Discussion Let's talk about the Dark Side

[Shade of Decay]

An effective depiction would be to show a character exhibiting more traits associated with the Dark Side when they start to act from "Dark Side place", i.e. one that is self-serving/will imposing, imo (through physical degradation, heightened emotionality, callousness, self-interest, and/or addiction to power/the Dark Side/themselves over anything else.)

you called?

 

[Arlo Renard]

It's less Order vs Chaos and more personal Order vs universal Order, if that makes sense. There's a concept in greek philosophy called the "logos," it's a sort of divine order according to which all things are supposed to act, Dharma and Kharma are related to this as well, as they're conceptually similar. The Force in the way it's represented in the OT, as a thing that guides everything and as something to which Jedi are supposed to "bend," appears to be pretty similar to this sort of divine "logos."

The Sith, who seek to bend the Force to their will are depicted as acting against this order, by placing themselves above the "logos" of the Force and trying to control destiny/fate that way. A lot of my understanding of the Dark vs Light conflict comes from that, and in turn, the way I look at the Dark Side is as a counterpart to this self-sacrificial alignment with the Force/"logos". Any action that goes against a greater universal order and is purely self-serving or seeks to impose your own will on the galaxy somehow thereby becomes an action motivated from the Dark Side.

An effective depiction would be to show a character exhibiting more traits of the Dark Side then, imo (through physical degradation, heightened emotionality, callousness, self-interest, and/or addiction to power/the Dark Side/themselves over anything else.)

EDIT: I initially interpreted it as Jedi = Chaos, Sith = Order, which I think might have been the inverse of what you meant. Either way, the Sith also seek Order, IMO, not Chaos, just an Order that aligns with their personal beliefs rather than some higher ideal, as they themselves see themselves as the "perfect ideal" to strive towards. At least if you interpret the Sith Code in a way where its ultimate purpose is to achieve perfection, to become the perfect being and the "Sith'ari", the ideal everyone should strive to be.

So kind of more Individual vs Collective than Chaos vs Order.

Zark San Tekka was wrong then about not being able to ascribe western concepts to one's understanding of the Force, lol.

And yeah, I always saw the Jedi as repping Order and the Sith repping Chaos. Sometimes to the point of extremity, with someone like Atris being so obsessed with Order and denying her humanity that she fell to the Dark Side, or Sith Lords who just went rabid/insane.

We do see Sith who manifest as agents of chaos, like Nihilus, and falling to the Dark Side is usually depicted as foregoing all restraint in favor of power.

One thing I think you are making a mistake by doing is equating the Imperials with the Sith. There's some interplay, yes, but they are not the same thing nor do they represent the same things. If anything, you can make the argument that all these dictator Sith are tempered by the empires they build around them, as a way of keeping their own chaos at bay, and because some form of order is necessary to be able to get anything done. It's still chaotic in that the empire, by its nature, can do whatever it wants. The laws they claim to uphold are meaningless, because they don't truly enforce them unless it benefits those in power. Nobody has any rights under Palpatine and Vader.

 

[Iris Arani]

I've always dug the Dark Side is a drug sort of thing. Whatever the belief, it gives you power, makes you feel good for the moment, but rots ya away and slowly consumes your mind. The slow devolving of "I need the dark to do x for y reason" to "I need the dark to do x who cares about the reason" and eventually just "I need the dark" can be pretty compelling. If I could write a darksider for longer than a month, that'd be the story I'd do.

 

[Zark San Tekka]

Arlo Renard

I know you jest, but that's a fair point. The duality of Dionysian/Apollonian aesthetics in ancient Greek culture is another solid way of 'interpreting' the Force in my opinion and I would recommend Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy for further reading there. There are also probably some applicable tenants of Jungian psychology. We could go deep on Hindu guṇa and kalpas but at that point we're just geeking out on theology.

So fair enough, the Force can be viewed through a wider lens than eastern tradition. The Chosen One being a good example, while there are similar concepts in the east (the Dalai Llama) most people think of JC. I suppose the point I was trying to make is those brought up surrounded by western iconography ascribe motivation or intention to the corrupting influence of the darkside that borders on some kind of cosmic entity. Demons and devils. Personally I've always found that a little reductive.

