Sith = Evil; Jedi = Good?

[Quasqueton]

Maybe its because I've only put maybe half an hour into thinking on it, but I can't remember a Jedi (in the 5 films so far) ever doing anything distinctly Good.

The Sith are definitely Evil (killing underlings, conspiring to break up a peaceful Republic in order to seize power for themselves), even though some of them never really did anything Evil on screen (Darth Maul did what?).

But are the Jedi actually Good, or just Neutral?

Quasqueton

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Actually, neither are definitely Lawful.

Depending on the place you look, you can find LE, NE, AND CE Sith wandering around. At the same time, there are LG, NG, and CG Jedi. I wouldn't expect either of them to be just Neutral or LN at all though, because that just doesn't fit the whole Star Wars idea of Jedi are GOOD and Sith are EVIL.

But then again, I think this is part of the reason SWd20 doesn't use alignment. Its tougher to judge it in the SW universe.

 

[Viking Bastard]

But would the LE and CE darksiders be considered Sith? I mean, there's
a difference between a straight Dark Force User and a Sith.

 

[Umbran]

Maybe its because I've only put maybe half an hour into thinking on it, but I can't remember a Jedi (in the 5 films so far) ever doing anything distinctly Good.

Right. And so Obi-Wan risking life and limb to release the tractor beam, and then sacrificing himself taking on Darth Vader so that the others could escape is a neutral sort of thing in your book?

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

Quasqueton, I think what you mean is: Is the Jedi organization lawful good or lawful neutral? Phrase it that way and I'd say they're lawful good. They stand for peace and justice. In the prequels they are made out to be almost like the travelling marshalls of countless westerns - lone agents who can investigate, broker peace, and defend the helpless in situations that may be too sticky for the Republic. But at the same time they are bound to the laws of the system they are in; regardless of his feelings about slavery, Qui-Gon couldn't just take Anakin from Watto. That seems as LG as you get, and I'd imagine this is the sort of predicament paladins get in all the time.

 

[Alzrius]

I would have said Jedi were obviously Good...but their taboo on falling in love seems to put a damper on that.

 

[EricNoah]

Wasn't there also a technological reason they couldn't just take Anakin (some kind of exploding implant or something that all of the slaves wear)?

I peg your run of the mill jedi as neutral good, while jedi council leadership leans lawful good.

What I never fully heard explained is why the jedi have to sever their "love" ties -- is it to protect those they care about? Is it to keep others from using it against them?

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Wasn't there also a technological reason they couldn't just take Anakin (some kind of exploding implant or something that all of the slaves wear)?

Yep, they had some kind of explosive in all of them that had to be removed from Anakin.

What I never fully heard explained is why the jedi have to sever their "love" ties -- is it to protect those they care about? Is it to keep others from using it against them?

Easy one. If you can love, you can hate. Hate equals the Dark Side. So you have to forbid both.

 

[EricNoah]

Oh I can come up with reasons; I just never heard them "on the screen" so-to-speak. (and of course I would argue that if you have no love, then all you can have is hate; or maybe that love is a better buffer against hate than "nothing". Yadda yadda yoda...)

 

[Taelorn76]

I think it has something to do with love being an emotion that can easily lead to anger. Like when Anakin killed the Sand people for what they did to his mother.