Sikon Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 Is 'True Sith' considered canon?If you mean G-canon, or the movie canon, then no. If you mean C-canon, or the EU canon, which some people don't consider canon, then yes.
Darth_Schmarth Posted December 30, 2005 Posted December 30, 2005 From my point of view, what ever is in the movies is canon. Yes, some elements of EU have made it into the movies, and some characters have even made it into lore. Whaddaya mean "lore"? ^Asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum
Dark Wastl Posted December 30, 2005 Posted December 30, 2005 The term "Sith" is NOT from the EU nor was Vader ever a dark Jedi. The first mentioning of the Sith came in Lucas' first synopsis of Star Wars. The word then came up in the movie script as well, calling Vader the "Dark Lord of the Sith". As for the canon-debate: Everything apart from infinities is considered canon. You don't have to like every story, but that doesn't mean that you can decide what's canon an what's not. First come the movies, followed by everything that belongs to the movies and then comes the rest.
213374U Posted December 30, 2005 Posted December 30, 2005 (edited) The term "Sith" is NOT from the EU nor was Vader ever a dark Jedi. The first mentioning of the Sith came in Lucas' first synopsis of Star Wars. The word then came up in the movie script as well, calling Vader the "Dark Lord of the Sith". I'd like to see your evidence for this, if it's not asking too much. I'd like to know why we didn't see any of it in the OT, and we had to wait for certain EU material to appear to know of the "Sith", as well. Edited December 30, 2005 by 213374U - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Surreptishus Posted December 30, 2005 Posted December 30, 2005 I used to have an accompanying book to Return of the Jedi. it profiled all the main characters and gave an abridged version of the story. It referred to Vader as Lord of the Sith. The concept of sith may have been in the early drafts of Lucas's script before he he split it up into three movies and the OT DVD documentaries may comment on it (can't remember myself) However the word sith didn't crop up in the movies until Phantom Menace. I'm willing to guess that this idea was hardly developed at the time of the OT and only gained substance through the EU and was then co opted by Lucas when creating teh prequels.
Darth_Schmarth Posted December 30, 2005 Posted December 30, 2005 But how much of an after thought is the concept "Darth" being a title as opposed to a name? ^Asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum
Sikon Posted December 30, 2005 Posted December 30, 2005 nor was Vader ever a dark Jedi.Technically, he was. Revan, Malak, Dooku, Anakin = Jedi who fell to the dark side, hence Dark Jedi. They were also Sith. Darth Sidious and Darth Maul were Sith, but not Dark Jedi, since they never were Jedi. Dark Jedi who were not Sith are only found in the EU, unless you count Aayla Secura (redeemed by the time of ROTS or even AOTC, I don't remember), who was a EU character to begin with and isn't that important for the movies, or Luke, who remained light throughout the movies (and only fell briefly).However the word sith didn't crop up in the movies until Phantom Menace. I'm willing to guess that this idea was hardly developed at the time of the OT and only gained substance through the EU and was then co opted by Lucas when creating teh prequels.Yes, Lucas pays more attention to the EU than many think. And I'm not only talking about Aayla or Coruscant...
moreKOTORplz Posted December 30, 2005 Posted December 30, 2005 why fight about whether it is canon or not. if you put a star wars label on it then it pretty much becomes a part of star wars. what makes it really sink in is how popular it becomes. either way everything in star wars has its own little niche in the timeline so it all fits together (Lucas makes sure of that). just take the G, C canon as lucas is the boss
Surreptishus Posted December 30, 2005 Posted December 30, 2005 But how much of an after thought is the concept "Darth" being a title as opposed to a name? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Was there a darth between vader and maul?
foxdez Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 But how much of an after thought is the concept "Darth" being a title as opposed to a name? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Was there a darth between vader and maul? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well the only note worthy DSer between Maul and Vader was Dooku who was refered to as count.
Darth Viper Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 Palpitine and Maul are True Sith by Training and Sith Training is their only source of training. Vader, Dooku, Revan and Malak are Sith Converts. Technically they are Dark Jedi with Sith Training. Dark Jedi study both sides of the Force and they embrace the Dark Side. Sith(Dark Jedi with Sith Training) are typical FLY thru the ranks of the Siths. Sith(those without Jedi Training) are very dedicated to the Dark Side and they pride themselves in their hard training. So They are always in constant competition with Dark Jedi and other Sith. Freedon Nadd and Exar Kun had more Sith Knowledge than Revan or Malak had. IT doesnt mean that Revan or Malak are no less deadly than those two. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nice try... However, Vader is call, "Lord of the Sith"... He is not a Dark Jedi... Hense, 'Lord Vader'. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have to agree because if memory serves me correctly Sidious call Darth Maul, Lord Maul at one point in TPM.
