What exactly is a Sith?

[Morgan Evanar]

In the recent and not so recent past, there has always been a degree of confusion regarding Sith.

I think that anyone can feel free to call themselves Sith. Whether they are Sith or not, this should probably offend other Sith.


[14:47] Dru: i think just because someone is a sith lord doesn't mean they're automatically power-hungry evil bastards
[14:47] Morgan Evanar: Yah
[14:47] Morgan Evanar: well yes it does
[14:47] Morgan Evanar: but they can be really patient, rational, calculating
[14:47] Morgan Evanar: power hungry evil bastards
[14:48] Dru: sith lords are smart and ruthless, they are driven with the desire for revenge of their kind and bring back the golden age, as it were. it's just that in doing so and in using the darkside, they are then warped with a thirst for power and a complete disregard for humanity.
[14:49] Dru: a sith lord is only truly evil because they practice the use of the darkside
[14:49] Morgan Evanar: isn't the desire for the control they need also evil?
[14:50] Dru: i'm not sure, see, palpatine sees himself as a saviour more than a tyrranical dictator
[14:51] Dru: after all, anakin wasn't evil when he became a sith lord; he regretted it but it was something he had to do in order to save padme.
[14:52] Morgan Evanar: Saving the Republic from the corruption of both an inneffiecient beaucracy and the Jedi who had become so entirely stodgy as to be ineffective
Dru: he did, as he said to padme "want more" but it wasn't until after slaughtering the jedi and separatists that he was truly beginning to be warped into a real villain: his new empire, etc. and even then he saw himself as a saviour
[14:53] Dru: i think that's part of the distinction
[14:53] Dru: when someone becomes a dark jedi, they have chosen to become evil
[14:53] Morgan Evanar: or fallen into it easily enough
[14:53] Dru: when someone becomes a sith apprentice, they will eventually become evil through their thirst for power and through their master's teachings
[14:55] Dru: the last thing i want to see is people roleplaying sith as mindless evil charicatures, who condescend the jedi who in turn pity the sith as some retarded bunch of madmen
[14:56] Dru: because, in all fairness, palpatine is the smartest person in all of star wars
[14:58] Morgan Evanar: absolutely

[Darth Lucid]

Well your right most sith aren't mindless and do focus more on the deception part of sith code. Yet you can't forget the old sith empire did pretty much destroy itself internally. Also a good point of a mindless sith from the movies would Be maul he focusesed on his killing skills.

Also remember sith are masters of deception there goals aren't always that clearly defined. In my opinion palp was exceptional at deception but he didn't nessarily beleive he was savior but he knew exactly what he was a power hungry sith.

[Anbira Hicchoru]

Palpatine knew better than to think he was the good guy in this mess. He wanted it all, and he didn't care how. It isn't that somebody decides to be evil, but its selfishness at all costs that becomes true evil.

[Darth Malice]

I think the confusion stems from the fact that there are so many scattered EU sources. I can't blame anyone for just thinking of "Sith" as a term for evil force user. Because I'd lay money that Lucas hasn't developed them any further than that.

But from what I can tell in the comics and games, Sith is the name for those who study methods of deliberately corrupting the Force to achieve an unnatural effect.

All other dark Jedi who simply use the Force as is for selfish means aren't necessarily Sith. Exar Kun was not a Sith, for example. He doesn't fit the profile. He was just a war mongerer who let his pride get the better of him.

It may never even occur to a dark Jedi to twist the Force into lightning, drain an enemy's bioenergy, or reverse the mind trick into a horrific vision. Those are probably Sith spells/techniques. Or maybe someone could figure it out on their own. I dunno.

Remember that the EU has established that some force sensitive people have different innate power focus. And once you get beyond telekinesis, psychic awareness, and subtle emotional manipulation, you're getting into those specialities. Not everyone can do them, and those that can do them can't necessarily do them ALL.

Anywho back on topic... the Sith have had many incarnations over the centuries. A millenia ago, they were a religious cult so big they started a galaxy-wide war (Knights of the Old Republic games). They had bases, many students, and non-force-using agents. That's the model that the old TSO seemed to follow.

