Lit How about a Light side type of villain?

I'm surprised nobody's cited the Jedi Covenant from the KOTOR comics yet. So obsessed with fighting the Dark Side and the Sith, that they're willing to murder their own Padawans.

 

Just throwing this out there but there's a quote from Cloak of Deception that I think could support this idea of mine:

When looking at the last sentence, I think it doesn't rule out that a supporter of the Light side couldn't takes things overboard.

 

Oh yes we need more of this

 

Obviously you've played SNES Super Star Wars!

 

Oh the hours I logged on that one....

ROMs, I have now. Yes.

 

Heh, yeah, we all thought it so brutal...

Then along came SNES Super ESB!

 

I only played Super ROTJ.

I never got past the eyestalk droid outside Jabbas Palace.

(I pretty much sucked at video games in general back then though.)

 

They were all perilously close to the dark side. And their whole group was being covertly manipulated by a hidden Sith.

 

I always had troubles with running out of energy using Force Levitation in the duel levels on Cloud City.

 

But these are only possible interpretations, yes? At this point there's been so much written by so many authors, working with different philosophical influences or simply not thinking their ideas entirely through, that any number of understandings of the light and dark sides, of the Force and balance, grounded in pre-existing canon, are possible. If an author should wish to create a lightish villain (a villain, mind, not merely an antagonist, which even set against a light-sided protagonist is simplicity itself) then it's just a matter of developing an interpretation of the Force conducive to that endeavour.

For example, if you allow absolute ends-justify-the-means reasoning to be a neutral concept rather than innately darkish - I daresay there is sufficient evidence to support such an assertion as plausible, which is all that is needed - then as long as the fanatical foe avoids unneccesary harm in their pursuit of justice or peace or the destruction of the Sith or whatever else, but the hero regards their actions as abhorent regardless of the dividends, then the villain can be both adequately villainous and light-sided for the purpose of the story, regardless of how they and the philosophical framework in which they function are regarded by the readership.

 

Thinking about the Covenant, another close example might be Atris, who took her loyalty to the light side waaaaay too far (Sith holocron-induced madness notwithstanding).

 

But the Sith-holocron induced madness cannot be pulled out of that situation. Atris is an example of a character who believes they are fully within the light, but has actually drifted well into the grasp (or perhaps shadow) or the dark side and simply doesn't know it. The overwhelming majority of darksiders in the Star Wars galaxy are like this, ranging from shamans who simply don't know any better and are trying to use any tool available to Jedi who've lost themselves to fanaticism. It is only a relatively small number of Force-users who take the step of embracing the dark side openly, willfully, and totally.

According to the way Star Wars canon works, that simply is not true. There is one and only one correct interpretation of how the Force works, and that's the one Lucas (and now Disney I suppose) says is the right one. Canon has established that the Jedi understanding (which is best expressed as the Prequel-era Jedi Order understanding) is the view of the Force that is ultimately the closest to 'correct' with regard to how everything works.

Everyone else's powers still function, but they are all, at some level, wrong, and this can have consequences when those beliefs class with what we know, via the Jedi, to be true.

This is one of the reasons why certain deviations from this viewpoint, spread across the EU, have variously been quashed or marginalized through subsequent works and retconns - most obviously declaring Vergere a Sith and associating her teachings with the dark side as a result.

Now, minds may change and a 'balance first' view of the Force may emerge from all the Mortis-mumbo-jumbo and whatever happens in the sequel trilogy. I rather hope it doesn't, the triumph and essential nature of a balance between good and evil, and the 'neutral ideal' were a D&D staple for decades (see the novel Pages of Pain by sometime Star Wars author Troy Denning for perhaps the best example), there's no reason for Star Wars to go down that road.

 

That assumes a consistent and comprehensive Lucasfilm understanding of the Force exists. I see precious little evidence of such a thing. If you were to take all relevant statements from the films, and assume everything said by a Jedi to be correct, you would be a long way of anything approaching a useful framework. The post-NJO understanding of the light and dark sides gives no more grounds to think every author is given a blueprint of the Force by Lucasfilm than did the NJO or the Bantam era or Bioware games.

