That's hard to say canonically, as far as I can tell. But it can't be "Jedi" and "Sith", because we have a whole bunch of canon Light and Dark Siders (mostly Dark Siders) who are neither.ScreamingDoom wrote:Okay, so, what is synonymous with Light and Dark, then? If the Jedi and the Sith philosophies aren't exemplars of their prospective Force sides, then how can you define the Light and Dark sides?
Is Ashoka Dark Side because she's not a Jedi? Or Light Side because she's not a Sith?
Is Ventress Light Side following her departure from Dooku's side? She was never a Sith. What about the other Nightsisters?
Maybe look at the Mortis arc (despite my mixed feelings about it). Unless you dismiss it as deception or hallucination, it gives us physical personifications of the various aspects of the Force (although would also corroborate the existence of a grey or neutral side).
This is getting somewhat circular. You're arguing that Light Side=Jedi by using an Old Republic Jedi definition of Light Side.You can't use something like "pleasure" because Dark Side users are never satisfied nor hedonistic; they never get to be pleased since life is a constant struggle. The Light side can't, either, because they eschew all strong emotions, including pleasure.
I would (broadly, probably oversimplisticly) describe them as "the Selfish Side" and "the Selfless Side". Which isn't quite the same as pleasure/no pleasure. Or maybe "the impulsive side and the non-impulsive side".
You can be Light Side and feel emotions, as long as you don't let them drive you toward fundamentally selfish/impulsive actions. That would be my preferred take, anyway.
That's an interesting definition, but surely the nature of the goal would matter as well? Only it seems to you that it doesn't.Oh, that's pretty easy. It's someone who doesn't ascribe to any particular doctrine, but assigns concrete goals to be achieved. The "concrete" part is important; acquiring power for power's sake is not concrete -- you have to want to do something with that power. Peace and serenity is all good and nice, but it doesn't get things done. The goals themselves and the fundamental means by which those goals are achieved is what provides the shading to the grey.
Suppose your goal was to end suffering by exterminating or mind controlling every life form in the universe. Now, I'd call that Dark.
And peace and serenity could be a goal to achieve, if not necessarily the right method to achieve that goal.
I actually question weather the officer's argument logically follows from the Sith Code. The Sith Code praises unrestrained passion as the route to freedom and power- overly simplistic and self-indulgent, in my opinion, but not necessarily obligating one to destroy a defeated enemy.There's a point in the original KoTOR where a Sith student is giving a quiz to a bunch of hopefuls about what to do if a superior officer ordered them to spare a defeated enemy. He says that they must kill their superior officer, since letting an enemy live is weak and weakness must be purged. It's a knee-jerk reaction caused by the Sith philosophy; there's no thought or choice involved in the action. If the goal is really to make the superior stronger, then killing him isn't going to achieve that (dead people don't get the chance to get stronger). Likewise, murdering a defeated enemy is not necessarily a strong action, either (it might be, depending, but more context is needed to decide). Showing a bit of mercy might get the local population on your side (or, at least, not actively hindering you), reducing the need for personnel and material that could be better used elsewhere. None of this is a consideration in the Sith philosophy, however; it and the Jedi Code are hard doctrines with no flexibility.
I'd prefer to just say that the office was an idiot following a particularly rigid interpretation.
I'd also say that the Jedi Code is not all that inflexible. Particularly since there are two main versions IIRC (though I'm not sure that any of the codes are still canon).
And in any case, I would say that neither Order, in practice, really lived up to its ideals. And certainly neither is synonymous with Light Side and Dark Side. That is an oversimplification.
But the means matter, not just in and of themselves but because they effect your ability to actually achieve your goals. This is something that "ends justify the means" types always seem to miss- perhaps because "the ends justify the means" is, in my experience, usually an excuse to justify the means you want to use, regardless of weather they're necessary.Jolee wanted the hunters in the Shadowlands gone. He could've done it himself, but he decided to let the player do it for him as a test of character (two goals at once!). Fundamentally, Jolee didn't care over much how the hunters were removed (he did mention that he didn't want them killed, but beyond a bit of grump, he doesn't care much if you go in and just slaughter them), only that they were gone.
Having concrete goals and going through with the means to accomplish them, whatever those means are, is what makes a Force user grey.
Though I feel like maybe we're getting a little sidetracked/muddled, here.
You do realize that Kreia is an individual with individual biases, not the objective voice of truth on the nature of the Force or morality, right?That's kind of Kreia's point. The consequences matter, not the means. That's why she shows you that giving that guy five credits makes his life actively worse; the player's charity (normally considered a Light side action) had a result that would normally be considered Dark. If your goal was really to make this guy's life better (as opposed to just feeling good about yourself), then you failed spectacularly.