Sidious followed a different school of thought (founded, I believe, by Darth Bane) where to preserve the Sith teachings, you couldn't have more than one other disciple at any given time... otherwise they'd end up destroying themselves rather than conquering the weak like they're supposed to.

"True" Sith could be offended by some uninitiated neophyte who claims the title Darth all they want IC. Or they could see that the poor misguided youth simply doesn't understand and is need of a proper education.

All that said... being a Sith or any other faction of Dark Jedi has absolutely nothing to do with how rational or irrational that person is. Sidious was very calculating, but Vader was prone to killing subordinates on a whim. The only common thread they all have is their evil intent.

[Droo]

I agree with you to an extent, Charley, but if there's one thing we learn from The Phantom Menace was that how inneffective the senate was at doing pretty much anything. Palpatine saw the weaknesses and exploited them, as is the greedy and self-serving ways of the Dark Side, thus propelling himself to a position of absolute power over the galaxy. His motivation, I believe wasn't just selfish power craving, though. He certainly had an agenda and saw that agenda, the revenge of the Sith, as the perfect means to obtain power.

Taken from the official Revenge of the Sith visual encyclopedia:


The Sith have waited a millenium for the birth of one who is powerful enough to return them from hiding. Darth Sidious is that one - the Sith's revenge on the Jedi Order for having nearly erradicated the practioners of the Dark Side of the Force. Trained by Darth Plagueis, Sidious, in his guise as Palpatine, understood that the corrupt Republic and the subservient Jedi Order could be brought down by playing to the weaknesses of the former: it's mindless bureaucracy and attatchment to power.

In fact, the more I think of it, the more I believe that Sidious doesn't see himself as a villain or evil for that matter. His agenda is not to become a feared dictator, but to destroy the Jedi and avenge the Sith. That is his primary goal, but naturally being a Darksider, he does crave individual status and power. The vessel of galactic politics allows him a means of both revenge on the Jedi and individual power. If he is out for revenge on the Jedi, he must obviously feel the Sith were wronged and thus deserve justice against the Jedi Order. Remember what Anakin said:

"In my opinion, the Jedi are evil!"

I feel this is true of Sidious. He calls Yoda, the greatest of the Jedi, arrogant. He is not, by nature an evil man, he is simply a product of a man trained in using the Dark Side of the Force - this is what it does to a person. A Sith does not choose to be evil. It happens through use of the Dark Side. Sure, Palpatine is evil, aggressive, malicious, deceptive, and ruthless, but that is simply due to his quest for revenge and desire for personal status and power. And simply put, he doesn't see himself as evil.

Sidious saw the disarray in which the galaxy was in, politically speaking. He saw how ineffective the politics were and exploited them as a means of revenge but in attaining his status as emperor, he was then able to set things right throughout the galaxy, albeit in the fashion of a dictator. He says it himself:

"Once more the Sith will rule the galaxy and we will have peace."

Anakin claims to have brought peace, security, stability, etc. to his new empire. Both Sith Lords percieve what they are doing for the galaxy as selfless while at the same time serving their own selfish desires. As is the split personality of a true Sith Lord, they are by nature deceptive to not only the rest of the galaxy but one another.

Here's another excerpt from the official visual encyclopedia to reinforce my points:


Sidious does not consider himself evil but rather a saviour. After the destruction of the Jedi Order, he has no need to reveal his Sith identity, for he is now the beloved Emperor Palpatine, who has restored peace to the galaxy.

[Anbira Hicchoru]

Palpatine uses moral relativism as a tool, not as a motivation. By buying into it, I think you're showing just how effective he really is at it.

And no, I don't believe a bit of it either. He's evil for his own selfish and self-serving sake.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

He may not have started out as evil, but he is, unquestionably evil in his methods and his use of the Dark Side.

One thing I have a problem with is all the "Darth" people we have popping up on the boards. Not all the Sith were preceeded by "Darth," were they?

