Jump to content
Jediphile

Dark Lord of the Sith??

Recommended Posts

Someone please explain to me how the Dark Lord of the Sith title actually works.

 

The way I figured it, there is only one, and you gain the position by killing the ruling Dark Lord.

 

Okay, but then how can Vader be Dark Lord of the Sith while Sidious clearly still lives? According to Wikipedia, both Darth Maul and Count Dooku (as Darth Tyranus) held the title before him, while they too were clearly apprentices to Sidious/Palpatine...

 

How does that add up? After all, it's not as if they are the lords who accept Sidious as a mentor and advisor, no, they clearly take orders from him and are very submissive and respectful. Note how Vader actually kneels before Palpatine and calls him master in the RotJ. I don't quite get it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone please explain to me how the Dark Lord of the Sith title actually works.

 

The way I figured it, there is only one, and you gain the position by killing the ruling Dark Lord.

 

Okay, but then how can Vader be Dark Lord of the Sith while Sidious clearly still lives? According to Wikipedia, both Darth Maul and Count Dooku (as Darth Tyranus) held the title before him, while they too were clearly apprentices to Sidious/Palpatine...

 

How does that add up? After all, it's not as if they are the lords who accept Sidious as a mentor and advisor, no, they clearly take orders from him and are very submissive and respectful. Note how Vader actually kneels before Palpatine and calls him master in the RotJ. I don't quite get it...

During the time of KOTOR, there was only one true Dark Lord of the Sith, with an apprentice who would eventually betray his/her master. However, the factor of Darth Bane comes in a declares that there should be only two sith at a time. Two Dark Lords. The master and the apprentice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone please explain to me how the Dark Lord of the Sith title actually works.

 

The way I figured it, there is only one, and you gain the position by killing the ruling Dark Lord.

 

Okay, but then how can Vader be Dark Lord of the Sith while Sidious clearly still lives? According to Wikipedia, both Darth Maul and Count Dooku (as Darth Tyranus) held the title before him, while they too were clearly apprentices to Sidious/Palpatine...

 

How does that add up? After all, it's not as if they are the lords who accept Sidious as a mentor and advisor, no, they clearly take orders from him and are very submissive and respectful. Note how Vader actually kneels before Palpatine and calls him master in the RotJ. I don't quite get it...

 

I love Star Wars with all my heart. But when you look outside of the movies, the expanded universe is a very confusing place, where anyone can just come in and add or change things in GL's universe and some people are actually paid to fill in the wholes so that all the stories come together.

Your question is very valid. Unfortunately, you probably won't be able to get a straight answer here. *Caugh*Fanboys*Caugh*.

 

Stick to the first trilogy, Ep 4-5-6, the rest is just filler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love Star Wars with all my heart. But when you look outside of the movies, the expanded universe is a very confusing place, where anyone can just come in and add or change things in GL's universe and some people are actually paid to fill in the wholes so that all the stories come together.

Your question is very valid. Unfortunately, you probably won't be able to get a straight answer here. *Caugh*Fanboys*Caugh*.

 

Stick to the first trilogy, Ep 4-5-6, the rest is just filler.

 

Except that this is the problem right in the original trilogy as well. I realise lots of people dislike the EU, but I actually find it impressive that they can tell so many stories without great numbers of gaping plotholes. And if Lucas has put one of his own right there in the movies, even the original three, then can you blame them if something goes wrong in the EU? They can at least claim that there are 'too many cooks', but the movies are by Lucas alone, so the criticism against him would be more severe, I think, since we can actually expect that he keeps his major but limited part of the story straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the dark lord of the sith is a title like "master" even tho master is used in the best of the best sense there are more that one. same thing for sith, to be the dark lord of the sith you must have a certain understanding of it, and there can be more that one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well if you follow the EU you could argue that neither technically holds the title as Exar Kun is still around. If you discount him, well I guess then that you can say taht the Emperor was never a Dark Lord. From what I can tell all he did was really manupulate the others into believing he had power and was REALLY good with a blade. :ph34r:

 

And you shouldn't trust wiki completly.


Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition!

 

Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone please explain to me how the Dark Lord of the Sith title actually works.

 

The way I figured it, there is only one, and you gain the position by killing the ruling Dark Lord.

 

Okay, but then how can Vader be Dark Lord of the Sith while Sidious clearly still lives? According to Wikipedia, both Darth Maul and Count Dooku (as Darth Tyranus) held the title before him, while they too were clearly apprentices to Sidious/Palpatine...

 

How does that add up? After all, it's not as if they are the lords who accept Sidious as a mentor and advisor, no, they clearly take orders from him and are very submissive and respectful. Note how Vader actually kneels before Palpatine and calls him master in the RotJ. I don't quite get it...

 

Simple answer? George Lucas makes things up as he goes and changes things whenever he feels he wants or needs to. The explanations for the Dark Lord of the Sith title then fall to the EU continuity gurus and that's the best they could come up with.


"Console exclusive is such a harsh word." - Darque

"Console exclusive is two words Darque." - Nartwak (in response to Darque's observation)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word ''Sith'' is never used in the original trilogy. Not spoken, not written, nada, zip, nothin'.

