Dark Lord of the Sith??

[Jediphile]

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...

[Wild Storm]

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...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[astr0creep]

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...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Jediphile]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Darth_Zonos]

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

[Calax]

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.

[GhostofAnakin]

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...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Darth_Zonos]

very true

[astr0creep]

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.

[Wild Storm]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

[Darth_Onivega]

i am dark lord of the sith and darth sembo will be my apprentice! MUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

[Darth_Zonos]

hes right vader was the called the "sith" many times during 79 and 99 in books, comics, etc etc

[Plano Skywalker]

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.

[Darth_Zonos]

ya you sorta got the right idea

[Plano Skywalker]

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.

[Darth_Zonos]

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

[Plano Skywalker]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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

 

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

[Darth_Zonos]

but people do say 'sir knight' so u make a bad agument, and i coulded think of an example so i weant with trawn.

[Plano Skywalker]

but people do say 'sir knight'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yes they do...but it is kind of lame.

[Darth_Zonos]

meh i don't care if it sounds dumb

[astr0creep]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Darth_Zonos]

it was meantion once i think

[Wild Storm]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

[Jediphile]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[astr0creep]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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