Victus Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 I'm surprised at how much the developers participate in the forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Who? Chu? I'm guessing he just hacked his profile on the forums to say Developer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Jebus Posted June 13, 2004 Author Share Posted June 13, 2004 Is it confirmed that Dooku is Tyranus? I didn't read the Episode 2 novel. It may be in there. No where in the movie is Dooku called Tyranus. And Lucas said the mystery of Tyranus would be revealed in Episode 3. And after Dooku get his a** kicked by Yoda, he flies to Coruscant to meet up with Sidious. He says to Sidious, "The Force is with us, Master Sidious." And Sidious replies: "Welcome home, Lord Tyranus." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrell Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 I have to say this.... So a Dark Jedi is a Jedi who feel to the darkside. (Darkside) A Sith is a person who is trained under the ways of the Sith. (Dark side) A Jedi is a person who is trained under the ways of the Jedi. (Light Side) So if there is a Sith who feel to the lightside, he isn't considered a Jedi but a Light-Sith? I mean he can't be a Jedi cause he wasn't trained as a Jedi but a Sith. He just went to the LS. Must like a Dark Jedi who isn't a Sith cause he wasn't trained as a Sith, he is just a Jedi who went bad. Same thing with a Light Sith, a Sith who just went good. PlayMoreConsoles TheForce.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shdy314 Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 I have to say this.... So a Dark Jedi is a Jedi who feel to the darkside. (Darkside) A Sith is a person who is trained under the ways of the Sith. (Dark side) A Jedi is a person who is trained under the ways of the Jedi. (Light Side) So if there is a Sith who feel to the lightside, he isn't considered a Jedi but a Light-Sith? I mean he can't be a Jedi cause he wasn't trained as a Jedi but a Sith. He just went to the LS. Must like a Dark Jedi who isn't a Sith cause he wasn't trained as a Sith, he is just a Jedi who went bad. Same thing with a Light Sith, a Sith who just went good. You already brought this up before and it was all explained. <_< But since it obviously all went in one ear and out the other here's a refresher. http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?sh...ght%20sith&st=0 By the way what is this feel stuff? Typos are one thing but to consistently mispell a four letter word... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakron Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 This is where I get confused. Exar Kun was once a Jedi who fell. I don't believe he ever went to any Sith Academy. This is also the case with Ulic Qel-Droma, his apprentice. I think some Sith Ghost named Kun Dark Lord as well as Ulic. The definitions just seem so vague. I thought that the original Sith species was gifted in their own version of the Force, which included alchemy. Naga Sadow dabbled in this a bit. That's why I always thought you had to be much more than just a Jedi who no longer follows the light. You had to be a Sith. But the movies and games seem to contradict this. Anakin and Tyranus just simply fell and swore their allegiance to Sidious. That seemed to be enough in both cases. Marka Ragnos prevented Kun and Ulic from fighting but ... Kun did start as a Jedi but Freedon Nadd ghost teach him on the Sit ways, funny enough Nadd was once a Jedi as well. Ulic however fallen to the dark side by study of a Sith Holocron and other things (long story) but both were Sith because they were part of the organization and had access to the Sith technology. Sith Alchemy is by used of the Dark Side, its part of Sith technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Jebus Posted June 15, 2004 Author Share Posted June 15, 2004 And to just add to my confusion, I think in TPM, Darth Maul was referred to by Sidious as Lord Maul. Maul was a Sith Lord. So does that mean that Bandon was a Sith Lord also? Are both the Sith Master and his/her apprentice referred to as Sith Lords? Or can there be only one Dark Lord at a time? It seems in the era of the movies, there is some ambiguity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grieva86 Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 In the early days of the Jedi, a great schism tore the order apart. Jedi who had tapped the forbidden power of the Force's dark side rebelled against their light-sided brothers. After a terrible war, the Dark Jedi were exiled from the Republic. Past the Republic's growing borders, these castaways discovered Korriban and the Sith people. Powerful with the dark side, the Jedi outcasts set themselves up as gods on Korriban. The primitive Sith worshipped them as their lords, and so the Jedi grew, and built temples and monuments to celebrate their power. Millennia of interbreeding blurred the distinction between Sith native and offworlder, and the term Sith came to encompass not only the indigenous people of Korriban, but also the powerful overlords that ruled them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Due to the cross-breeding, they developed a lisp. When describing the mating between insectiod and humanoid creatures people use to say "that's just sith!