 

The term came later in the EU therefore, filler.

 

I read somewhere that GL had it in his personal notes on characters for the original trilogy but since it never made it in there and that it is also speculation, it's still filler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The word ''Sith'' is never used in the original trilogy. Not spoken, not written, nada, zip, nothin'.

 

The term came later in the EU therefore, filler.

 

I read somewhere that GL had it in his personal notes on characters for the original trilogy but since it never made it in there and that it is also speculation, it's still filler.

WRONG! The term Sith was used in the original script of A New Hope and in the novel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Dark Lord of the Sith is not the Pope.

 

there is no formal ceremony were the great council sets a laurel wreath on your head and sprinkles water on you around a candlelit room or anything like that.

 

have you ever seen Kull the Conquerer? basically the main character declares that all previous laws are invalid. he lifts up his giant battle axe and says "I am Kull and by this axe, I rule".

 

that is more or less how Sith operate. if you are the alpha character, everybody just knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another thing to keep in mind is that nobody goes around saying "I have a 530 meeting with the Darth Lord of the Sith". No, it would be: "I have a 530 meeting with Darth Sidious (or the Emperor, as it were)".

 

Dark Lord of the Sith is a term for historians to use in their records.

 

"Darth" is the abbreviated form but it also becomes a more generic title like "Lord". Vader is referred to as both "Darth" and "Lord" in the movies as though the terms are interchangeable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats not true. Darth is a title is the sith title not as in lord. so and example would be "lord darth vader" compared to "grand admeral trawn" its one title after another

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thats not true. Darth is a title is the sith title not as in lord. so and example would be "lord darth vader" compared to "grand admeral trawn" its one title after another

 

"Grand Admiral" is not 2 titles but 1. Grand is just a qualifier for Admiral.

 

"Lord Darth" would be like saying "Sir Knight".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The word ''Sith'' is never used in the original trilogy. Not spoken, not written, nada, zip, nothin'.

 

The term came later in the EU therefore, filler.

 

I read somewhere that GL had it in his personal notes on characters for the original trilogy but since it never made it in there and that it is also speculation, it's still filler.

WRONG! The term Sith was used in the original script of A New Hope and in the novel.

 

Can you hear or read it IN THE MOVIES? No! The novel came after the movie, so it's EU. The original script changed and it was cut.

If it's not in the OT, it's EU and it's filler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The word ''Sith'' is never used in the original trilogy. Not spoken, not written, nada, zip, nothin'.

 

The term came later in the EU therefore, filler.

 

I read somewhere that GL had it in his personal notes on characters for the original trilogy but since it never made it in there and that it is also speculation, it's still filler.

WRONG! The term Sith was used in the original script of A New Hope and in the novel.

 

Can you hear or read it IN THE MOVIES? No! The novel came after the movie, so it's EU. The original script changed and it was cut.

If it's not in the OT, it's EU and it's filler.

True enough that its not said, doesn't mean that the term Sith was not created by EU as you put it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The word ''Sith'' is never used in the original trilogy. Not spoken, not written, nada, zip, nothin'.

 

The term came later in the EU therefore, filler.

 

I read somewhere that GL had it in his personal notes on characters for the original trilogy but since it never made it in there and that it is also speculation, it's still filler.

WRONG! The term Sith was used in the original script of A New Hope and in the novel.

 

Can you hear or read it IN THE MOVIES? No! The novel came after the movie, so it's EU. The original script changed and it was cut.

If it's not in the OT, it's EU and it's filler.

 

That doesn't quite add up... I knew a guy several years ago who read the book and was then actually a bit disappointed when the movie came out - note that this was way back in the 76-77 period, when the first movie came out, so I'm pretty sure the book was released at the same as the film or before. And either way, GL certainly wrote the book before the movie was released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The word ''Sith'' is never used in the original trilogy. Not spoken, not written, nada, zip, nothin'.

 

The term came later in the EU therefore, filler.

 

I read somewhere that GL had it in his personal notes on characters for the original trilogy but since it never made it in there and that it is also speculation, it's still filler.

WRONG! The term Sith was used in the original script of A New Hope and in the novel.

 

Can you hear or read it IN THE MOVIES? No! The novel came after the movie, so it's EU. The original script changed and it was cut.

If it's not in the OT, it's EU and it's filler.

True enough that its not said, doesn't mean that the term Sith was not created by EU as you put it.

 

I've been saying that the term ''Sith'' came after the OT, with the EU. In the OT, there are only Jedis. Some Jedis ''use'' the Light side of the force (Luke, ObiWan, Yoda) others use the Dark Side (Darth Vader and Emperor Palpatine).

In the OT, Darth Vader is a name, not a rank or status and DV is the Emperor's goon, not a Dark Lord. He even takes orders from Tarkin.

I'm also saying, like many others, that everything Star Wars that is not ON FILM in the OT is EU.

The EU is not bad in fact, most of it is really, really good. But it's also a way for some people to make more money using the passion we have for this great made up universe. Somehow, that has always seemed wrong to me. And to many others as well.

I'm not dissing the EU, just the fact that it's filler, to keep Star Wars alive so that some people can continue to make money while we starve because we buy to much Star Wars stuff :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...