[XI-20-P]

LOL

Palpatine buying Anakin into the dark side bit - $5

Palpatine buying the whole galaxy into the empire bit - $200


Originally posted by Anbira Hicchoru
Palpatine uses moral relativism as a tool, not as a motivation. By buying into it, I think you're showing just how effective he really is at it.

^Priceless^

I agree more or less with Darth Malice, the Sith are the antithesis of the Jedi. That was Lucas general intention. The Jedi strive as a group to better the world in their selfless actions and the light side while the Sith strive for their own desires, sacrificing others to achieve their goals in the dark side. Two sides of a coin. Blah.

And agreed as well LD. Not every Sith had Darth in their name, those were titles given to the higher echelon of the Sith ranks, similar to Master Jedi. No one should technically just pop up and be known as Darth. But alas, what is one to do? Point them out and make sure the "True" Sith take them down a notch maybe? XD

[Darth Lucid]

All old school sith that where of the old ways before Bane used the title Darth.


Sidious followed a different school of thought (founded, I believe, by Darth Bane) where to preserve the Sith teachings, you couldn't have more than one other disciple at any given time... otherwise they'd end up destroying themselves rather than conquering the weak like they're supposed to.

*coughs* If you go by EU techinaclly sidious was the first sitht o break Banes rule of two.*cough*

(on another note the very orginal sith according to games and books where not even force user but rather a race of people. Then some rebel Jedi who left the order after being refused the chance to study the darkside showed up and stole there name.)

[Hera]

Originally posted by Anbira Hicchoru


And no, I don't believe a bit of it either. He's evil for his own selfish and self-serving sake.

I think this is the gist of it where Palpatine is concerned, as revealed by the way he dropped Vader like a bad habit and wanted Luke to take his place. It suited him to take the best for himself and destroy any other rival to his claim.

And, like Palpatine (and to similar extent Vader) they should be the examples of Sith rpers should emulate as much as possible.

The Sith want power. Their own ultimate power for their own purposes. There is nothing noble about their agendas at all.


One thing I have a problem with is all the "Darth" people we have popping up on the boards. Not all the Sith were preceeded by "Darth," were they?

When I first went to TalkCity back in the day, everyman and his pet iguana was a "Darth". I followed suit not knowing any better. Yet I have kept my title and Roleplayed myself into it.
The boards soon grew up and out of that, coming up with more genuine names.

Perhaps this trend is a similar thing?

People soon realize what the Darth is and adjust accordingly. (In a perfect universe anyway).

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Originally posted by Anbira Hicchoru
Palpatine uses moral relativism as a tool, not as a motivation. By buying into it, I think you're showing just how effective he really is at it.

And no, I don't believe a bit of it either. He's evil for his own selfish and self-serving sake. Perfectly said.

And I meant nothing against the Great DarthHERA! :eek :hug

Old school names is another thing all together. Remember the Lounge Lizard? *snickers*

[Hera]

I took no offence, LD :)

I am comfortable in my Darthness :D

[Droo]

Well, all these arguments are interesting but what they're proving to me is that by definition here, there is little to no difference between a Dark Jedi and a Sith Lord other than the latter exist in twosomes. This I cannot accept personally. I think there is more to a Sith Lord; duplicity is the key, I think. Inside Sidious is a man who was raised by his mentor, Pagueis, and was taught that their people, the Sith, were betrayed by the Jedi Order. He saw himself as the man to avenge his wronged people. In killing the Jedi, I have no doubt in my mind that Sidious believed what he was doing was just and right.

In Sidious's case, his first goal was to erradicate the Jedi and bring the Sith back to power, as it should be in his eyes - and in his eyes, he was doing no wrong. I stand by my belief about evil. Psychologically, I don't believe a person can knowingly carry out an evil act while aware that it is entirely evil. People aren't evil, they become evil through psychological disorientation and distortion. If Sidious knew the Jedi were good and the Sith were evil, I don't believe he would've gone about slaughtering them in the first place. It's simple nature and nurture effect, he was raised believing the Sith were wronged and in following the ways of the darkside and wanting revenge, he simply became evil and self-serving. He was simply corrupted along the way. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If we simply say that Sith are evil, selfish and self-serving then what makes them any different from a Dark Jedi other than the rule of two? There's got to be more to it than that, otherwise roleplayers with characters claiming to be Sith are in no position to have any qualms with people roleplaying their characters as Sith and simply having them run around mindlessly killing.