I mentioned Allston specifically because of Darth Vectivus, a good guy Sith Vergers tells Jacen about who seemingly suffers none of the lust for power or social darwinism that other Sith display. He's often cited as an example when discussing the Force as a true neutral power source, but it always seemed to me like it was a character invented specifically to advance that interpretation and also people forget that Vergere is a LIAR (sometimes). At any rate, Jacen proved himself a poor successor to the Vectivus legacy.

Addendum: Sith and Imperial ideology is different, but while the Sith bend the Force to their will so too do Empires attempt to bend the galaxy by 'enforcing order.' I don't think that's a coincidence, but equating them might be reading too much into clever literary parallels.

 

[Arlo Renard]

I mentioned Allston specifically because of Darth Vectivus, a good guy Sith Vergere tells Jacen about who seemingly suffers none of the lust for power or social darwinism that other Sith display. He's often cited as an example when discussing the Force as a true neutral power source, but it always seemed to me like it was a character invented specifically to advance that interpretation and also people forget that Vergere is a LIAR (sometimes). At any rate, Jacen proved himself a poor successor to the Vectivus legacy.

That was actually Lumiya, but yes. Lumiya and by extension Vergere, who was dead at that point but had always been presented as an ambiguous, mysterious character, were used by the trio of writers responsible for the Legacy of the Force series to get the wheels of the plot going. (Mainly Troy Denning, who apparently created a "Vergere Compendium" in which he outlined evidence from previous books that "proved" Vergere had been a Sith all along.)

Anyway, fuck Vectivus, lmao. Far as I'm concerned, the dude probably wasn't anywhere near as nice as Lumiya made him sound. The "Dark Lady of the Sith" clearly had an agenda and used a ghost to further it. Pretty typical self-centered Sith behavior if you ask me. What's dumb is that Jacen actually fell for it.

Addendum: Sith and Imperial ideology is different, but while the Sith bend the Force to their will so too do Empires attempt to bend the galaxy by 'enforcing order.' I don't think that's a coincidence, but equating them might be reading too much into clever literary parallels.

Or preconceived notions about "evil imperials" reinforced by the Empire's use of fascist iconography? Much like preconceived notions about the Dark Side being like "demonic possession" reinforced by the Sith's corrupted appearance resembling that of the possessed?

Also, as a Religious Studies minor about to take a course on Hinduism this spring, I demand that you geek out on theology.

 

[Arlo Renard]

I've always dug the Dark Side is a drug sort of thing. Whatever the belief, it gives you power, makes you feel good for the moment, but rots ya away and slowly consumes your mind. The slow devolving of "I need the dark to do x for y reason" to "I need the dark to do x who cares about the reason" and eventually just "I need the dark" can be pretty compelling. If I could write a darksider for longer than a month, that'd be the story I'd do.

As someone who is currently doing that with one of my characters, there is certainly some merit to using addiction tropes. It's part of the reason why I find vampires fascinating, since having someone do evil to satisfy an addiction (or something they must do to survive, depending on the depiction) walks that fine line between sympathy and villainy that I so crave.

 

[Zark San Tekka]

Arlo Renard

I'm not sure I would go that far. The canon Empire is a fascist government and thus at least by my own estimation pretty evil. This is another qualm I have with Legends, in their efforts to render characters like Pellaeon and Jagged Fel as more sympathetic the novels gloss over how messed up their core principles are. Something something reforms something Moff Council.

Granted, things get a little murky when you consider monarchies like Alderaan. Constitutional or not, the Organas wield an uncomfortable amount of political influence.

I'm not like a religious scholar so I feel like I'm going to butcher any on point explanation of Hindu/Buddhist metaphysics, but in a very reductive sense guṇa are qualities/matter sort of but not really similar to Platonic ideals. The major three are sattva (goodness/calmness/ harmoniousness) rajas (passion/activity/movement) and tamas (ignorance/inertia/laziness). Everyone is made up of these qualities in different proportions and they aren't like purely positive or negative. Their relationship to Star Wars is beyond tangential, but you can see how such a philosophy could influence the Force as opposed to western metaphysics.

