Talk:Dark side of the Force/Legends

Shouldn't all the Star Wars Episodes be added to appearances since it is talked about and shown in them?!
 * Splendid idea, chap. 68.225.242.19 14:34, 7 April 2006 (PDT)

Jensaarai
Do you think we should add them to the practitioners list? JethLordMaster
 * I don't think the organisation as a whole was Dark Side, at least not during I, Jedi. They were more like grey. Evir Daal 09:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't even think they were really grey; they were pretty much just lightsiders with a poor grasp of history. It'd be like a bunch of isolated people showing up in society wearing Klan robes because they were taught that the KKK was a force for freedom and equality.  They wouldn't be evil, they'd just be *seen* in a very bad light until someone showed them the error of their ways. jSarek 10:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, they were grey, beacuse they didn't fight for the good of all, but only for their own kin, I think Luke Skywalker said as much in the book. But anyway, they clearly weren't Darksiders, and you illustrated the point very well. Evir Daal 10:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Corruption of the Dark Side
I was thinking that the corruption fo the Dark Side Section should be moved above the list of Dark Side Practitioners. To me it seems like a more logical flow and other pages have all the talk at the begining with lists at the bottom. Let me know. If I don't here from anyone I'll go ahead and change it in a week or so. Redjetta 19:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Practitioners
I've been doing a lot of editing and I was putting in all the dark side practitioners as I thought of them. I was thinking that that could become a very long list so I'm trying to keep it to notable members of established organizations. Let me know your thoughts. Also, if anyone knows the name of the Sith Sect that recreated Darth Maul to fight Darth Vader let me know or put it in. Thanks. Josh

Its Josh again. and I'm wondering why a lot has been added to the pracitioners section? Do we really need to know that there was a red-armored sith lord. If he had a name and he was important I think so, but this isn't a list of all the Sith Lords. Redjetta 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Force cloak
Why is force cloak in the darkside powers list. As far as I know, its strictly neutral. After all, Jedi Watchmen use it the same as Sith Assassins. Varas Halcyon 15:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Deformity
Is there any high-canon proof that the dark side causes deformity? Anakins eyes on ep. 3 are undisputable, but Palps face is not. Are there any canon sources except KotOR that makes this statement? And even so, it does not seem to befall all dark side practitioners (Vader at the end of ep. 6, or Darth Maul). I think that you're right and it does just depend on the individual. Mandalore07 16:44,7 July 2007
 * Normally it seems to be on a small scale (teeth, eyes, skin), but when it is used too much in too little time it causes the user to age extremely quickly or become deformed (or both), though not always permanently (Luke, Jacen, Sidious). --Sauron18 07:45 27 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Vader looked kind of deformed in the end of RotJ to me. Anyway, as for deformity, it typically comes slowly and only after prolonged exposure to the dark side, though extreme doses accelerate the process. And there is a fair lot of canon evidence, the Nightsisters and King Ommin of Onderon to name two cases. Another would be Palpatine, whose body decayed at such a rate that he was forced to transfer his consciousness to clones. Evir Daal 07:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just with certain practitioners, who use it in different ways. Nihilus, for instance, consumed things...kinda, with the Force, and everyone around him, bar Visas, were deformed. .  .  .  .  08:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Had that anything to do with the dark side? I thought he simply stole their life energy, and that was why they looked sick. Evir Daal 09:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It probably needs a fix - they look that way to be scary. Palpatine got his force lightning reflected onto himself and Vader was burned to crisp remember? There's no evidence that the force did it to them. Gustafar 20:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's some debate on whether Palpatine was burned or deformed by the Dark Side, in which case the lightning only removed his disguise. But anyways, there are plenty of others who were deformed - think of Revan, King Ommin of Onderon, and the Nightsisters, for example.  Commander Daal  [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 08:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You obviously have a point there - but is there any canon source that actually says it's that it's the force itself? Gustafar 08:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Two I can think of right now. It's given in The Courtship of Princess Leia, and I think Palpatine says something to the same effect in Dark Empire.  Commander Daal  [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 09:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Got it. Gustafar 12:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One canon source i can think of that mentions dark side physical corruption is the WOTC star wars rpg revised core rulebook. I know it has game mechanics and everything, and I'm pretty sure that rulebooks are considered canon. Piequals3 04:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What about Count Dooku? He didn't have any deformities.

If we use the game mechanics for KotOR and the RPG as a starting point (always a risky proposition, but sometimes there's something to them), the decay/deformity depends on the degree of "Evil" of the Dark Side power/s used and/or the amount of Dark power used. This is implied in The Courtship of Princess Leia as well, and possibly other places (though I can't remember anything well enough to cite right now. Anyway, using this reasoning, the clearly deformed Sith/Dark Jedi are often either the most experienced in the Dark ways or the most powerful. Now if we cross-check this with the SW universe, is this true?

