Lit What if JJM wrote a book where the Lost Tribe founded the Imperial Knights?

This was refuted first by LarryG, who argued that the Empire did not turn evil, but rather, evil people took over unlawfully, much as they might any government; he put forward Jacen Solo’s seizure of power over the Galactic Alliance as an example.

Ah, that's the problem because the Galactic Alliance is a shining example of corruption and inefficiency.

Summer Dreamer provided a similar counterpoint, noting that if the Second Empire was evil, then the Old Republic was at least as evil, if not eviler.

Yep, absolutely as responsible though I cut them more slack due to Palpatine being a trifle more subtle.




Both also emphasised that it was the moffs who were responsible for any Sith dealings, which were opposed by the Emperor Roan, and the eventual coup; the Fel Dynasty, and consequently Jaina Solo, are thus further disassociated from any eventual down-the-line evilness.

A Dynasty which still helped destroy the Jedi Knighthood and whose Moffs are the ruling power as a group of oligarchs in a non-Democratic society.

Simply put, the standard by which you judge the Second Empire to be evil is unreasonably harsh. If the Second Empire is evil, then the Jedi Order of its time is about as evil, the Galactic Alliance far eviler, and the vast majority of the Imperial Era galactic population, including a number of very popular characters is eviler still.


A viable argument but the Old Republic's populace is guilty for allowing the erosion of liberties to a certain extent as is the Galactic Alliance for supporting Daala as much as she did. The Empire has a greater degree of guilt, however, as does the Sith Empire for the fact both adopted the ideology of their Dark Lords as well as carried out their atrocities. The GAG is every bit as culpable for Darth Caedus' butchery of Kashyyyk as the Imperial military is for the massacre of Dac.

Then again, I consider the Galactic Alliance an inferior government to the New Republic whose faults seem far less in retrospect. At the end of the day, the Empire under Roan Fel conquered vast swaths of the galaxy and waged war on the Jedi before allowing the kind of easy usurption by Darth Krayt that Palpatine required 13 years to usurp.

 

Okay, yes, corrupt and inefficient, fine. Responsible, a viewpoint I can accept. But, and this may be the crux of the matter, are they, in your considered opinion, themselves evil?

A Dynasty that, from the little we've seen, was the driving force in bringing civil rule to what had been a militarist dictatorship. That curtailed, to a keenly resented degree, the political power of the moffs and admirals. That sponsored the establishment of an independent media, a light-side order of Knights, and the only notable charitable organisation we've ever seen in the galaxy. That opposed war with the Galactic Alliance and, when forced to war, refused to involve the Imperial Knights, one of the few bodies over which it had direct and complete control, despite the Jedi Order aiding the Galactic Alliance. That opposed dealings with the Sith. That, when the Sith seized power, dedicated everything to their overthrow and destruction. That throughout its existence defined itself by an ethos of service, to the Force, their Empire, and their subjects.

Problems with the political struture of their Empire are understandable, but if one appreciates the limitations of their power, the impression of the Fels I garner is almost entirely favourable.

I should clarify that I meant the Galactic Alliance of 130-138 ABY, although Daala is also a worthwhile point to consider. It was the Alliance that formed the larger and more significant part of Krayt's Empire and, unlike the Second Empire, it did not itself in the main rebel, and certainly did not do so openly, bearing the risks that any world of the Empire-In-Exile did.

As I indicated earlier, the swiftness with which the Empire-In-Exile was established suggests that adoption of Sith ideology within the Second Empire was not widespread, further supported by the plot point in the latter half of Legacy that it is Wyyrlok, over seven years after Sith rule began, who directs that a programme of Sith proselytising and conversion be initiated.

And of course those former personnel of the Second Empire's Navy and Army who, under Krayt's Empire, commited atrocities are partially culpable for those attrocities. A military, however, is not a state (with the possible exception of the Remnant) and individuals are neither. It would need to be clear that those personnel make up a large portion of the population of either of those entities for their actions to adequately reflect those institutions' morality.

Which isn't evil.