Kalpas are cycles of time between the creation and destruction of universes, and relate to how Buddhism and to an extent Hinduism see people as collective spirit/consciousness dreaming of the natural world and sustaining it with their karma. It's all very Matrix and I think it helps conceive of the Force as something beyond a god or a battery.

 

[Kal]

Anyway, fuck Vectivus, lmao. Far as I'm concerned, the dude probably wasn't anywhere near as nice as Lumiya made him sound.

I'm actually going to argue that a select few Sith who just don't do anything bad fits in perfectly.

If the Dark Side exaggerates instead of controls, there is a very real chance that he simply did not desire anything more than a safe and comfortable life for his family - no immortality needed, no great external threat present to force desperate measures.

If we consider his example in that light, the story may well be truthful but its representation less so - Lumiya (or whoever) almost certainly knew that Jacen would never be content with something so simple if he had the power of change at his fingertips.

Most aren't, I imagine.​

 

[Arlo Renard]

I'm actually going to argue that a select few Sith who just don't do anything bad fits in perfectly.

If the Dark Side exaggerates instead of controls, there is a very real chance that he simply did not desire anything more than a safe and comfortable life for his family - no immortality needed, no great external threat present to force desperate measures.

If we consider his example in that light, the story may well be truthful but its representation less so - Lumiya (or whoever) almost certainly knew that Jacen would never be content with something so simple if he had the power of change at his fingertips.

Most aren't, I imagine.​

Vectivus “perfected” the art of making phantoms. Apart from that, we don’t know much about the guy, and he was basically just a plot device.

Anyway, let me ask you this: at what point can an individual still be considered a Dark Sider if practicing the Dark Side has little to no impact on their life, morals/ethics, relationships, etc? Did he just have to claim he was a Sith, and voila, he’s a Sith? Much like how Lumiya claimed he was a “good” Sith and held him up as a shining example of what Jacen could be, if he would just become her student?

If you’re arguing that the scale of Vectivus’ evil is significant in that he was obscure compared to, idk, a Palpatine or a Malak or a Nihilus, ok. But I question the point of that, and if anything, it calls into question whether Vectivus was even a true Sith. After all, Sith are all about power. So what power did Vectivus wield? We are told he only cared about his family, so was he like a mafia boss?

 

[Kal]

Anyway, let me ask you this: at what point can an individual still be considered a Dark Sider if practicing the Dark Side has little to no impact on their life, morals/ethics, relationships, etc? Did he just have to claim he was a Sith, and voila, he’s a Sith?

Sure, why not. We don't have the details here, but I'm not buying that the Dark Side always turns everyone into homicidal maniacs. Doesn't mean there aren't side effects involved.

As for the Sith part - yeah, basically. Trained as a Sith? No one murders you for claiming you're a Sith? You're a Sith. Also how Darth titles work in some systems.​

But I question the point of that, and if anything, it calls into question whether Vectivus was even a true Sith. After all, Sith are all about power. So what power did Vectivus wield?

Irrelevant, IMO. The Dark Side is more than just Sith, so 'No True Scotsman's don't really affect anything. I'm sure Sith could have differing views on this.

I'd argue that the power to secure the life you want - and create some ghosts along the way - is more or less what a lot of Sith want, however.

It just usually involves a bit more infighting, backstabbing, and failure.

Now to go a bit further.

I prefer the Dark Side as unrestrained power. The kind that can be used to twist your surroundings to fit your ideals, ideally, bur also the kind that often goes a bit wrong.

My now-dead character Adrian thought he was fully in control, but the truth's a bit more complicated. Physical degradation? Nah. He did start caring less and less about everyone but a select group of people, however - near the end empathy had become an intellectual exercise more than an emotional one.

I like to think of the Dark Side as power in its most addictive form. The more you use it the more you want it - and if your ambition grows, as it often does, you tend to need to pull on it more and more.​

 

[Enyo Typhos]

I prefer the Dark Side as unrestrained power. The kind that can be used to twist your surroundings to fit your ideals, ideally, bur also the kind that often goes a bit wrong.