In many cases it is. If we look at Tales of the Jedi, for example, Ommin of Onderon and his queen, both Dark side practitioners since many decades, are both the victims of substantial Dark Side decay, whereas the villains in the later series Dark lords of the Sith/The Sith War (Aleema Keto, Satal Keto, Exar Kun et al) are not. All of these later cases are by comparison very junior Darksiders with limited experience and often inferior Force/Sith magic potential (in many cases, most of their power stems from external factors such as Sith Amulets). Or if we return to the Witches of Dathomir, Gethzerion is positively rotting away, Palpatine-style, while Teneniel Djo, upon performing her first real Dark side action, receives a minor facial deformity (in this case, a burst blood vessel). And in a Young Jedi Knights book (I think it was Shadow Academy, but I won't swear on it), Brakiss muses that he "does not yet look grotesque like the old Galactic Emperor (Palpatine) had in his later years" [emphasis mine] (or something akin to that; my version of the book is a foreign translation, so I can't give an exact quote). There are more of these concurrences...

All in all, it seems like this would be a reasonable interpretation (original research, I know, but at least it's conjecture). The one anomaly I can find right away is Joruus C'Baoth, but then continuity doesn't always work all that well with the Thrawn Trilogy.

And as for what all this had to do with Dooku, it's just that: he isn't a very senior Darksider yet when he dies, and he does not use the Dark Side all that much. Indeed, he does not even view himself as "Evil", in spite of being Sith, but rather as "Grey", combining the two dominant Force philosophies and ending the Sith/Jedi schism. If I remember it correctly, he thinks he, not Anakin, is the Chosen One.  Commander Daal  20:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In one of the swarm wars books Luke uses some force technique to free ,the ship carrying Mara and himself, from some peril and is weakened beyond simple exertion due to a "corruption" inherent in the ability and this event contributes in part to his abandoning of force reletivism.SargeLIVES 04:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is true that all these sources are canon, but they appear to conflict with "G-canon". The dark side causing deformity has zero evidence from the films, except of course as a result of a dark side attack (such as what happened to Palpatine at the hands of Mace Windu). The only thing we see is the sulfur colored eyes, which don't appear to be permanent. Furthermore, Darth Maul's unmatched agility and Dooku's incredible vitality as an octogenarian lend evidence against dark side corruption. Even WOTC has removed the idea from their source books in accordance with the evidence from the prequel trilogy.

I think it's safe to say that this concept is an antiquated relic from the days when EU writers relied on circumstantial evidence from the films to explain why the only dark side users shown, Vader and the Emperor, were cybernetic and deformed. I love the EU as much as any other fanboy, but when it conflicts with G-canon it's time to acknowledge that it is in conflict with the franchise creator's vision. I think this is one of those times.Mad Jax 02:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dark side powers
Shouldn't this list have certain caveats about where this information comes from...or even... "According to ..." etc? Some of these are on the outer fringes of canon.
 * All of the sources for these are canon, so no. If anyone wants to know where they're from, they can easily find out. -LtNOWIS 03:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Force Heal
Now i was wondering about force heal, I understand that its there because of the plaguis thing, but is that power ever actually called force heal? and even if it is we should probably mentinon something about plaguis around it so peole dont mix it up with the light side heal. --Darth Malice 17:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Vader could use the dark side to heal himself in Shadows of the Empire. Evir Daal 07:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Existence of the Dark Side
As I recall, this is a matter of G-Level canon, stated explicitly by George Lucas. How can there be any doubt whatsoever that it exists? Jachra 21:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It is speaking of those within the Star Wars universe who believe that there is no part of the Force that is inherently light or dark.
 * That works! Jachra 09:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture
The Jedi Exile page states that that image is non-canon. So, according to our contemporary rules about using only canon images, it should be replaced with something else. . - TopAce 15:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  - breathesgelatin Talk 21:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I propose we replace it with the picture of Sidious, Sadow, and Bane that's at the bottom of the page. JethLordMaster 18:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC-8)

Rewrite?
This page is in serious need of work. It is mostly just a pair of lists and some meandering paragraphs. I move that as a community we should try to make a new format for this page, and possibly completely rewrite it. Revan&#39;s Bane 19:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to consider nominating it for an improvement drive then. --  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 19:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Force Heal?
In Shadows of the Empire, Darth Vader used his anger and the Dark Side to temporarily heal himself from the horrible burns he had suffered. Can the Dark Side be used for healing, and if so, is it worth to mention here? Evir Daal 08:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Does my Sion thumbnail count? Revan&#39;s Bane 04:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Force Powers, aren't some of these like force wave neutral? That was usedd extensively by Jedi Revan&#39;s Bane 05:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Force heal is not neutral. But dark side users can use light side powers and vice versa. Gustafar 10:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad NPOV
A lot of this article sounds like it was written by lightside fanboys. And I'm not talking about the general article quality. I just read Wikipedias dark side philosophy article before going over this, and while they left out some important canon, and brought in a bit much OOU/IRL stuff, their page is at least very neutral, and the philosophy section is very broad and informative. Personally, I'm ashamed that this Wiki does not have a better page about something as essential as the dark side than wikipedia does. Though, I'll admit this might come from a general fear of touching this little piece of coal, what with all the controversy surrounding it, and all the interpretation we'll inevitably have to do on account of the elusive nature of this subject.