Dark Wastl Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 (edited) I'd like to see your evidence for this, if it's not asking too much. I'd like to know why we didn't see any of it in the OT, and we had to wait for certain EU material to appear to know of the "Sith", as well. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just watch the making of's on the OT-DVD or use google to search for the Star Wars script... The word Sith existed right from the beginning, Lucas even talks about it in one of the documentaries. Even at the time where Luke was still called Starkiller and Mace Windu was in the original movie as well. The word wasn't in the movies, because there was no need for it. The first time it is mentioned in the script, it describes Vader, but describtions rarely make it into movies. As for Vader not being a Sith in the pure sense, that's not true at all. Vader is the epitome of a Sith, he is the first Sith Lucas created. Jedi-teachings mean nothing, in this case the movies count more, and the movies (or better the scripts) make Vader the original Sith. He basically defined the Sith, even though he didn't end up as the first Sith in the timeline, as anybody can tell. Edited December 31, 2005 by Dark Wastl
Darth_Schmarth Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 But how much of an after thought is the concept "Darth" being a title as opposed to a name? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Was there a darth between vader and maul? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You misunderstand me. What I meant was this: Did Lucas think of Darth as a first name for Vader or was it a title already in the OT? But how much of an after thought is the concept "Darth" being a title as opposed to a name? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Was there a darth between vader and maul? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well the only note worthy DSer between Maul and Vader was Dooku who was refered to as count. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dooku had a Sith name: Darth Tyranus. And Palpatine's name is after all Darth Sidious. ^Asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum
Sikon Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 You misunderstand me. What I meant was this: Did Lucas think of Darth as a first name for Vader or was it a title already in the OT?Originally, the name Darth Vader was planned for an Imperial officer. Apparently Lucas planned Darth to be a name; notice how Obi-Wan in ANH repeatenedly calls Vader "Darth".
Kinokono Posted January 1, 2006 Posted January 1, 2006 I remember Canderous also mentioning something about an unknown entity attacking him and his mandolorian warriors then flying outside of know space, perhaps that might have something to with the "true sith" but I there is a race of people who wish the death of the Force, the Yuuzhan Vong supposedly they invade the galaxy and are immune to the force. http://www.starwars.com/databank/species/yuuzhanvong/
Musopticon? Posted January 1, 2006 Posted January 1, 2006 *sigh* That encounter was just a nod to the EU heritage of the game, nothing more. No foreshadowing or a sign of things to come. No company would be so stupid as to try and fit Vong to the Old Republic setting. kirottu said: I was raised by polar bears. I had to fight against blood thirsty wolves and rabid penguins to get my food. Those who were too weak to survive were sent to Sweden. It has made me the man I am today. A man who craves furry hentai. So let us go and embrace the rustling smells of unseen worlds
darknesslord Posted January 1, 2006 Posted January 1, 2006 I think you underestimate the resolve of bioware
Xard Posted January 5, 2006 Author Posted January 5, 2006 Well, it looks like after all, that during k1 there WERE the true sith, not Obsidian creation. Found this piece of evidence, talking with Canderous about mandalorian wars: (after Leviathan) Canderous: In the end, you proved too much for us. Revan: But what about the Sith? Canderous: The Sith had gone - retreated into their empire. They sealed themselves off from rest of the galaxy. We thought it would be centuries before they'd would come back. So it weren't Revan who came to mandalorians. (I want k3 now! Gonna kick their asses ) How can it be a no ob build. It has PROVEN effective. I dare you to show your builds and I will tear you apart in an arugment about how these builds will won them. - OverPowered Godzilla (OPG)
Guest MacLeodCorp Posted January 5, 2006 Posted January 5, 2006 I think people are reading too hard into this subject... I don't think there is such a thing as a 'True Sith'. After playing both KotOR I and II over again, I can honestly tell you I have not encountered any conversation about 'True Sith'. 'True Sith' is a false interpretation of dialogue content.
darknesslord Posted January 5, 2006 Posted January 5, 2006 I think people are reading too hard into this subject... I don't think there is such a thing as a 'True Sith'. After playing both KotOR I and II over again, I can honestly tell you I have not encountered any conversation about 'True Sith'. 'True Sith' is a false interpretation of dialogue content. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> eerrrr, yes of course, when someone talk about banana, he obviously isnt talking about banana.