My now-dead character Adrian thought he was fully in control, but the truth's a bit more complicated. Physical degradation? Nah. He did start caring less and less about everyone but a select group of people, however - near the end empathy had become an intellectual exercise more than an emotional one.

They're very far apart in personality and demeanour, but I write Enyo similarly in that regard. She's ended up barely feeling any empathy for people outside of her familial circle (and while she genuinely cares about her siblings, she's also a control freak in regards to them. She literally spies on them all the time).

Her view of other people is very abstract. They're threats, assets, or just not relevant. A good part of her business model essentially turns people into a production ingedrient in a clinical, but no less cruel process. No physical degradation because her body's an HRD anyway, and I've never been fond of the 'evil is ugly' trope. Not because I need my chars to be supermodels - Elpsis definitely isn't, I'm happy I got an avi and a sig that shows war's messed her body up a lot and went through the trouble of making a list of scars and gave her visible magitech limbs. And Darth Libertas is an asexual Twi'lek cyborg.

Evil in the real world unfortunately seldom does us the favour of being all pasty and veiny and obviously physically degraded. Or being obviously psychotic. The way I write evil (and even goodish) chars has probably a lot more to do with my reading of history (I work in Holocaust studies) than classical fantasy tropes.

'I like to think of the Dark Side as power in its most addictive form. The more you use it the more you want it - and if your ambition grows, as it often does, you tend to need to pull on it more and more.'

I like this. Power unrestrained is always a bad thing. And it leaves you hungering for more.

 

[Ladybug]

This is my two cents, my opinion.

The dark side of the Force is there for anyone to reach out and embrace it. The Sith are well known in their philosophies on this subject, preaching power and strength and conquest. 'Tis their right and those that write such characters to believe so, I'm not here to discourage anyone writing a Sith. However, there are many powerful Force users, and I hate the term Dark Jedi spite I write one on different account, that have embraced the Dark Side and have become influential in the SW galaxies; Asajj Ventress always comes to the forefront.

The first time I created a Dark Jedi, I hated him and scrapped him cause of the word Jedi. Before I was educated, I always assumed a Dark Jedi was just a Jedi who fell from the Jedi teachings into the net of the dark side. Then, I realized through a friend (RIP mate), that was not the case. Per my fallen mate and of course wookiepedia, the term Dark Jedi was a poor description of anyone that wrote a character that followed the Dark Side, and wasn't Sith. Inquisitors, assassins, and Savage Opress embraced the DS, but where not Sith; and yet, they hunted the Jedi with prejudice.

Then I dug deeper, trying to think Disney did their best to create the perfect "Dark Jedi" in Kylo Ren. My views of on that trilogy is moot, but it got me thinking further. What is the difference between a Sith and a DJ? Nothing except dedication. The Dark Side is founded on the belief of self, so a DJ can and will always be on path to be as strong as a Sith; if they dedicate themselves to the dark side seduction.

I love the Sith, they are main sponsor in SW, but I will always treat the DJ on the equality that.....a darksider is a darksider.

 

[Arlo Renard]

Irrelevant, IMO. The Dark Side is more than just Sith, so 'No True Scotsman's don't really affect anything. I'm sure Sith could have differing views on this.

3 AM reply was unclear, what a surprise. Anyway, I am arguing three things here:

1) Putting aside the fact that he was created to serve a contrived plot, we don't know enough about Vectivus to make any true judgements about his character, and even what we do know about him comes from unreliable sources, making any legitimate discussion of his life pretty impossible.

2) Regardless of Scotsmen, I view the Dark Side through that psychological lens that Zark doesn't like. It's not some exterior thing you must draw upon, it comes from within you. It is your Dark Side. You called it an amplifier, I might compare it to original sin. Regardless, it is the amplification of an individual's worst traits. Because the entire concept of Force sensitivity is power, it usually manifests as a will to power that is unhealthy and excessive, but that isn't its limit. It is, at its core, just another word for the evil/potential for evil we all carry within us, no matter how banal.

3) Now that Ladybug has put us on the subject, let me ask this just for the sake of argument: Vectivus trained as a Sith and called himself a Sith. But does being a Sith make him a Dark Sider?