Heh. Even in real life, the dark side becomes a point of conflict and taboo.DarthMRN 01:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To get things rolling I will pull some theories out of my backside, if only to provoke editing.DarthMRN 22:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * wut? if anything it's pro-dark side... Gustafar 20:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The four tildes finally come in handy. I said that ages ago, before it got darkside-biased- DarthMRN 22:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just made some changes to the History section which I feel help make this article less biased in favour of the light side. -Kev-La Ttolya 11:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's "dark side", not "Dark Side"
Why is dark side capitalised so much, when every Star Wars product I have seen (barring comics, which has everything in upper case) has made a point of using the lower case? .(Ulicus 10:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC))
 * Fixed. --  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 13:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a huge debate on this like a year ago, but I can't find it. -LtNOWIS 00:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement
I thought that it would be a good idea to list some topics here that we could discuss to be possibly incorporated into this article. (Of course, other suggestions could be added!)
 * The Rakata
 * The Star Forge
 * The Force Wars
 * The Second Great Schism
 * Info from the Halbret article
 * Third Great Schism

---Jaywin


 * Maybe only notible things with huge impact for the dark side or the article will get too complicated. The Star Forge would be included with the Rakata though... China 02:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes
Oi, I've made some changes...I can tell the author had good thoughts, but it still seemed biast in certin parts (I tried to fix that) and had some weird sentences that I had to completely rewrite to make them flow better. There is a lot of compaire and contrast which should be taken down to a minimum. I understand the dark side is different from the light side, but one sentence says that better than a full paragraph with sentences restating what was already said. I'll try to fix this, but it might make some places shorter. Okay? China 00:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Me again, okay so I did some major changes, including taking out a lot of the names and factions listed in the end of the article since they were not mentioned in the main body of the article. I only left the names that were named in the article to make it flow better. We did not need a complete list, I referred the readers to another article to get that. This article is merely about the dark side NOT every little detail that's spun from it. That'd be way too long and very messy. I also replaced the picture at the top, as it was not canon (per the earlier discussion above...) Ciao. China 02:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Force Powers
Ok I noticed Quy-Tek(Force Concealmeant) and Force wave are in the article for Dark Side Powers. IMHO(In My Humble Opinion) they should be neutral or universal because your not drawing the Dark Side of the Force for those powers. You draw from the Force itself.

For example Force push is the weakeast version of Force Wave so it should be core or universal. Force Concealment should be neutral too because it doesn't draw from the Dark Side. Unless I Missed something this should be changed. Forgive me if this was already brought up.

Kuradedo 02:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea, when I edited the article I kept the force powers but added that these are commonly considered dark side powers...there should be a clear defination on what is or isn't a certin side power. &lt;3 China! 04:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sith taken out of dark side?
I was just wondering if maybe the Sith should be toned down in the dark side article? The Sith have their own article and, really, only need to be mentioned as they are only one aspect of the dark side of the force. It seems the article is too heavily dependant on the Sith order, while there are many other orders who were considered part of the dark side too. The original article had names of members, but nothing on the actual factions, so I took the names out. Any ideas? &lt;3 China! 18:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless things have changed since last I checked, we don't have an article about the Sith Philosophy. This article covers some essentials. So unless we make a philosophy article about the Sith and darksiders in general, it should stay.DarthMRN 03:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought it would of been in the Sith section, but I guess I was wrong. &lt;3 China! 05:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a small brekadown of the Sith Phliosophy in the Force article, but it redirects here for a main article. Otherwise, I wouldn't be opposed to moving the Sith philosophy stuff to that article.DarthMRN 15:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jacen and NJO
We might want to add something about the NJO philosophy with the dark side. Also, some notes on Jacen becoming a Sith might be interesting. Geekboy42


 * Eh...maybe the NJO philosophy, but they can read about Jacen in his article. I'm wanting to take out a lot of the Sith references already because they already have their own article, and with the same information it's just redundant. Sorry to the author also, I don't want to redo his whole article, but it seems so dependant on one dark side organization...&lt;3 China! 17:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Existencialism
Can anyone explain, justify, or quote something relevant to the conection between the dark side philosophy and the real world existentialist philosophy? I don´t see such conection, specially taking into account the appeal to responsability on J.P. Sartre´s writings... I do see a conection to Nietzche, though, but in the wikipedia article quoted, Nietzche is being listed as an existentialist first but then considered an influence and not a part of the "movement"... And the differences between his thoughts and the Sartre-Camus-etc. line are big enough to make them distinct.