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakron Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 And to just add to my confusion, I think in TPM, Darth Maul was referred to by Sidious as Lord Maul. Maul was a Sith Lord. So does that mean that Bandon was a Sith Lord also? Are both the Sith Master and his/her apprentice referred to as Sith Lords? Or can there be only one Dark Lord at a time? It seems in the era of the movies, there is some ambiguity. No, unless Palpatine actor screwed up saying that line. Its kinda hard to say because what really stands up is Darth Vader being the Dark Lord of the Sith with Palpatine being around, of course we can argue about Palpatine character simply using Sith knowledge for his own advanatage and not giving a damn about a 1000 years old command if that does not beneficts him in some way, after all he was going to train Luke with Anakin being around or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shdy314 Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 When it comes to the rule of two the apprentice is considered A Dark Lord of the Sith but not THE Dark Lord of the Sith. Even in ancient days truly powerful Sith would consider themselves Dark Lords but that didnt mean they were the numero uno boss. Just like there can be multiple Jedi Masters. But the Master obviously should never call his apprentice Lord or anything. MAybe if speaking to another about his apprentice. Like "respect your dark lords wishes" etc. Or maybe as a confidence booster. I think the real confusion comes from the class Sith Lord. Sith Lord is supposed to be a title but some genius made it also be a class. So you could have a Sith Marauder or whatever be the leader of the Sith and hence THE Dark Lord of the Sith but not be a Sith Lord. Its all about context. You have to pay attention to if the character means a title or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakron Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 There have always been ONE Dark Lord of the Sith, only question is if there is more that one Sith organization around. Stats wise the class is allowed to exist during the Rule-of-two days but it does not change the fact there can only be two Sith at one time, the fact is allowed is because you cannot lose levels in the d20 system ... you can lose class special abilities but not actual levels and its ultimatly pointless, players taking Sith Lord classes can only do so if the DM allows then to play a dark side campain in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shdy314 Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 There have always been ONE Dark Lord of the Sith, only question is if there is more that one Sith organization around. Stats wise the class is allowed to exist during the Rule-of-two days but it does not change the fact there can only be two Sith at one time, the fact is allowed is because you cannot lose levels in the d20 system ... you can lose class special abilities but not actual levels and its ultimatly pointless, players taking Sith Lord classes can only do so if the DM allows then to play a dark side campain in the first place. Afraid not. In the ancient times multiple Sith claimed the title of Dark Lord. But there was still always someone that was clearly THE Sith lord. But once he was gone the other Sith Lords jockeyed for his spot. Not only that but it wasn't like a title granted to you by an organization or anything. It was something you took. So there was no clearly defined requirement for being a dark lord. Probably any Sith that happened upon someone weaker than themselves would demand to be referred to as a Dark Lord. Don't see what the rest of your post has to do with anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grieva86 Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 he has a point which is what i stated already. only the stong rule and if your stronger you take that rule which is why the first jedi outcasts claimig sith lord fought there can be only one highlander i mean...err...sith lord... now to answer this thread question a sith apprentice is an apprentice but he uses his power for the dark side so he is a dark jedi there.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakron Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 You are wrong, during the Sith Empire there was only one Dark Lord that was their leader, Marka Ragnos was the Dark Lord of the Sith and Naga Shadow and Ludo Kressh were simply Sith Lords, Ludo tried to kill Naga after he was made Dark Lord of the Sith when Ragnos died. Satal and Aleema Keto were never Sith Lords to start with, they did not reach that far. Ulric and Kun did battle but Ragnos ghost make Kun as the Dark Lord of the Sith and Ulric his first aprendice. See the diference in "Dark Lord of the Sith" and "Sith Lord"? As a class you can be a Sith Lord but in order to be the Dark Lord of the Sith they needed to control a Sith cult (I am being nice enough to tolerate several Sith fractions running around at the same time) so its the title only the LEADER of the Sith can have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shdy314 Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 You are wrong. Nope. During the Sith Empire there was only one Dark Lord that was their leader. So far so good. Marka Ragnos was the Dark Lord of the Sith and Naga Shadow and Ludo Kressh were simply Sith Lords, Ludo tried to kill Naga after he was made Dark Lord of the Sith when Ragnos died. I've never seen ANYTHING to even imply a Sith Lord is anything but a short hand version of Dark Lord of the Sith. Link something credible and I'll change my tune. Satal and Aleema Keto were never Sith Lords to start with, they did not reach that far. First of all if they didn't reach the rank they are not germaine to this discussion. Secondly this just brings up the point I've tried to make. Nothing defines what a Dark Lord of the Sith requires. The Sith take their titles. And only weaker Sith would actually refer to them by these titles. Ulric and Kun did battle but Ragnos ghost make Kun as the Dark Lord of the Sith and Ulric his first aprendice. This proves absolutely nothing except that Kun was