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

A Dark Jedi is a Jedi that turned to the dark side. A Jedi is a person that wields a lightsaber and uses the Force.

I think the closest thing categorically to a "Bright Sith" or "Light Sith" would be Starkiller, whom was exclusively trained as a Sith and I think could be described as being "light" at the end of TFU1.

 

Thank you.

 

As for light-side using Sith, (Which, as a dark-side Sith in swtor, really do baffle me). In my opinion, such Sith definitely exist outside the old republic, but they are oblivious of it or in complete denial. Darth Plagueis might have dabbled in the light side due to his attachment with Palpatine, and he had a pre-occupation with creating life. Darth Vader slowly turned to the light side because of his love for Padme.

 

Sith in TOR do not use the light side. Can we, at the very least, make that abundantly clear?

 

Exactly.

That is why I love Keleth Urr so much. Frankly, it is probably one of the most hopeful things I have seen come out of Star Wars for some time.

 

It's a PLOT POINT in the Sith Warrior storyline that Jaesa Williams (as close to an objective out of universe source as exists in the game since she sees people as they truly are) senses a pure Light Side Sith as "glowing with nobility, honor, and even compassion."

Seriously, it's in-game canon you have the OPTION of being a Light Side-aligned Sith.

 

Redemption is a restoration of "goodness" or honor, so I don't think it's all that surprising that it's rare for someone exclusively trained as a Sith to rarely be "redeemed" since they were never "good" to begin with, vis-a-vis fallen Jedi.

 

Rafael Perez was an awful cop but he still was a member of the LAPD.

 

this thread is giving me a migraine

 

Welcome to the club!

 

* LONNNNNG speech ahead *

Anyway, to pull back a second. I'd like to see Lightsider Sith because the Star Wars conflict between good and evil is the most important part of the setting but it's gotten a little axiomatic. By which I mean, "Jedi are the protagonists because they're Jedi and Sith are the protagonists because they're Sith." George Lucas is partially responsible for this because he refused to allow a sequel to TIE FIGHTER to be made. Admittedly, for the somewhat understandable reason he didn't want to glorify Space Nazis.

That ship, however, has SAILED.

The Imperials are now protagonists and one of the reasons "Legacy" bugged me is you have huge numbers of Imperial Good Guys but the comic book acts like we're supposed to consider the Sith to be innately better than them. Yes, we're supposed to consider the Imperials (Space Nazis) better than the Sith (Sauron religious cult) better because the Sith are just innately BAD. I didn't buy it and it took until Darth Krayt destroyed Mon Calamari to actually establish the Sith as bad. Unfortunately, the comic treated them as one-dimensional evil the entire way through.

If Imperials can be good, why not Sith? If Jedi can fall and become evil, why can't Sith rise and become good?

Darth Malgus, Darth Bane, Darth Sidious, Exar Kun, Plagueis, and (of course) Lord Vader are the only real Sith we've gotten a good look into the heads of. I'm not counting Darth Caedus more or less because his characterization changed from book-to-book. They had very good reasons for being evil barves who were never ever going to be any good. In short, they were excellent villains and gave us a nice insight into why a person becomes a Sith Lord. Even Darth Malak, despite being designed as a Darth Vader clone had perfectly understandable reasons for his fall and corruption.

However, for a person to be an effective villain you need to be able to understand their perspective. Legacy as well as LOTF (until the Lost Tribe books) more or less treated the Sith as disposable lightsaber fodder. Darth Krayt was a well-developed bad guy, albeit purely so, even as the majority of his followers were puppy-kicking psychopaths....because. Yet, how does one make a effective villain you understand? Of course, the answer is you need to give them the capacity to do good. Otherwise, bluntly, you can't be evil. The rejection of good is the source of evil.

It's why we've seen corrupted Jedi so much more than Sith. People can understand how good goes wrong and it's weakened the Jedi significantly in fiction. Whereas once Yoda, Obi Wan, and Luke were bastions of goodness and wisdom--the Jedi Order as often as not means "anti-sex, anti-emotion stuffy bureaucrats who are as effective as the wizards at Unseen University for fighting evil." In short, evil has remained evil and pure while good has weakened.

The reason that Starkiller's story is so compelling and is the origins of "Bright Sith" or, at least, its template before TOR is because it's a rejection of that philosophy. Starkiller is raised to be a vicious, murderous, mindless obedient thug. He's raised to be Vader's version of Darth Maul, effectively. However, the nature of good in the context of love and compassion plus his friendship with his droid are as toxic to a "pure Sith worldview" as anger, rage, and hate are to a Jedi's view.