Connections to real philosophy are very much a matter to debate, so i´ll delete such phrase and wait to see if anyone brings it back with good arguments... (Signed: Gorsh )
 * That one was mine. Not because I know a whole lot of existensialism, but because Wikipedia's dark side article made this comparison, and upon checking it, I could only agree. From what I recall, it seemed very relevant. However, if you are more versed in this branch of philosophy, and feel that the similarities are too greatly outwheiged by the differences, then sure. Delete, delete.DarthMRN 02:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Copied from Wikipedias dark side article:

''One might compare the Sith code to Existentialism, as many aspects such as the quest for passion and freedom, and the concept of defining one's own destiny, are shared by the two. Other similarities between the two beliefs include awareness of death (the Jedi do not believe in death, they believe there is only the Force) and the absence of peace due to the role emotions play in life. Existentialists focus on anger and despair as major emotions, and these have been shown as aspects that help define Sith lords such as Anakin Skywalker.

''Another comparison may be Neitzsche's philosophy of embracing one's will to power. Neitzsche describes a will to power in which living things are not just driven by the mere need to stay alive, but in fact by a greater need to wield and use power, to grow, to expend their strength, and, possibly, to subsume other "wills" in the process, even at the expense of harming others.''

Make what you will of that, but if the above is true, then I can see no philosophical branch that comes closer to the Sith view.DarthMRN 02:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I see many similarities now, and after a few days of thought, but i think that the "full" resemblance is only possible if you consider Nietzche an existentialist, wich i would not. ( I edited the force page on wikipedia to reflect this too ) I mean: existentialism, as explained in Sartre´s little pamphlet "existentialism is a humanism" ( don´t know exact translation, i have it in spanish ), is about yes, the need and obligation to make ones own rules, as there is no prior source of them or of any essence; but also about responsability when making those rules, the phrase was, paraphrasing "when i choose, i choose for the entire mankind" ( may not be literal, but that was the idea ). I see that quite opposed to Nietzche´s quest for power, übermensch and all - altough i confess not being versed in nietzche enough to be really trustable on this matter. But if the little i know is right, i believe it should be enough to keep him as a separate philosopher not tied to any school ( wich, by the way, is cronologically true too, if time should be considered ).

The main thing here seems to be that both lines of thought are freedom-yearners, but only one of them goes the full length of saying "freedom to dominate", wich would be of course absolutely relevant to a comparison to the Dark Side.

On a side note, it has been said a thousand times, but it´s interesting that Nietzche was partially embraced in Nazi thinking ( wich sometimes leads many to the anachronic and simplistic thought of calling him a Nazi philosopher ). This "embrace" took the will to power and the übermensch, but was quick to forget the ego-empowerment and the like, wich were of course incoherent with a massive and overpowered State. Anyway, the connection is also worth mentioning, if we can make a double paralel "nietzche-nazis" vs. "darkside-Empire". The way i see it, it can be simplified for explanatory purposes with D&D RPG´s "alignments" parlor: You can be good, neutral or bad; and also you can be chaotic, neutral or lawful. The difference between Nietzche and the Nazis is a matter of chaotic vs. lawful, so to speak ;) . Within fiction, i consider the SW darksiders "evil" anyway, but they can be chaotic ( individualistic, nietzchean, all for ego ) or "lawful" ( imperialistic, "nazi", etc ).

( It´s a shame that the Star Wars d20 doesn´t have this distinction, even if it´s an offspring of the D&D system. Sorry for the triviality of the thing i´m using to model the idea, but i think it´s worth it ).

I think that we could put something back but more directly tied to Nietzche - anyone dares to try? My english ( i´m argentinian ) has proven to be less than enough to make such changes in an elegant fashion...

Anyway, fun to argue this topic is!

-Gorsh --- (Anonymous user says: With all due respect, Nietzsche did not embrace Nazi thinking. His final works involving the concept of a "will to power" were actually taken from notes of an unfinished book by his sister, who was involved in the Nazi party.  However, Nietzche actually despised the Nazi party, all forms of nationalism and military dictatorships.  He probably would actually view such people as nihilistic.  The fate of his last book, as well as his earlier writings, met the same fate: to be misinterpreted and mangled by the Nazi party.  Ubermensch is actually more appropriately translated as "Overman" instead of "Superman."

Yes, it is true that Nietzche was critical of Jews. But then again, he was critical of his fellow philosophers, more revered Greek philosophers, Christianity, women and just about everybody and anything. Nietzche viewed himself as the ultimate iconoclast. One could easily mistake Nietzche for a baby-eating bigot who hates everybody and everything, but that wouldn't be strictly true. Think of Jolee Bindo complaining and making fun of everything, and you'd get a much closer approximation.

If we *must* draw parallels between his philosophy and fictional philosophies, he'd probably be more in line with a Potentium or Living Force adherent. Nietzsche thought that essential sacred traditions tended only to be revered for their forms rather than their content. Likewise, people are too used to the idea of a "free will" being all-important and at the root of all things. "Free will" is also a flawed concept, to say the least. If anything, he probably viewed this anthropomorphizing drive of mankind as hopelessly self-indulgent and childish. Likewise, he felt that people were too concerned with self-contained goods, and denied the reality in front of them. By this token, it could be said that an openness to life is more important that rigid and dogmatic inflexibility.