My now-dead character Adrian thought he was fully in control, but the truth's a bit more complicated. Physical degradation? Nah. He did start caring less and less about everyone but a select group of people, however - near the end empathy had become an intellectual exercise more than an emotional one.

I knew you were gonna bring up Adrian. I don't really consider him relevant to this though. Adrian was an interesting character, but he was also a huge jerk. He died because he was such a jerk, in fact. We know that he experimented on people, sometimes against their will, sometimes involving straight-up torture, and as you said, he didn't care about other people. No one who knew him would dispute the fact that he was a Dark Sider and a Sith.

 

[Jsc]

My Darkside interpretation was definitely a jumbled mess of all the of 'evil' tropes I'd ever read about in fiction and modern religion as a young adult before. It was terrible mess honestly. Bleh. A wet hot stew of every 'evil' idea and popular trope I'd encountered along my weird, weaving, wandering way through life. Lol. But... Honestly. It worked most of the time (because StarWars is silly most of the time) and most people forgave me for it anyway. Probably because youth and learning.

Anyway. I'll agree though. The more you personify evil, the more comedic it can possibly get. Which... Depending on your target audience??? Could actually be a good thing. Lol. Nice!

As a writer I'll say that it's probably just as good an idea not to be too 'black-n-white' about your own Darkside writing philosophies as it is to be childish in your own stories and world building. Try not to think of StarWars fan writing as either just being 'good' or 'bad' in and of itself. I try to put 'good' writing on a much more rounded 'cultural' wheel, instead. Read more, do more, experience more. Then add it all to your 'writing toolbelt' and pick and choose what works best for your story, your audience, and your modern peer group. Don't just write for yourself anymore. Write for the very modern people around you. It helps. Really. It does.

I'm not saying be 'woke' or whatever. After all. It time has taught us anything it's that slapping a label on anything and calling it 'perfectly perfect' is just immature. Or worse, unfashionable. Eww. Lol.

No. In fact. My quote-unquote, "best" Darkside writing, came when it did just three things. One, it elevated the story I was trying to tell. Two, it fascinated my audience on a compelling level. And three, it appealed to the people around me as 'new' and 'fashionable'. Lol. Not whether it was particularly educated, philosophical, morally sound, or even good. Nah. They just had to like the way it tastes. Like sugar. But naughty. Lol.

Anyway. Long story short. These days I aim to make my Darkside writing fantastical, variable, insightful maybe, edgy briefly, but always, always, popular. Hehe. Always, always, popular.

Well. I guess..? Until it's not anymore?

Then we'll all talk about it a little bit and go do something 'better' instead.

 

[Tiland Kortun]

The Dark Side is whatever a given storyteller needs for thematic and narrative purposes

 

[Arlo Renard]

The Dark Side is whatever a given storyteller needs for thematic and narrative purposes.

 

[Tiland Kortun]

It’s just like the Force and the Light Side, and what makes these discussions so complex. There’s only abstract consistency, and no real agreement about what they actually are in execution or explanation.

To be even more abstract.

The Dark Side is the cultural malaise that haunts society for each generation of storytellers. Nazi fascism and the cultural hegemony of the 50s in the 70s, unbridled capitalist greed and political cunning leading to the erosion of democracy in the 90s/00s, and the specters of past heroic legacies mixed with the unsettling truth that the world is never really saved in the 2010s. (Very simplified, of course)

 

[Gren Blidh]

Darth Empyrean is completely correct in his assessment. Things like "The Dark Side" or "The Light Side" don't actually exist. There is only The Force. The Force doesn't have sides, people do. And people bring these sides onto the Force when they use it.

The Force is also sentient. Fans don't like this because it essentially removes all free will and agency from the galaxy's sentient life and makes the Force seem like a tyrannical entity. But it is true.

Unfortunately Arlo Renard , your Jungian interpretation of finding Balance between the Dark and the Light in your initial post, while cool, is not supported by canon. Much as we wish it to be the case otherwise, Star Wars is very clear that there can be no "balance" between the Dark and the Light.

"Balance" (=natural order, stasis) means the complete eradication of "the Dark Side" (=beings who seek to exert an individual, rather than collective, will).