named THE Dark Lord of the Sith. Ulic was still a (going by your argument) Sith Lord. And this whole discussion started by someone saying Sidious called Maul a Lord. See the diference in "Dark Lord of the Sith" and "Sith Lord"? Yeah. Fewer words. Otherwise you've proven absolutely nothing. Especially since the rule of two changes they very nature of the Sith and their titles. As a class you can be a Sith Lord but in order to be the Dark Lord of the Sith they needed to control a Sith cult (I am being nice enough to tolerate several Sith fractions running around at the same time) so its the title only the LEADER of the Sith can have. Different DMs run different worlds so using this as any kind of argument is flawed. I also already said this stuff about being the class vs. being the leader. Once again Id like a credible link because Ive never seen anything that would prove you need to run a Sith cult to be a Dark Lord of the Sith. And if a padawan or any weaker creature encounters a "Sith Lord" that doesnt meet your criteria for Dark Lord you really think their going to argue semantics over their title? I highly doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakron Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 I've never seen ANYTHING to even imply a Sith Lord is anything but a short hand version of Dark Lord of the Sith. Link something credible and I'll change my tune. .... ... Naga Sadow, Sith Lord When Marka Ragnos, the Dark Lord of the Sith, finally espired after a century of iron-fisted rule, two powerful Sith Lords were in a position to claim his title as supreme ruler of the Sith Empire. ... ...Ludo Kressh, Aspiring Sith Lord The Most powerful of the Sith to oppose Naga Shadow's rise to power was Ludo Kressh, a conservative among the Sith Lords ... ... If the Republic had entered the Sith space, was was inevitable - so the Sith Lords transferred their support to Naga Shadow ... .. Meanwhile, Kressh rallied the Sith Lords who remained behind, promising then wealth and power if they allied with him against Naga Shadow. With their support, Ludo Kressh declared himself as the new Dark Lord of the Sith ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shdy314 Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 I've never seen ANYTHING to even imply a Sith Lord is anything but a short hand version of Dark Lord of the Sith. Link something credible and I'll change my tune. .... ... Naga Sadow, Sith Lord When Marka Ragnos, the Dark Lord of the Sith, finally espired after a century of iron-fisted rule, two powerful Sith Lords were in a position to claim his title as supreme ruler of the Sith Empire. ... ...Ludo Kressh, Aspiring Sith Lord The Most powerful of the Sith to oppose Naga Shadow's rise to power was Ludo Kressh, a conservative among the Sith Lords ... ... If the Republic had entered the Sith space, was was inevitable - so the Sith Lords transferred their support to Naga Shadow ... .. Meanwhile, Kressh rallied the Sith Lords who remained behind, promising then wealth and power if they allied with him against Naga Shadow. With their support, Ludo Kressh declared himself as the new Dark Lord of the Sith ... Okae lets see we have a sourcebook. Wow. Which is not a credible source of info at all. Its as low on the canon totem pole as video games. Possibly lower. These also have nothing at all to do with the rule of two. Maybe youve gotten so wrapped up in trying to prove youre right youve forgotten this is about Sidious calling Maul a lord. Which is why I brought up the ancient Sith Empire with multiple Sith lords. Also at no point does it explicitly say Dark Lord of the Sith is the official title of the leader of the Sith and is reserved only for said Sith. Seems more like the author didnt want to type Dark Lord of the Sith where Sith Lord would do. Look at your own quote... "claim his title as supreme ruler of the Sith Empire." Did they say claim the title as Dark Lord of the Sith? No they didn't. And what of weaker characters referring to these Sith Lords? You dont think their apprentices and such might refer to their masters as Dark Lords? The way Jedi Knights are still often referred to as Jedi Masters by padawans and such? And where is your proof the ONLY way to be a Dark Lord is to lead a Sith cult? Just stop. There are too many inconsitencies generated by a million different authors with their own poreconceived notions and no truly official canon from GL on the proper usage of titles like Jedi Master, Sith Lord, Dark Lord of the Sith etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakron Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 First its a offcial book and goes by Lucasbooks ... it have a nice shinny lucasbooks logo in tne game and you cannot get more official except with a nice Lucasfilms logo. Sorry but that is your proof, I dont recall ANY time were Palpatine addessed Maul as "lord" but under the levels given to him he does have Sith Lord levels. We have the Jedi Council but we dont have Jedi Council menber class but we do have Jedi Master as both as a title and as a class. On the other hand we also have Sith Lord both as a title and as a class. I have unfortunatly overlooked this part: Era notes:Sith Lord In the early days of the Sith, only one of their rank could ever gain the title "Dark Lord of the Sith ... ... With the Twilight of the Sith and the rise of Darth Bane , the rules of the old Sith were supplanted by the new rule.There could only be two sith at one time:One the master, and the other the apprendice. While both could be Sith Lords .. Sorry, you are WRONG again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Jebus Posted June 15, 2004 Author Share Posted June 15, 2004 Sorry but that is your proof, I dont recall ANY time were