It waged war on the Galactic Alliance, and while this was driven by self-interested moffs, they had evidently adequate grounds to do so.

quote="Charlemagne19, post: 50115757, member: 251830"]before allowing the kind of easy usurption by Darth Krayt that Palpatine required 13 years to usurp.[/quote]

Both were the result of long-term heavily involved schemes involving the Sith Lord, their acolytes and agents, and highly-placed co-conspirators within the government. And certainly Krayt's seizure of power occurred more swiftly - but it resulted in comparatively superficial, and briefer, control.

 

Palp's control was almost total. Krayts was not even close to that. He is not half the Sith Palps was or even Wyylock and Nhil are.

 

hhhmm. I didn't consider that. I suppose it might make sense, however, that civilization is based on fuedalism, which of course is their social order, system of economics, etc. For them to govern territory, they would absolutely need to place subordinate aristocrats/officer/whatever and logistically, these would have to be placed relative to natural resources, trade routes, population centers, etc. Those governors would all hvae to be Sith or else there is an additional caste in their structure we are not told about. It's a fair inference then that huge numbers of Sith would remain and clearly the Council Of Lords was not wiped out by the blast because that would have been hugely devestating to their command structure and it would be the biggest problem they were all dealing with as they plunged into civil war to fill the power vaccuum. No, they had to survive also and much of their staff and courtiers probably did as well to allow them to function later. The tme between the destruction of Tav and the infiltration of Coriscant wouldn't allow them to promote and train all new staf.. It would be in character for the Sith and indeed many aristocrats to pack up and bail out before anyone else knows because the mass movement would singal their intentions as a feint which would spoil their escape attempt. I think all of this is reasonable, but there is probably a lot of story opportunities that could be created just to explain this scenario, as with the fracturing of the Sith into 2 factions then.

 

True. But Krayt's dream can last.

 

And which dream is that? his First one or the one after he returned from death?

 

This has developed into a wonderful discussion on the role of government. I feel like I need to crack open Plato's republic or Aristotle's treatise on politics. I guess it's a tough matter to discern, but when i think of the Empire in it's original form, I think of Germany under Nazi rule, which I think was the basis for it. If that were so, yes, it's possible to measure the political doctrine of a party against the yardstick of morality I always think of the Moffs as S.S. officers who both shared a common doctrine as well as were heavily influenced by German Banking and Commercial factions who encouraged and supported the Enabling Act to eliminate their business competition. In such a case I suppose the administrative policies themselves could be said to be evil, while not everyone n government or the military were themselves evil. If I think about the Moffs in this way I see them like banking heads trying to capture more territory for their own self interest. They would be able to motivate others through shared ideology as well as the promise of reward even in cases where that ideology is not shared. All it would take for a faction of Sith to corrupt a bunch of Moffs would be the promise of power and real estate, which I get is one of the social commentaries we get out of myths like SW. However, none of that means that a Monarchy or otherwise Imperial society is itself evil. A strong argument could be made that such a society has every bit as mch potential to be a good society that promotes the common good because a strong centralized government in the right hands is not as likely to be corrupted by special interest groups. The sense I get from the Empire in the books is more of a composite of Imperial social orders all over the globe which for the most part are functioning well in a more enlightened age. The message I get is that this sort of social order is not outdated, but updated and can function with greater efficiency and effectiveness than some alternatives. An Empire in the right hands could be just as good as an evil one in the wrong hands, but no government can ever be perfect, so it absolutely will have it's shortcomings, like party officials becoming corrupted and serving the wrong side. So, to me, a society is not simply evil because of its model of government or the the people it puts in power. it would take both evil people as well as evil policies to make the government evil and this would have to be the norm, not the exception, but that doesn't make the entire nation evil because the populus and military would just be following orders and obeying the law of the land. People tend to go with the winning sie and once a party has seized control they have the advantage of position. it is simply easier for subordinates to follow orders then fight for control and this is ethically wrong, but it is human. That's what makes a Knight a hero and an exception because he or she (Dame?) have the virtue to take the course of right action against all odds.