Lit How about a Light side type of villain?

I don't know if somebody thought of this before (someone probably already did) but since everybody is bored by the fact that the Sith are constantly being the villains how about a new book or whatever that whould turn everything on its head and have a Light side user be the big threat? And I don't mean that the character would be a villain from a Sith POV or something like that. It may seem like an odd idea at first but let me explain (as best as I can).

This idea was inspired by a RPG I was playing recently called "Shin Megami Tensei" in which an interesting morality system is present. The story of the game is that the world has been destroyed by a nuclear war, which result in a rift in reality, allowing the forces of Heaven and Hell to come to earth. You can make "light side", "dark side" or neutral choices in the game. The interesting part is that light /=/ good and dark /=/ bad like how many morality systems in games like to present it. Instead, choosing the side of the demons is choosing for freedom of choice, and when taken this to the extreme this results in anarchy and chaos. Choosing the side of God and the angels is choosing for justice at the expanse of anything else which would eventually lead to a dictatorship if taken to far.

I could be wrong but I thought the philosophy of the demons fitted well with that of the Sith who also seem pro-individualism. Likewise, the one of the angels might fit with that of the Jedi. Building on that, wouldn't it be interesting to have a villain who is a Light side extremist? The "Justice no matter the costs" kind of type. The conflict would be that this character would make choices that may be well-meaning but may be at the expanse of others. I think that would make for an interesting story.

There are probably people who could sell this idea way better can I could, but what do you guys think of this?

 

Sounds original. They won't do it

 

Denning already created them, they are called ALL OF HIS "HEROS".

But yeah would be nice to see, but won't be seen.

 

This is something I was hoping Dawn of the Jedi could eventually explore, with a light side extremist refusing to fight the Rakata, and advocating acceptance of the Force's will no matter what, proclaiming that the arrival of the Rakata must be the will of the Force, and that it is not the Je'daii's place to interfere, what will be will be, there is no death, only the Force, let's all sit down in a circle and welcome our new arrivals, the Force will protect, etc, etc, etc.

Alas, with the whole Disney and Marvel stuff, I'm no longer sure whether to expect DOTJ to get chance to tell that many stories...

But in short: yes, I'd love to have a light side 'antagonist' who was so blinded by their own dogma they caused more pain than the main villains themselves. They'd be the kind of narrow minded idealist who strolled right into the middle of a battlefield waving a white flag only to go and spark a war even when everyone else knew they'd just get shot.

 

How does just telling people not to fight CAUSE pain?

 

It would tie into Lumiya's spiel about light-side corruption during Betrayal.

 

I can see someone going around like the Justice Lords or Jesus Town keeping their subjects on a short leash and being Big Brother and lobotomizes people with negative tendencies

 

This was pretty much how I would have liked Anakin to fall to the dark side in the prequels. Oh well.

 

The only problem is that the way Star Wars works is that any Jedi that went around and did that would become a dark Jedi fairly quickly. The Sith are about their own individuality, not the individuality of those they rule over. The Jedi, on the other hand, are about rigorous personal discipline and leaving others free. So a Jedi who got hung up on justice, and making things 'right' would go dark... aka Jacen Solo.

 

Easy. Have the dude reject usage of the Dark Side and actually have a point. Not to mention LOTF was tripe anyways

 

great topic, this is actually what MORTIS episodes showed that light = creation, and darkness = destruction, forces of nature, not good and bad which both can be if out of check.


Edit: thus one can fall out of alltruism as well as egoism if taken to extremes! the jacen solo example. The Fallanassi also are pretty blinded by extremist lightside ideology.

the point though is that, even a light side enemy might be considered to be a darksider by others even if he does not see himself that way. essentially, Jedi walk the grey between creation and destruction ideally (QuiGon) instead of in the light to destroy darkness. Sith arn't all darkside either. they use both sides of the Force like the Jedi, but for different reasons. Where Jedi restrain themselves from using the Force but rather be used by the Force themselves, the Sith ego has them dominate and use the Force, creation (of monsters) and destruction (of life). Jedi use the dark side when they kill in defense, and the light side when they heal or help to repair, grow, etc. something. Jedi and Sith are thus basically the very same, no matter if egoistic or altruistic with the simple exception that Sith want to use all of the Force like a tool to force the galaxy to peace and justice whereas Jedi follow the will of the Force and rather accept passive the chaos and pain of the world as a natural part of cycles of learning instead of forcing their idealistic utopia on others.

 

We did have a Light Side villain, he was Kenth Hamner.

 

He's not technically a light sider, but I'm halfway through Shatterpoint right now and Kal Vastor is just a great, balanced villain (at least up until where I am right now, unless they pull a "Krell")

 

He's not technically a darksider either.

 

I think DOTJ will cover this, someone must have been exiled to the moon of Ashla.


I don't think a light side extremist would be a utilitarian, end-justifies-means, type.

Probably more of a Principles Zealot.

