A True Sith

Knight Joined: 20 Jun 2012 Posts: 128

A question that seems to be coming up recently in Star Wars is whether someone is truly a Sith or not, so here's a place for people to post their rules for a true Sith, and debate whether different characters were Sith or not.

Well, that varies depending on the era. In the Old (older) Republic days it seems that anyone who embraced the dark side and who didn't have much of a conscience could be called a Sith. In the Bane era, however, it's a bit more tricky. There were only a few Banite Sith, yes, but I vaguely recall there being others who called themselves Sith. I hesitate from calling them 'true' Sith simply because they weren't the main threat to the Jedi. Yet that should not be a point in classification. So, simply put, a Sith is one who embraces the dark side, having specifically rejected the light, and is powerful enough and well-versed enough in Sith lore to be a threat to the galaxy, or at least localised portions of it.
_________________
I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it. These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.

Knight Joined: 20 Jun 2012 Posts: 128

Just something I've seen brough up recently is the while Sith vs. Dark Jedi thing. So you would say a Sith is a threat to a large part of the galaxy, while a Dark Jedi isn't, correct?

I wouldn't say that, necessarily. A dark Jedi could easily be a threat to the galaxy at large. Perhaps the best way to differentiate between the two is merely that a dark Jedi is just one who was once a Jedi? That a dark Jedi is a Sith in all but name, it's merely to show where they come from. And perhaps, in universe, it's used as a term by those who would call themselves Sith to look down at those they'd call dark Jedi, to show that they're less than them.
_________________
I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it. These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.

I always thought Dark Jedi was used to describe any dark-sider who was not a Sith, regardless of whether or not they had been a Jedi.
_________________
"But it was so artistically done."

“No. I am Ganner. This threshold is mine. I claim it for my own. Bring on your thousands, one at a time or all in a rush. I don’t give a damn. None shall pass.”

“Eventually, we all betray something, Tahiri. It’s what you stay true to that counts.”

"Shaken, not stirred, will get you cold water with a dash of gin and dry vermouth. The reason you stir it with a special spoon is so not to chip the ice. James is ordering a weak martini and being snooty about it."

Master Joined: 09 Jun 2009 Posts: 1417

I think Dark Jedi refuses specifically to Jedi who go dark. I've heard Dark Side adherents, Dark Forcer users, and a number of descriptor titles for individuals/groups who follow the Dark side.

Sith are those who specifically follow Sith teachings/training. Of course, that's changed over time and era.
_________________
Roqoo Depot co-founder.

Without reading anyone else's post...I'd say the thing that differentiates a Dark Jedi from a Sith is one of philosophy. Anyone who calls them self a Sith does so because they embrace some kind of philosophy that they associate with the Sith. Occasionally someone re-invents what the true Sith philosophy was, like Bane, but it all comes back to an individual decrying that this is the Sith philosophy, and others follow it.
_________________

Knight Joined: 20 Jun 2012 Posts: 128

I would agree with most people here, in that they have to follow specific teachings. I would say the core is that they must value power above all else, even what they love. We've seen Sith sacrifice what they care about for power a few times in the EU and it seems to me like it would fit to be a core teaching.

And what do you guys think about characters like Darth Maul, or Jacen Solo? I've heard debate on both, so were they true Sith??

Knight Joined: 20 Jul 2011 Posts: 111

Maul was a true enough Sith by the definition that he was a powerful darksider who followed Sith teachings. But he wasn't a true Rule of Two Sith IMO, for he had no ambition to supplant Palp, and AFAIK didn't even know that this was the thing to do. In addition to being deliberately used as a tool rather than a true apprentice.
_________________
I discuss to learn, not to win. Then again, learning enough tends to translate to victory in the end anyway.

I think a Sith doesn't just need to follow Sith teachings, but needs to have a Sith teacher. That's the foundation of the Rule of Two and it held for every Sith after that, even if they didn't follow the rule itself.

I think that Palpatine never really embraced the Sith philosophy, or at least the idea of any Sith organization. He certainly didn't follow the Rule Of Two because he wanted followers and servants, not apprentices. But he followed the Sith tradition of a teacher and student, if not a master and apprentice. Same for Lumiya, same for Darth Cadeus.

If you want to follow the most basic tradition of a true Sith being a person whose ancestry is indigenous of Korriban, no Dark Lords after Darth Bane are ethnically Sith, other than from the Lost Tribe.
_________________
They have taken the hearts and minds of our leaders. They have recruited the rich and the powerful, and they have blinded us to the truth! Our human spirit is corrupted. Why do we worship greed? Because, outside the limit of our sight, feeding off us, perched on top of us from birth to death are OUR OWNERS. They have us! They control us! They are our masters! Wake up! They’re all about you, all around you!

Other than being a darksider and having some knowledge of Sith teachings from the Sith that came before him/her/them (the first Sith Lords being excluded here), there isn't a strict definition of what or who a true Sith is.

Imo whomever has the power to do so, gets to tell what it truly means to be a Sith.

So I belive that someone like Darth Krayt was a true Sith, even though Holocrons of the past Sith called him a pretender. They may not like his kind of rule, but they can't do anything to stop it.

By this definition Jacen was a true Sith.
I think Palpatine/Plagueis get to decide whether Maul is a Sith or not. Its not up to Bane anymore, nor is it up to us the fans.

Nothing I've said is official though, so it may all be wrong.

While it seems obvious that a Sith should be anyone who considers themselves as such, I think it's also clear that couldn't be said when it comes to Jedi. A person who is not a formal member of the Jedi organization isn't a Jedi just because they say they are. A Jedi can only be given that title from another Jedi.

Darth Krayt follows the Sith philosophy, practices it's techniques and led the only known Sith group after the time of Luke Skywalker... but he was rejected by Darth Bane as a Sith. Darth Bane was a true Sith and a member of the group that followed a de facto succession back to it's original founders and down onto Darth Sidious and his successors. By that token the last true Sith of the Bane line was Darth Cadeus who was legitimate as the apprentice of Lumiya, the apprentice of Darth Vader, the apprentice of Sidious, etc.

So I would say that Krayt's One Sith cannot be called "true" Sith by any formal or conventional definition....

Unless they merged with the Lost Tribe at some point after 45 ABY. The Lost Tribe are true Sith dating back to the first Sith Empire, so they could legitimize the One Sith...

Unless Bane was the Sith'ari, in which case he should be the authority for all things Sith and supersede even the Lost Tribe.
_________________
They have taken the hearts and minds of our leaders. They have recruited the rich and the powerful, and they have blinded us to the truth! Our human spirit is corrupted. Why do we worship greed? Because, outside the limit of our sight, feeding off us, perched on top of us from birth to death are OUR OWNERS. They have us! They control us! They are our masters! Wake up! They’re all about you, all around you!

Knight Joined: 20 Jun 2012 Posts: 128

Now see I've heard before that Palpatine wasn't a Rule of Two Sith, but I think that depends on how you look at it. Bane started the Rule of Two both so that the Sith would be continually getting stronger, and because he realized flat-out Jedi vs. Sith war wasnt the best way of beating the Jedi. Now Palpatine was the one who made the power play, who became Chancellor, who started the Clone Wars, corrupted the chosen one, destroyed the Jedi and though his master tried to change it, Palpatine followed the Rule of Two in killing his master. So while Palpatine wasn't a traditional Rule of Two Sith, he was kinda the culmination or climax of the Rule of Two.

Knight Joined: 20 Jul 2011 Posts: 111

Page 1 of 3		All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next