So let's redeem Nietzche's good honor eh? He's no child with a flat and irresponsible wish-fulfillment philosophy. He's one tough mother, considering that he wrote his philosophies under some of the the worst possible conditions known to man. Nietzsche was impoverished, continually over medicated, probably had Syphilis, a regular insomniac and had bad eyesight. Now picture a man writing next to a dim candle in a poor tenement with less-than-ample heating for hours on end. This is a kind of guy who nearly killed himself just to write books that none of his contemporaries would ever appreciate.)

H ey does anyone think this Quote is good for this artical?
...the Force is not a shield to protect the useless... but is, in reality, a weapon... to empower the worthy! " —Desann to Kyle Katarn

I think personaly it represents the Dark Side very well Valin &quot;Tnu&quot; &quot;Shido&quot; Suul 23:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you mean use this for the head quote, then no. I personally like the current one better. -  Yoshi  626 [[Image:Yoshiegg.jpg|20px]] 23:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would work well in the article, though.-- Lord Oblivion Sith holocron[[Image:Sith_Emblem.svg|30px]] 23:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The current one's OOU though. --  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 13:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How so?-- Lord Oblivion Sith holocron[[Image:Sith_Emblem.svg|30px]] 13:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Added. And no, the top quote isn't OOU... - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 13:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake, someone changed it after the last time I checked. It was previously a narrative quote from the RoTS novel. --  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 16:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But now that quote is two places in the article. One should go. DarthMRN 13:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Dark"? WTF?
In the media section, there is an audio download for something called "the Dark", coming from the ROTS novelization. Can somone explain this? How does a novelization provide audio? And why does it sound more like some twisted version of a self-help tape than something out of SW? DarthMRN 13:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the users probably recorded it with his own voice, and put it up. - TopAce 13:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it's bloody well not canon, either. I'll cut it in pieces. DarthMRN 22:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Could it be from the audio adaptation? jSarek 00:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is from the audio adaptation of the novel. Having just listened to it recently, I recognize the narrator's voice. - JMAS 00:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

5.2 Factual correction
If The dark side effects peoples skin like that; why didn't count dooku or any other sith get effected like that?
 * I doubt there is canonical evidence of that. - TopAce 13:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any canonical evidence of the dark side affecting the skin in particular, but the graphic novel summary of Dark Empire states that the dark side does corrupt the physical body, speeding up the aging process and the decay of the physical body. People age and decay differently, so the dark side's affect on the body could differ widely as well. - Jediadept 15:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It also depends on how much Dark Power you use. For example, in The Courtship of Princess Leia, the Nightsisters' would faces would become more deformed each time they called upon the Dark Side. Evir Daal 16:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Or Dooku could have disguised his appearance with the Force.  Darth Anxor [[Image:Revanchist_Sith.svg|20px]] Sith Order  22:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality?
I found some stuff that may be pushing the envelope. For example:

"Some Sith believed they were superior to the Jedi, but in truth both the light and dark sides are equals, the dark side is only an easier path and not a stronger one."