Plano Skywalker Posted January 5, 2006 Posted January 5, 2006 I think people are reading too hard into this subject... I don't think there is such a thing as a 'True Sith'. After playing both KotOR I and II over again, I can honestly tell you I have not encountered any conversation about 'True Sith'. 'True Sith' is a false interpretation of dialogue content. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I believe the only time "True Sith" is used in K2 is when the Exile (after mortally wounding her) asks Kreia about where Revan went. She mentions that he went into the Unknown Regions to look for "the Sith, the true Sith". why would the Exile need to hear "True Sith"? Because he already knows that Revan became a Sith lord and, perhaps, is now starting to piece together the idea that Revan's Sith amounted to a scorched earth plan that would (at least in theory) help save the Republic. Revan's "Sith" are little more than pro-Republic assassins (and many of them don't even know they are pro-Republic).
Surreptishus Posted January 5, 2006 Posted January 5, 2006 In K1 during one of Jolee's ramblings, he differentiates between types of sith branding Malak and Co. as not being genuine sith or something to that effect IIRC.
Xard Posted January 9, 2006 Author Posted January 9, 2006 (edited) This is off-topic, but is there any stats of how many Jedi/Dark Jedi there where during Jedi Civil War? How many Jedi left with Revan against Mandalorians, how many J/DJ where during capture of Revan etc etc. I mean, during Ep I there were only 10 000 Jedi, and that wasn't much (it was said on somewhere). In that case, during kotor there should be at least tens of thousands of both of them. and how big part of Jedi Order went to Mandalorian Wars? During end of k1, there were much more Dark Jedi than Jedi. When numbers turned against Jedi Order? I really want to know, if there is any stats. I've thought this very much, and i'm so bored to do possible numbers of Jedi during that and that-list. edit:went, not go. Bad englsih, bad. Edited January 11, 2006 by Xard How can it be a no ob build. It has PROVEN effective. I dare you to show your builds and I will tear you apart in an arugment about how these builds will won them. - OverPowered Godzilla (OPG)
Dark Moth Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 why would the Exile need to hear "True Sith"? Because he already knows that Revan became a Sith lord and, perhaps, is now starting to piece together the idea that Revan's Sith amounted to a scorched earth plan that would (at least in theory) help save the Republic. Revan's "Sith" are little more than pro-Republic assassins (and many of them don't even know they are pro-Republic). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Try "vast majority" of them. I still stand by that Revan's actions helped the Republic in no way, and his actions showed clearly that he had no intention of saving the Republic. Between Revan's actions and Kreia's words, I'd take Revan's actions as truth any day. Waging war against the Republic in order to save it is both absurd and entirely unrealistic. Nothing like that has ever happened in real life, and everyone knows civil war only weakens a nation, which is exactly what happened to the Republic. You don't wage war against a nation in order to help it. The Republic already had its share of wars to begin with, and it was already weakened by the Mandalorian Wars and the war with Exar Kun. So how can one even say Revan became the Republic's villain in order to save it? They can't, because he didn't.
Dark Wastl Posted January 10, 2006 Posted January 10, 2006 Kreia is right. Revan didn't try to save the Republic, you can't save the Republic by changing it to something it can't be. He tried to save the galaxy. Basically, he tried to save the country and the nation, not the political form it has. The idea behind that is that the Republic, lead by the senate and the inactive Jedi council, would never react accordingly to an attack from the outside, nor would they use the tactics necessary to beat the True Sith. If there is only one leader, who doesn't have to listen to anybody, he could easily go to war. He wouldn't be reluctant like the Jedi or the senate, he would use tactics which the Republic wouldn't even think about (see the war against the Mandalorians). If he wouldn't be interested in saving the galaxy, why should he leave it and search for the Sith empire, if you play him as a darksider? He already controles the galaxy, why risk that by leaving everything behind?
Recommended Posts