Palpatine addessed Maul as "lord". Towards the end of the movie on Naboo, Sidious tells Maul after learning that Padme had returned: "Lord Maul, be mindful. Let them come to you." I was just wondering if this was an honorific title or if Maul was considered a Dark Lord also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakron Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Maul does have Sith Lord levels ... I expect at that point Maul was the Sith equivelent to a Jedi Master, of course Palpatine was superior to him but no much diferent that Yoda being superior to Mace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shdy314 Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 First its a offcial book and goes by Lucasbooks ... it have a nice shinny lucasbooks logo in tne game and you cannot get more official except with a nice Lucasfilms logo. Sorry but that is your proof, I dont recall ANY time were Palpatine addessed Maul as "lord" but under the levels given to him he does have Sith Lord levels. We have the Jedi Council but we dont have Jedi Council menber class but we do have Jedi Master as both as a title and as a class. On the other hand we also have Sith Lord both as a title and as a class. I have unfortunatly overlooked this part: Era notes:Sith Lord In the early days of the Sith, only one of their rank could ever gain the title "Dark Lord of the Sith ... ... With the Twilight of the Sith and the rise of Darth Bane , the rules of the old Sith were supplanted by the new rule.There could only be two sith at one time:One the master, and the other the apprendice. While both could be Sith Lords .. Sorry, you are WRONG again. A sourcebook is so low on the canon totem pole. It is not considered a book. It is considered a game. And games are as low as canon gets in SW. Hence it is not proof and not anywhere near irrefutable proof that AFTER the rule of two (since you keep focusing on the ancient Sith) that Dark Lord of the Sith is anything more than a title any powerful Sith may be called. The Jedi master/council stuff is irrelevant except to illustrate the stupidity of naming classes after titles. It also has all the same ambiguities and inconsisitencies as the Sith Lord title. Knights are addresed as master as a sign of respect for example. On the OTHER hand???? You mean likewise. Jedi Council members are Jedi Masters. Its like saying there's no Emperor class. On the other hand would be if the two situations were different but they arent as you just showed. As for the quote. That only proves I am right and you are wrong. If were going to use a stupid sourcebook as our reference point. "While both could be Sith Lords .." That there means I am right. If you look back to my original post I start by saying IN THE TIME OF THE RULE OF TWO... So Sidious could be referring to Maul by the fact he is a Sith Lord (classwise) though this would be really stupid. As is the idea of Maul having Sith Lord classes. In the EU books which trump sourcebooks and I believe even in the movies Vader is known as a Dark Lord of the Sith. Or at least a Sith Lord. Could this be because most characters have no idea of any arbitrary technicalities on being called a Sith Lord/Dark Lord? Sure. Most of this is in your head. You point to a few sentences where a writer logically chose to write Sith Lord rather than Dark Lord of the Sith over and over. Id also like to say I doubt even GL gave any thought to it at all. Id say its a highly debatable point. How many people would really complain or even see anything wrong with Vader being called Dark Lord of the Sith? Not many. Its a highly interpretable title. Any argument that the title has requirements or itd be wrong to call such and such Sith a Dark Lord are silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 First its a offcial book and goes by Lucasbooks ... it have a nice shinny lucasbooks logo in tne game and you cannot get more official except with a nice Lucasfilms logo. Well, there are plenty of books and comics on Boba Fett that paid for licensing, and feature a Lucas approved logo, but they completely contradict cannon, or rather the movies contradict them. Paying for a Lucas logo does not make one official, or cannon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nartwak Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Only the movies are canon. Everything else, isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakron Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Well, there are plenty of books and comics on Boba Fett that paid for licensing, and feature a Lucas approved logo, but they completely contradict cannon, or rather the movies contradict them. Paying for a Lucas logo does not make one official, or cannon. It was been said the movies are absolute cannon, the movies novilizations come next (only the movies override then). People cannot complain about events that happened 4000 years before the movies take place, Lucas is not going to make movies about that time period. As for EVERYTHING Star Wars it passes one of Lucas companies, its not without a reason of why Dark Horse comics also have a LucasBook logo, it have to be aproved by then, it comes with the Star Wars license. Star Wars is one of most protected license in existence. The fact many things are simply not official is because the movie contradict then, sometiings were never meant to be taken as official (the "Tales" comic series for example) in the first place. If people are denying the "Tales of the Jedi" comics as being official they are denying the existence of Kun, Ulic and many characters that happen to appear in the Star Wars database ... I dont think there is any need for me to tell how absurd that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now