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

Principles Zealot

​

​

"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."​

—Rorschach, Watchmen​

​

A character who cares too much about his principles, often at the expense of caring about the results of his actions. While many characters believe in ideals like truth, knowledge and the rule of law, these guys take it to uncomfortable levels. May be Played for Laughs, or played straight in one way or another.

​

A person who Will Not Tell a Lie, for example, crosses over into Principles Zealot when they maintain truthfulness even in the face of horrible consequences that they know could be averted by lying. A hero who will commit any atrocity rather than break a promise, even if they were tricked into making it, is a Principles Zealot. Please note that such a Principles Zealot isn't necessarily more principled than someone who normally Will Not Tell a Lie but can make exceptions in extreme cases. The difference is that the zealot refuses to see the big picture, clinging blindly to the principle and the principle only. (Which has a certain bloody-minded logic: the threat of looming negative consequences could always be a trick or illusion, or there might be an escape route, but once you tell the lie to avoid it, there's a 100% certainty that you are now a liar.)

​

A Principles Zealot can be a Well-Intentioned Extremist, Knight in Sour Armor, Knight Templar, Lawful Stupid or even a someone who ended up on the wrong end of that Sliding Scale. Contrast Totalitarian Utilitarian, who is another side of these four kinds of fanaticism: While the Principles Zealot cares only about principles, the Totalitarian Utilitarian cares only about results. Note that a fanatic doesn't have to fall into either of those two categories: their fanaticism can be about a cause or a belief instead.

​

See also The Determinator. Contrast Honor Before Reason: Principles Zealot is a character type, while Honor Before Reason is a motivation/characterization. Honor Before Reason is explicitly idealistic and heroic, whereas Principles Zealot is an idealistic character, but is on the cynical side of that Sliding Scale.

 

Was waiting for it.

 

When Luke pulls a Jesus Town and lobotomizes people with potential violent tendencies then we talk

 

Regicide is a merit badge, not a crime.


Anyway, we have seen tons of characters like you describe. They are all darkside. Because while the game you quoted treats light as order and dark as chaos/freedom, Star Wars does not. Any extremist is by definition dark side, while a lightside person is, again pretty much by definition, a person who understands the importance of moderation, balance, and reasonable limits.

 

Your back from hell. Or to it

 

He was also prone to sassing his elders. Shame.

 

I seriously thought Denning was building up Luke to be exactly that in Invincible. The way he talked and behaved when they were talking about assassinating vs redeeming Jacen... in conjunction with Jacen's rationale for his fall and behavior... I almost expected some interesting conclusion about the deep failure in communication that is the (N)JO and that both sides are essentially inhuman and antidemocratic (because frankly I could never really see why an elitist monastic order would uphold democracy unless it were a puppet regime). -- But not with Denning, unfortunately. Though the "Jedi vs democracy" issue was sort of present all through FotJ as well, if mostly depicted from a pouting "we did everything for them, why can't they all just worship us" kind of perspective.

 

It isn't "easy", because the light side is about balance and moderation. The dark side, conversely, has foundations rooted in disproportionate excess. It's not just about using bad emotions, but about the imposition of one's will. Tyranny and extremism are, in themselves, things of the dark side.

(EDIT: I now see I'm just parroting MercAce, here, though. )

That being said, this kind of thing could work fairly well in Dawn of the Jedi, where the Je'daii still don't have a firm grasp of what "balance" really is, or what the light and dark entail. It really makes next to no sense in the context of the modern galaxy, though.

EDIT 2: Then again, given the direction they've been running with Mortis. Urghh. I guess I shouldn't rule anything out.

 

I'm not sure the term 'villain' is appropriate to describe what happened with Kenth. That was far more a case of divided interpretations of what the Force was telling the Jedi to do combining with stubborness and a bit of Barabel psychology to create a situation wherein compromise broke down. It was not the finest hour for any of the Jedi involved (or the writing staff for that matter, trying to take FotJ's absurd Coruscant-based plotline and reason backwards into anything about the Force is probably a fool's errand).

More broadly, the idea of a light side villain is, in terms of the best understanding of the Force we truly possess, not really possible. It is certainly possible for someone attuned ot the light side to assume a zealous and unyielding position, but while such a person might be an obstruction to other heroes, or potentially withhold aid when it seems absolutely necessary, they would not be an actively malevolent presence. The Fallanasi, as mentioned, are a good example. They are so obsessed with the potential of their actions to do harm they effectively refrain from taking action whatsoever. As a result they often fail to prevent others from doing evil, but, in the moral calculus of the Force, this is not a form of evil itself. Indeed, the opposite is true - any attempt to do too much, to utilize the Force as a dominant power in the galaxy, is almost inevitably a cause for evil. The Jacen Solo case is illustrative, but this point was also made in the Hand of Thrawn doulogy. Exert too much power via the Force, no matter your motives, and it blinds you and you eventually fall into darkness.

This is part and parcel of the secret grasped by Darth Bane - the Jedi, representing the light side, grow stronger the more potent the darkness they face. In peace, they weaken.