I think some unregistered person wrote that. That's an opinion, not a proven fact. I think we should read over the article and tweak and fix stuff like that. I believe they are equals, but the Dark Side was definitely not easier. Also, it could be much more powerful than the light. I think revisions would be best here.  Darth Anxor  Sith Order  22:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The 'only an easier path and not a stronger one' part is almost a direct quote from Episode V, by Yoda. "Stronger, no.  Easier, more seductive." 68.228.89.148 23:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if nobody said anything, I guess it's okay to remove.  Darth Anxor  Sith Order  11:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is the neutrality banner still present? Is there something else that is unfounded or biased in the article? Maphisto86 07:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw some other "iffy" bits I wanted to clear up.  Darth Anxor [[Image:Revanchist_Sith.svg|20px]] Sith Order  14:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read over the article and it seems the only potentially biased section is the "Strength of the Dark Side" paragraph. However it seems to me rather logical in it's analysis of strength...if one assumes physical combat decides true strength. ;) Maphisto86 10:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What do You mean by 'physical combat' and 'true strength'? I can't really see anything physical in Nihilus destroying Katarr. On the other hand, in the context of a conflict between Jedi and Sith, is it not 'true strength' that leads to vanquishing your foes and surviving yourself? BTW, 'I shall assume full responsibility' for editing the section in question (being at that time an unregistered user), save the awkward ending of the second paragraph 'Luke did, however, also defeat Palpatine'. When? On the Death Star Sidious was killed by Darth Vader! (of course, one can consider this as an intance of 'non-physical' superiority of the Light Side, with Luke turning his father away from his former master). Palpatine's clone life-after-life was finished by Han Solo not by Luke! Unless there is something I missed, I suggest removing or at least re-editing this statement. Mormegil 29 May 2007
 * Luke defeated the Emperor's third known clone in a lightsaber duel (in Dark Empire). Perhaps that's what is meant. Evir Daal 13:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty much anything which talks about how one side of the force is stronger than the other should be changed. Strong is not a word easy to define in this case. Gustafar 17:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely my point.  Darth Anxor [[Image:Revanchist_Sith.svg|20px]] Sith Order  11:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, let's suspend any attempt of logical analysis of the Star Wars Universe! The Sith were by no means more powerful than the Jedi. They were simply 'different'. Surely that must have been the reason why thousands of Jedi considered two Sith Lords to pose a threat to their very existence! Mormegil 15:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The entire 2.8 section is a load of bull. Palpatines defeat was staged? There is a screenplay out there - I don't recall it mentioning anything about a staged defeat.Gustafar 19:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As for Palpatine's defeat, I suggest you check out section 1.10 (Endgame) under Palpatine-Darth Sidious in Wookipedia (not my entry!). I did not write 'was staged' but 'may have been staged' - I think there's a difference there. It is always easy to say 'this is bull'. Instead, why don't you try to prove it wrong? Mormegil 12:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not many words are true in that section. Nihilus' power can't be denied, but that's pretty much it. And I'm not sure that was the Dark Side so much as him being a hole in the Force. The other examples are dubious at best and laughable at worst. I vote for striking it all, for if we rewrite it from a NPOV, there won't be anything left anyway.  Commander Daal  [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 07:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Same thing as above. 'Dubious' - OK; I did write 'appear almost always' not 'are always'. 'Laughable' or 'untrue' - which precisely? As usual, it's easy to throw invectives, harder to back them up. Indeed Nihilus was a 'hole' in the Force, but a Sith Lord (albeit a freakish one) nevertheless. It was not the light side but the dark which gave him his power. Mormegil 12:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok do that Gustafar 16:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not a critics responsibility to provide justification for criticism. The responsibility is yours, Mormegil, to justify your edits to this article. --School of Thrawn 101 11:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought I already did. Besides, how can you expect me to argue with such general statements as 'this is bull' or 'this is laughable'? What is? Which of the examples? Is any of them not true? Are there other numerous instances of Jedi defeating Sith Lords over which I have passed in silence? Let's talk about the facts, gentlemen! Otherwise every discussion is bound to lapse into an exchange of invectives and nothing more. Mormegil 15:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant if Sith Lord A or B was X% awesome and who they beat. It doesn't say anything about the dark side of the force. You're just speculating about Palpatine's defeat and you have all these weird explenations for how Darth Maul and Vader was defeated - that it was not the superiority of their opponents but merely something else. And then you go on some rant about how great Malak is and uses Bastila's quote as evidence but not at all mentioning the fact that he was beaten by a Jedi - as were Nihilus and Kreia.