Palpatine uses moral relativism as a tool, not as a motivation. By buying into it, I think you're showing just how effective he really is at it.

Not at all. I'm simply going by canon sources explaining Sidious's motivations. I too thought he was just talking about peace to confuse Anakin but not according to the visual encyclopedia which claims Sidious actually percieves himself as the galaxy's saviour.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Well that's the way it's always been. Actually.

edit: Well we used to say that Dark Jedi were the more cunning, while Sith were more ruled by their emotions.

edit edit: What I believe now is that a Dark Jedi is simply a fallen Jedi to the Dark Side, and a Sith is a dark side user who never knew the Light.

[Droo]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
edit: Well we used to say that Dark Jedi were the more cunning, while Sith were more ruled by their emotions.

A definition I've never been comfortable with since Palpatine, as I've already said, is the most intelligent and cunning of all Star Wars characters. Dark Jedi, to me were nothing more than fallen Jedi ruled by greed and a lust for power. Sith, in my opinion, should have a very clearly defined agenda and use deception and intellect to achieve their goals.

Edit: Just saw your edit, Holly, and need to add something.

So we both mentioned that Dark Jedi are basically fallen Jedi, but Anakin is a fallen Jedi. Count Dooku is a fallen Jedi. They learn to use the Dark Side and are Sith Lords. Thus, what is different with them other than having the Darth title and existing in twos?

[Hera]

I had always viewed Dark Jedi as just that - Jedi who had no compunction for using their force powers for evil if the situation occassioned it. The weren't "as dark" per say. They had atleast a grasp of "balance' recognising the need for both good and evil.

Sith on the other had, to me, had a more driving force behind them. The absolute corruption of power and force ability.

And may I just add - I totally agree that to run around mindlessly annihilating everyone is NOT the example (for the most part) that Palpatine and Vader gave us.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Like I said, that was what we used to say, a few years ago. I didn't say that was what I thought now. :rolleyes I know Palpatine yada yada yada cunning bastard who rules through deception. Palpatine is also a Sith. So the FORMER definition that Sith are ruled by their emotions and just run around killing people is not true.

[Droo]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Like I said, that was what we used to say, a few years ago. I didn't say that was what I thought now. :rolleyes

And I made no such presumption. Please see my edit regarding Dark Jedi, Anakin and Dooku. I think it's an important point and one which may help us realise that we really need to strongly define the difference between a mere Dark Jedi and a Sith Lord.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I saw the edit. And - I have no idea.

[AmazonBabe]

edit edit: What I believe now is that a Dark Jedi is simply a fallen Jedi to the Dark Side, and a Sith is a dark side user who never knew the Light.

That's kinda how I always understood it, save with the Sith, they focused on the teachings from past Sith (though technically, I guess some Dark Jedi did this as well?).

[Hera]

What does that make Anakin then?

[Anbira Hicchoru]

The differing factor in the Sith and Dark Jedi are that the Sith actually seem to have a sense of dedication, that is, unto themselves.

The Dark Jedi are simply force sensitives that use the dark side. A Sith does this, but in adherence to a personal philosophy that all things done unto the world for one's own sake is the ultimate enlightenment. Really, they're the total opposite of a Jedi, as alluded by Palpatine & Anakin's operahouse discussion.


The Sith rely on their passions for their power. They think inwards, only of themselves....The Jedi are selfless, they care only about others

If you want to look at it in a strange light, consider the Jedi to be Buddhists, the Sith to be the Church of Satan, and the Dark Jedi to be Scientologists, or New Age hobby religionists. Best way of thinking about it that I can muster.

Actually it makes me think a lot about the Church of Satan really. Joke religion that it is aside, its got some really interesting perspectives on self gratification in all aspects of your life.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

So Dark Jedi act like Tom Cruise?!!? :eek

[Darth Malice]

I'm pretty much with Anbira. Sith is essentially a religion, or a philosophy. Dark Jedi is just a general term.

