kill things without regard to any logic like "I just wanna do what I want."

 

Agreed that simply adopting a code does not make one good or evil. But in general, the Jedi way and the Sith way are prone to certain kinds of motives and actions.

 

If evil is only the things you end up doing, then yes, definitely The Joker isn't even that evil.

However, if evil is motive (or we could say disposition) and action, as one user so eloquently put it, then The Joker -- who represents a purely chaotic, un-distinguishing urge for destruction, is way up there on the evil ladder. I must say though, that I even think The Joker hypocritical at times. His code is chaos and destruction, but not everything he does is aligned with that.

 

I may be wrong, but I think intentions/disposition/motives matter. If evil isn't purely black and white, there are probably degrees (more/less) of "evilness." I think a person who kills a few people can be more "evil" at heart than a person who kills a hundred, even though the hundreds of people who died is a worse outcome.

I'm sure that characters who commit evil for personal gain are often more interesting. But I think chaotically evil characters can be highly interesting as well.

 

That is how many see it, true. However, based on the films alone I'd disagree.

 

I thought of Nihilus when I made the original post. Thanks for linking to others. I'm really interested in exploring the different kinds of Sith lords. I definitely don't know all of them, or even most of them.

I'll make more replies later. Don't want to drown you guys in my posts all at once.