"According to the Jedi, the Dark Side was only easier to learn and use, and therefore more deceptive, while true power lay with the light. This, however, is contradicted by the fact, that true Sith Lords (as opposed to ordinary Dark Jedi, lacking the Sith knowledge) appear almost always stronger than their Jedi opponents."

-I've never heard a jedi say that "true power" lay with the light side - and since you don't have a source for that, your "contradiction" is not appliable. The other things you claim the Jedi says have been said by many Sith as well (in KOTOR for example.)

And no - we won't look at the facts - it's a damn fictional expression.


 * OK, sorry, I was wrong - I really thought that Wookiedia is based on the 'facts', that is information given in the canonical sources - if otherwise, do as you please (and please, don't use cheap rhetoric like this 'it's a damn fictional expression'). "True power" is simply a paraphrase (unless you haven't noticed, paraphrasing is all that Wookipedia is about - otherwise the only thing you'd be able to post would be direct quotations) of Yoda's words in Empire Strikes Back ('stronger - no, easier, more seductive etc.' - quoting from memory). Finally, indeed it is, as You say, irrelevant 'if Sith Lord A or B was X% awesome and who they beat'. My entry was an attempt to deal with the whole philosophy of the dark side: a phenomenon granting immense power to an individual, but at an enormous expense: having to gnaw your way through ruthless competition and after achieving anything (let alone becoming a Dark Lord), always having to be on your guard against other champions (not to mention physical deterioration), one of whom ultimately was bound to win... Besides, as stated in the article, the strife associated with the dark side always ultimately lead to the doom of the Sith. If the dark side cannot be in any way objectively rewarding, the Sith Lords would appear simply as irresponsible, impatient, stupid and blind brats, who couldn't wait just a bit longer to achieve better results with the light side. If this is your view of the Sith and the dark side - good luck, gentlemen! Surely I wont go on 'ranting' (as someone has politely stated) about it. Like one of my critics brilliantly noticed, we are dealing here with a 'fictional expression', therefore everybody is entitled to his own interpretation; if You decide to throw the whole section out or alter it radically - fear not, I won't be trying to smuggle back any more of my odd views. Mormegil 20:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Take it easy. Apperently people think your part of the article is partial - live with it. Yes - Wookieepedia is supposed to be true to canon. And your segment does indeed contain facts (mostly) - but you haven't included all necessary facts. It's like I'd write that Italy is a better country than France because I can mention a lot of games thay have won in football (or soccer if you will) and when they didn't won it was probably becuase they were cursed or someone had replaced the players with evil clones. But I forgot to mention the fact that the croissants in France are much better... hmm... It sounds ridiculous, don't it? It's a bit exaggerated but I'm not sure you can view your writing from a reader's pov so I needed an example. You shouldn't take it so personally - there are more things in this article that aren't neutral. Gustafar 20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Before we start deleting stuff like crazy (we won't anyway) we'd better establish what's partial and what's not. First of all, saying the Dark Side was never more powerful than the light is wrong. However, saying that the Dark Side is always more powerful is also wrong. Saying that they were always the same is not true, either. I believe either could be powerful based on how people used them, and that was based on their knowledge of the Force. So that's what I think- who agrees?  Darth Anxor [[Image:Revanchist_Sith.svg|20px]] Sith Order  21:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a point here, Darth Anxor, though I can't agree with everything. Saying that light or dark 'could be powerful based on how people used them' and on their knowledge of the force, seems to me like saying in other words that they were equally powerful. I do have second thoughts myself, returning to the section in question after a while. While I still am inclined to see the Sith Lords as individuals as more powerful than individual Jedi (a general pattern, that admits exceptions, of course), the strength of either light or dark side in general appears a more nuanced question. I did try to point this direction, when speaking of the strife associated with the dark side (which ultimately could lead to the destruction of the Sith), but this needed more emphasis. In this context both light and dark side would appear more balanced, but not the same, with the latter granting more strength to individuals at the expense of strife and physical deterioration, which could balance the individual superiority of its users. Then again, the apparent superiority of individual Sith Lords over individual Jedi could come from the fact, that it was usually the most powerful force-sensitive individuals who actually became Sith Lords, while the weaker had to be content with the status of a Dark Jedi (example Dooku and his minions, Sora Bulq etc). This is all, however, a conjecture. I do agree, that the section needs rewriting.Mormegil 18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Now here we get to a point where we can never actually conclude who's right. My opinion is that the Dark Side is stronger, but that can never actually be proved. We could be vague like the cantina scene in ANH novelization- doesn't specify who shot first- I would think it varies.