 

[Arlo Renard]

Darth Empyrean is completely correct in his assessment. Things like "The Dark Side" or "The Light Side" don't actually exist. There is only The Force. The Force doesn't have sides, people do. And people bring these sides onto the Force when they use it.

The Force is also sentient. Fans don't like this because it essentially removes all free will and agency from the galaxy's sentient life and makes the Force seem like a tyrannical entity. But it is true.

Unfortunately Arlo Renard , your Jungian interpretation of finding Balance between the Dark and the Light in your initial post, while cool, is not supported by canon. Much as we wish it to be the case otherwise, Star Wars is very clear that there can be no "balance" between the Dark and the Light.

"Balance" (=natural order, stasis) means the complete eradication of "the Dark Side" (=beings who seek to exert an individual, rather than collective, will).

But where is the evidence in canon that this is definitively the case? All that we have are characters claiming that the Force is sentient, or that it has a will. Jedi and Sith talk about prophecies, but we don't ever see the prophecies for ourselves except in the form of vague visions, which could just as easily be dreams or nightmares arising from the dreamer's subconscious. Characters talk about how balance must be brought to the Force, which you identify as the eradication of the "Dark Side", yet the galaxy remains in a constant state of flux and evil is never completely eradicated, even if all the current Sith in a generation are killed off.

Are you strictly identifying the "Dark Side" as something that can only manifest in Force Sensitives, rather than a superpowered form of the evil that people do? Because in that case we're heading in a whole new direction with this discussion, lol.

Likewise, the Force itself is never given a "voice" to speak with, nor does it directly tell characters anything about itself. So how do we know, definitively, absolutely, that it is sentient? Or that it has a will?

 

[Gren Blidh]

Arlo Renard It's important to remember a few things.

We throw around terms such as "Balance", "Will of the Force", "Light Side", "Dark Side", etc., which don't actually exist. They are man-made ideas by characters inside the Star Wars universe, to contextualize their experiences with the Force. In much the same way that time is a man-made concept and doesn't exist within our own universe. It's merely how we contextualize our experiences and events here on Earth.

All this to say, characters may say and do things with some measure of authority within Star Wars, but they are all smaller parts of a larger whole, with their own incomplete, and oftentimes imperfect, perspectives. No one character's words or actions can be taken as definitive truth, though some may be more true than others.

What we do have, however, are the words of the creator, George Lucas. The definitive source of canon in Star Wars. And his words on this subject cannot be interpreted any other way. The Dark and the Light cannot coexist, and the prophecy of the Chosen One was fulfilled by Anakin Skywalker.

Simply put, what fans and characters call the Dark Side is the inclination to exert one's individual will upon oneself and the galaxy, free from collective restraint. Conversely, the Light Side can be said to be the collective will of life itself, in perfect equilibrium. The Force is a powerful tool; in the hands of the wrong (Force-sensitive) individual seeking power it is capable of devastating destruction and risks becoming a threat to all life. Therefore the Force, as an avatar of life itself, cannot allow itself to be corrupted like that, and will work to destroy this inclination wherever it manifests, whether around an individual or a group.

The Force is a pathway to many amazing abilities, but power always comes at a cost. No matter which "side" of the Force you are on. You must sacrifice something.

Because you are ultimately not the one in control.

Characters talk about how balance must be brought to the Force, which you identify as the eradication of the "Dark Side", yet the galaxy remains in a constant state of flux and evil is never completely eradicated, even if all the current Sith in a generation are killed off.

Yes.

No one said the so-called "Will of the Force" was fair, or just, or morally "good"... except Jedi. This is why writers are so in denial and try so desperately to rework the true nature of Star Wars into a philosophy more acceptable and pleasant to our own human conditions here, in real life, rather than the horror setting Star Wars really is. But in the end, these efforts amount to nothing more than wish fulfillment. There is no end, there is no escape. The wars will continue indefinitely, from this age to the next, and untold billions will die, as the Force continually rebalances itself.

Once you've realized that the Force is a demiurgic entity, and that neither the Jedi nor the Sith offer an adequate answer to this problem, you've begun to take the Kreia pill.