I unexpectedly quote a Koran quote I read when studying that religion. "Nor can goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better:"

Starkiller's story doesn't need Rahm Koto save as a contrast. Indeed, the traditional role of Jedi redeeming Sith DOESN'T HAPPEN. Rahm Koto doesn't contribute anything to Starkiller's return to the Light Side, quite the opposite as the renegade Sith Lord doesn't appeal to Rahm's status as a Jedi but his emotion to bring him back. In the end, it is PASSION that breaks Starkiller's chains and sets him free--passion for his one true love, Juno Eclipse and love for his long-dead father.

Stories of Sith who fight against the darkness inside them but reject the Jedi way may just be a cry for more nuance in the EU but I don't think it's a bad thing.

 

Really?

 

Kevin J. Anderson and Veitch deserve some credit for Kun, I think, because his corruption is straight-forward but understandable. Kun is offered immense wealth, power, knowledge, and gets to be a God-Emperor on a magical jungle planet versus....being the unwanted, unloved student of a Jedi Master on Dantooine. It's a naked appeal to fame, glory, and riches.

And you know what, that WORKS.

It's not sympathetic but like Raistlin Majere, I comprehended Exar Kun's choice. Got the temptation.To be more than a mediocre Jedi but a ruler of worlds.

Does that make sense?

 

It's problematic to view Star Wars dualistically as a battle of good and evil with one ultimately as the victor, as seen in Abrahamic religions as well as Zoroastrianism and Manicheanism. It's not that -- the light and dark sides are both necessary and equal components to the Force.

 

No, it does not make sense because Kun repeatedly rejects the Dark Side until he suddenly changes his mind.

 

I think the DESB was the only book I really got that reconciled Star Wars' melding of Western and Eastern religious thought.

Their text was something like, "The Dark Side is anger, entropy, destruction, and chaos. It is not evil, but evil people are drawn to it."

Which makes perfect sense.

 

Agreed. But neither is the light side good. I don't think there's a spiritual good/evil dichotomy at all.

 

He accepts the Dark Side every time his life is threatened. Which is like five or six times before he finally turns on Freedon Nadd.

 

"I see..mercy...and fairness and even compassion, you have walked the light path." "Sparing Master Yonlach and my parents are true reflections of you." "Your actions reflect only light."

She's sensing these things in a Sith, which is why she finds them surprising. You're missing a major point here: compassion and mercy in a Sith can be something as simple as not killing those who you do not need to. Fairness can be allowing your opponent to face you in combat. What Jaesa is shocked about is that she's detecting these things at all. That any Sith has managed to walk a path of relative "light". And that any Sith could act in such a way with honesty.

But regardless of this, the important distinction we are making is this: Sith, even PCs, in TOR, do not "use the light side". Having actions that "reflect light" does not suddenly mean that you've stopped using the dark side. It speaks only to your actions.

 

But it took his life being threatened five or six times for him to accept the Dark Side.

 

I think we're sort of talking at cross-purposes at this point. A Sith who does nothing but good and saves puppies being of the Dark Side is kind of weird and kind of undercuts what the DS is all about.

Then again, that too was a ship which sailed with Vergere.

I also tend to agree with Luke's definition of the Dark Side in TUF.

 

You said the magic word so I have to ask for clarification about what ship has sailed.

 

Darth Pigeon, as the voice of Matt Stover, opened the Pandora's Box of questioning whether the Light and the Dark Side were really good and evil respectively or it was our actions which defined them versus our connection to the Force's positive and negative energy.

TUF's answer from Luke being, "I'm comfortable saying whatever is good is Light and whatever is evil is Dark without sweating the details."

Sadly, this amazingly sensible answer was promptly ignored.

So arguing whether a Good-Aligned Sith Warrior is using the Dark Side or not is kind of a weird question and misses the point a bit. Even as, yes, I imagine Starkiller was using the Dark Side the entire time he was heroically fighting the Empire to save Juno.

 

Promptly ignored to facilitate Darth Pigeon.

Edit: Though I suppose I should point out that I find the paraphrasing of Luke troubling, to quote Palpatine, "Good is a point of view."

 

I'll never forgive Denning for making everybody who disagrees with the PT Jedi in any way a Sith.