There is also a logical explanation behind most of your Darkside victories. Nihilus was force wound who was defeated by a Jedi Force wound. Malak may have owned 2 Jedi on board the starforge where the Dark Side was amplified, but a canonicly lightside Revan stormed that starforge, cut his way through enough dark jedi to make any player wonder when it will end, turned Bastila back to the light at which point she acknowledges the power of the light, defeats the starforges abillity to eternally create droids, and defeats Malak despite the power he was getting from the Starforge and some dead Jedi at which point Malak sees the light and realizes that he is nothing. Sidious had the advantage when he took out those jedi simply because the Jedi had grown complacent and hadn't had to deal with a Dark Lord of the Sith for thousands of years. All of your examples entail the Dark Lord of the Sith, who didn't get there because he was average. We also have a nice pick of Kol Skywalker taking out a whole ton of sith before getting cheapshotted by a Sith who he had already proved himself superior to. Strong in the force is Strong in the force no matter which side you are on. Now the I believe that Sith Lords may become more powerful than some Jedi Masters because that is what they want. The Sith crave power with immense passion and are willing to go to any lengths to get it. Very few Jedi have the motivation that the sith have, and most are complacent with average abillity. Also, the Jedi basicly see the force as an ally and sit back and let the force decide what power they have. The Sith will try to bend the force to their will, warping it and twisting it. Hence Cade Skywalkers healing power or Sith Alchemy completely warping nature. Also it depends on what you want to do with the force. Destructive power will always be found in the Darkside, which is why many find it so aluring. It seems like the force will shift as to which side it favors. When Sidious died Silri felt the balance of the force shift from dark to light. Tarentateks will hibernate and wake up to hunt when the dark side is strong. The Dark Side was clouding the abillities of the Jedi during the Clone wars. It seems that at certain times and places, the Dark Side will become much stronger and vice verse. I'm not sure what causes it, but it happens. Jedigeneral
 * Jedigeneral had a lot of good points. Especially the part on how a Sith's goal is to gain power through the force and thereby focusing on that. I still don't see the relevance in the "Strength of the Dark side" part. I may be wrong, but I remember hearing somewhere (not sure where - it might have been Jedi academy) that there are not actually two sides of the force - it's only the powers themselves that will lead you down the light or the dark path. I'm not sure though. Has anyone else heard this or am I just imagining things? Gustafar 12:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As Wookieepedians, we're not allowed to assume a moral opinion. we can't say the Light side is stronger. We can't say it's weaker. We can provide examples like those above, but the reason I put that damned template is because I don't want people to assume that. I personally support Dark side canon, but, WP being what it is, I stand alone.  Darth Anxor [[Image:Revanchist_Sith.svg|20px]] Sith Order  01:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah but mentioning all of those jedi defeats is to me very subjective. It's much like propaganda, where you mention all our victories but not any defeats. Propaganda doesn't have to include lies or made up facts. Gustafar 10:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I already said, I do agree that the section needs rewriting. My point was quite simple: if you consider the dark side not rewarding (over the light side) in any sense whatsoever and yet you agree (as we all must) that it did lead to strife among its users and to their physical, bodily deterioration you are implying, without saying it directly, that it was, in fact, weaker than the light, which did neither of these two things. Mormegil 14:43, 21 July 2007
 * Nope. I'm not implying that at all. If there's not such a section in the light side article there's no reason to have it here. I guess you could write something about how effective the dark side powers are in combat. It's not necessary to write that the dark side is stronger than the light to counter the negative effects of joining the dark side (body deteriation for example.) It'd be better to give some examples of how the dark side benefits you, with aggresive force powers and so on. Gustafar 10:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought: If the section can't be rewritten (or at least not agreeably so), you could try moving it to Behind the Scenes, as a section about the debate over this issue. Sid Starkiller 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC) K, I just read Champions of the Force. It brings up a significant point: jedi combining their powers are capable of feats they normally would not be able to do seperately. Just about every padawon has a bond with his master which strengthens them both. you don't hear about these bonds in the dark side. In fact you seldom hear about any group of sith channeling the powers of the force together. Only one instance comes to my mind, that's Lord Kaan and the thought-bomb, and that did not go well for him at all. the only instance I recall hearing where a sith lord and his apprentice having bond was Darth Nihilus and Visas Marr. this turned out to be his undoing as well. you gwt a large group of Jedi togeth and they are capable of great things. A large group of sith is as much a danger to itself as it is to others, which is why Darth Bane instituted the rule of two. While often one sith lord will have power greater than one jedi, a group of Jedi will have greater power than a group of Sith.Jedigeneral 05:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something along the lines of a light side vs. dark side comparison is in order. Something that will acknoledge the strengths the dark side has over the light side yet will also point out it's weaknesses.  Strengths to be pointed out would include superior power in destruction, death, and the abillity to bend nature and other things to your will.  Weaknesses would include defense, trust, a lack of abillity in healing (as acknowledged by Darth Bane although this could be proven false by Cade Skywalker),  the addiction and corruption it causes, and the abillity to subdue opponents without killing them.  Also, mentioning how the whole dark side mentality focuses on the persuit of power would be useful.  Jedigenral
 * I like that idea. But should it really be in this article? If so, we have to write a similar section in the light side article (which btw needs some serious lenghthening.) Gustafar 09:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Djeez. This is what the sourcing policy is for. The Dark Side Sourcebook, Darth Bane: Path of Destruction, and a multitude of minor mentions in different sources, all provide indisputable canonical proof of dark side facts, and the opinions of prominent Force sensitives on both sides regarding it. Having read and thought about these works, I pride myself in having a fairly coherent understanding of the details and nuances of the dark side, with minimal speculation and fanwank required. You cite and reference the same info in a neutral, factual manner, and this will be a great article. I would do it myself, but I can't be bothered. DarthMRN 13:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that helped us a lot. Gustafar 14:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it seemed to me that you were discussing what you wanted to have in the article based on personal interpretations of the dark side. Since this article has enough of that already, and really need a major rewrite, I figured I would point out that it would be more productive of you to stop speculating and start citing references in stead. I wasn't trying to contibute to the fanon wiki. DarthMRN 18:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My point was actually the same as yours. To keep opinions out of the article. Jedigeneral's idea was to acknowledge strenghts and weaknesess rather than just the first. Gus;tafar 16:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the best suggestion I've heard in quite a while. Gustafar 14:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So what do we put in the rest of the article? Darth Anxor [[Image:Revanchist_Sith.svg|20px]] Sith Order  19:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Post Return of the Jedi
What happened to the Dark side after they lost the Emperor? Who are the current members of the Dark Side? Lets just put down the dark side is vanquished forever due to there is none after the Emperors death.(Assaulthead 19:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC))
 * No No No No No No No No. Rodtheanimegod4ever 19:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Bogan or Boga?
We all know that the ancient term for the dark side was "Bogan," taken from George Lucas' original script drafts. But I was just reading chapter 18 of Darth Bane: Rule of Two which calls it "Boga." Is this an official retcon or merely a mistake by the writer? Because another recently-released book, Jedi vs. Sith: The New Essential Guide to the Force still refers to it as "Bogan." So which is it, then? 24.3.94.134 06:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably a mistake. --  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 14:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not the first time. Darth Oompa Loompa 20:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Fear of the dark side" section
Okey-dokers... I dunno who stated that the Jedi started disallowing attachments, contact with family relations, anything to do with strong emotions, etcera, as well as taking whatever "extreme" measures they felt necessary to prevent the return of the Sith and the like, in 1000 BBY. But I'd like to point out that, at least as far as the KOTOR storyline goes, this is fairly inaccurate; the fact that Jedi were romantically involved and such in the "Tales of the Jedi" series and that they were indeed restricted from such in the "Knights of the Old Republic" series seems to suggest that such restrictions in the Old Jedi Order began sometime between the events depicted in those two series, NOT post-Ruusan. Darth Nezumi 16:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Bogan or Boga
i've recently read Darth Bane: Rule of Two. and it says the dark side was called Boga without an N. is this just my copy or do we have another Canon conflict? Valin &quot;Tnu&quot; &quot;Shido&quot; Suul 23:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)