Dark Jedi: A person trained in Jedi skills that uses the Force for his own gains. This person either fell from the light or was corrupt from the get-go. It implies nothing about beliefs, just power. ... Exar Kun

Sith: A student and/or practitioner of methods (arts, sciences, or sorcery) that actively corrupt the force. They are more structured and follow a unified code (within their order). ... Darth Sidious and his various apprentices.

You can be a Dark Jedi who converts to Sith teachings. Don't see why not.

And I'll also add...

Force Adept / Dark Adept: Force practioner who was either trained by other means or are self-taught in their skills. ... Witches of Darthmoir, that cult from I, Jedi.

[Droo]

That said then, how can one differentiate between a Sith character and a Dark Jedi character in the way the choose to write and roleplay them?

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Perhaps there is no way to differentiate. I don't recall there being a distinction made between them in the movies.

[Droo]

Well, there aren't any Dark Jedi in the movies. That's the problem.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Let me reference the Dark Side Sourcebook I have at home. It will probably enlighten me on the subject.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Droo
Well, there aren't any Dark Jedi in the movies. That's the problem.


That's because Dark Jedi is a purely EU-based concept. Hence the problems in trying to define differences between Sith and Dark Jedi using canon sources. There is no real canon about Dark Jedi. We have to go by what has been described in books, cartoons, comics, reference volumes, etc.

That said, I think Charley pretty much nailed what the Sith are in comparison to Dark Jedi, and in reference to Jedi. It's not canon, but it can't be canon. It's just a problem we're going to have to accept and work around in terms of RP.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
So Dark Jedi act like Tom Cruise?!!? :eek

Yes.

They blindly follow a path that another truly evil being assures them is the key to personal gain.

L. Ron Hubbard could easily be a Darth.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Wait, now you're confusing me.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
Yes.

They blindly follow a path that another truly evil being assures them is the key to personal gain.

L. Ron Hubbard could easily be a Darth.


LMAO...

Charley, you're way too funny sometimes. :)

[Morgan Evanar]

Originally posted by Figrin D'an
That's because Dark Jedi is a purely EU-based concept. Hence the problems in trying to define differences between Sith and Dark Jedi using canon sources. There is no real canon about Dark Jedi. We have to go by what has been described in books, cartoons, comics, reference volumes, etc.

That said, I think Charley pretty much nailed what the Sith are in comparison to Dark Jedi, and in reference to Jedi. It's not canon, but it can't be canon. It's just a problem we're going to have to accept and work around in terms of RP. Yes there were. Count Dooku was a perfect example of a Dark Jedi in AOTC.

[Droo]

But at the same time he was actually Darth Tyrranus. So he was still a Sith.

I think, as far as the films were concerned, there was no such thing as a Dark Jedi. It was simply Jedi, and their rivals, the Sith Lords.

[Drin Kizael]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
Yes there were. Count Dooku was a perfect example of a Dark Jedi in AOTC.
And there was no distinction between Dooku, Vader, and Maul except their respective titles. The distinction is a fan/EU invention. As with so many other aspects of the Star Wars mythos, it's up to us to flesh it out.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Drin Kizael
And there was no distinction between Dooku, Vader, and Maul except their respective titles. The distinction is a fan/EU invention. As with so many other aspects of the Star Wars mythos, it's up to us to flesh it out.

Precisely. Dooku was a Sith Lord. He was Darth Tyrannus. Just because he left the Jedi Order, and became one of the Lost Twenty, doesn't mean that he was/became a Dark Jedi at that time. He disagreed with the Council and the way the Jedi were conducting themselves, so he left. Or maybe he was already being recruited by Sidious when he was still part of the Order, and his departure was orchestrated by Sidious himself. Either way, he went from Jedi to Sith, much like Anakin did. There's no evidence that he was ever a "Dark Jedi."