Personally, I'm inclined to regard the Order of the Prequel era as being on the money, but while it may be unassailable canon that they are correct (and I'm not sure this is true), what they are correct about need not be. I suspect if you were to read a half dozen prequel-era works by different authors, you would find at least as many philosophical disagreements. To me, this is not a problem.

 

There is a difference between an antagonist and a villain - two lightsiders should, theoretically, be just as likely to come to blows as any pair of good non-force sensitives. Well, I guess the jedi are taught to use diplomacy first and force as a last resort, and as long as they stick to that, they should be able to resolve disputes peacefully. And I guess the Will of the Force would bring about compromise....

On the other hand, the KOTOR sourcebook from Star Wars saga noted that sometimes different sects of jedi fought in the old republic era, and the EGW established that many jedi were torn over which side to support in the Pius Deus Crusades.

 

You can present however many views of the Force, from an in-universe perspective, that you wish. No one being, or one organization, has the complete picture. However, stepping out-of-universe, in the meta-continuity that is the Star Wars Expanded Universe, there is only one, singular interpretation that is ultimately 'correct.' This is logical because, ultimately, the Force only actually works one way. Somebody is right, and everybody else is wrong. This is rather like looking at all the religions of the world and then picking one to arbitrarily declare it the correct viewpoint. That religion might still be missing some pieces, but its advocates would be closer to the truth than everyone else.

This is discomforting to many people, especially modern, liberal westerners without strong personal committment to any one faith (myself included) because it seems discriminatory and it doesn't match our feeling of how the real world works. However, within the universe it makes the most sense. The Force really does only work one way.

Now, to double the problem, the canon interpretation of the Force has kind of shifted over time out-of-universe, largely because Lucas' vision was incomplete until the release of the Prequels (and it is liable to shift again depending on whatever is present in the Sequels). However, the current, codeified understanding is most thoroughly presented in the various out-of-universe sourcebooks, whether for the SAGA rpg (the most recent RPG format), or Jedi and Sith sourcebooks such as Jedi vs. Sith, the Jedi Path, and Book of Sith.

Within the boundaries of C-canon, meaning just about anything not directly referenced by the movies, what we know about the Star Wars galaxy is in constant flux, always potentially retconned by a new source. This is, frustratingly, a pain in the behind, but it's what we are stuck with. The alternative is that every fan turns into a character like our GrandAdmiralJello, clinging to a personal vision of the universe that doesn't match anyone else's. That is the inherent compromise of a shared continuity.

 

One exception would be the Jedi Academy Training Manual, which is the apparent source of certain errors faithfully preserved on Wookieepedia.

 

A few . The notion that "keiran Halcyon" - the one whose name Corran borrows- somehow survived to attend Luke's Academy- when it was only Corran using the name. The notion that all Sorcerers of Tund were Croke- instead of only Rokur Gepta. And the notion that Mon Mothma had been possessed, instead of being infected with nanomachines.

Otherwise, it tends to be pretty good.

 

Except for its misuse of the term "the unifying Force" and its corresponding mangling of Force theory, which is no less an error than "Mon Mothma was possessed by Exar Kun".

 

Was Jacen Solo a good example of that? Justice no matter the cost? He took it so far that he was willing to kill his own parents.

 

Oh, you must be referring to Darth Vader II, who is completely different than Jacen Solo.

 

I think they got most of the idea that The Unifying Force was a philosophy rather than an "aspect of the Force" from Darth Maul: Shadow Hunter, combined with the New Jedi Order series:

Vergere claims that The Force is above such distinctions as Good and Evil or Light and Dark (Traitor)
Palpatine muses that The Force is above such distinctions (Darth Maul: Shadow Hunter).
Jacen takes up Vergere's philosophy.
The final NJO book, where Jacen uses Vergere's ideas to defeat Onimi, is called The Unifying Force.
Conclusion: The Unifying Force, and The Living Force, are philosophical interpretations.

 

Whether or not that progression of logic makes sense, it nevertheless would have meant the author of JATM did any research...

Mon Mothma says not.

 

They did some research- just not enough.

The Essential Guide to the Force seems to portray the Unifying Force and the Living Force as aspects rather than philosophies- both exist, regardless of what Force-users believe or don't believe.

It also portrayed the Dark and Light sides of the Living Force as intertwined, and both necessary.