[Rognan Dar]

Originally posted by Darth Malice
Dark Jedi: A person trained in Jedi skills that uses the Force for his own gains. This person either fell from the light or was corrupt from the get-go. It implies nothing about beliefs, just power. ... Exar Kun


Jedi skills or training doesn't mean that it was taught by a Jedi. Grevious told Obi-Wan that he was trained in Jedi arts by Dooku. Now, being that Dooku was a Jedi he could do this. But why? It wouldn't make sense to have a fallen Jedi teach others "Jedi" things. Sure, the skills and stuff is stuff that could be taught to everyone without all the dogma. But why call it Jedi teachings? Why not just call them Sith teachings, because they are relatively the same?

I think the teachings that Grevious was refering to are just the general skills and teachings that any one and just about everyone could learn. And the only place to get any information on those skills would have been a Jedi, at the time, since the Sith were nothing more then a rumor, except to the Jedi.

So would there really be any difference in training between Jedi and Sith if you take out the dogma? After all, someone said that rogue Jedi were the ones that started the introduction into the Sith.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I believe "the Jedi arts" or "Jedi skills" is just another way of saying "the ways of the Force."

[Sanis Prent]

Correct.

Qui Gon mentioned this in TPM, of Darth Maul:


I don't know, but it was well-trained in the Jedi arts.

[XI-20-P]

I've just thought that Dark Jedi was a vague term for anyone not a Jedi or a Sith. I mean, to some extent there might be good force users not of the Jedi, but for the most part I've found the better part of rogue force users to have some darker qualities to them.

As I said before, the Jedi and the Sith are two sides of a coin. Lucas, as stated by others, never mentioned Dark Jedi in the movies. They are an EU concept and thus a big toss up. Hence,


Originally posted by Drin Kizael
The distinction is a fan/EU invention. As with so many other aspects of the Star Wars mythos, it's up to us to flesh it out.


Originally posted by Droo
I think, as far as the films were concerned, there was no such thing as a Dark Jedi. It was simply Jedi, and their rivals, the Sith Lords.

I've checked the Light Side Source book and the Dark Side Source book and it came up with a generalization for these rogue force users. Merely Force adepts and Dark force adepts. Dark force adepts moves more into the Witches of Dathomir and the like. Force adepts being what the Kel Dor religion would be similar to before they were introduced to the Jedi. I think that this should be taken into more consideration as far as labeling rather than the term Dark Jedi, as it is more vague than probably necessary.

From what I've noted from both books, the Sith and Jedi have a long term balance. Jedi rule, Sith hide, (supposed prophetic event) Sith rule, Jedi hide, (supposed prophetic event) Jedi rule, Sith hide, so on and so on. The Sith and the Jedi each have their own prophecy, which if you look at it from far away well enough, it ends up saying the same thing on both sides. The films though, I think, were a rushed procession of the force balance system, as the jedi were overthrown and then reestablished 20-30 years later I believe.

[Arya Ravenwing]

From what I understand then, there *is* no discernable difference between a Dark Jedi and a Sith. Disregarding EU, there is no mention of "Dark Jedi" and therefore a Sith would be considered a Jedi who is... Dark.

A Force adept or a Dark side adept would be the non-Jedi good force users, and the non-Sith bad force users.

Perhaps what should be decided is not the difference between Dark Jedi and Sith, but why we even use the term Dark Jedi at all.

[Drin Kizael]

Originally posted by Rognan Dar
Jedi skills or training doesn't mean that it was taught by a Jedi.

I could buy that just as well, too. If you just want to say that "Jedi Arts" is a broad stroke term akin to "Martial Artist"... then this whole discussion is moot.

Because you could just as easily say that "Sith" is the same kind of broad stroke term that simply meant "Dark Side Jedi".

Which is probably all Lucas intended.

And really... I've read and played quite a bit of material from RPGs, books, and comics... and none of them make this alleged distinction that some people are claiming. It's just not EU cannon. This is all fan-based extrapolation.

I kinda think people are reading too much into it to be honest. But by trying to break down the factions (I am Darth Malice, btw)... I was just trying to offer some suggestions of appeasement. :)

That said... It is still interesting to me to establish organziations and ideologies in the universe. It would add some depth to the concept to make Jedi mean something as opposed to Force Adepts. Or Sith to be a religion to distinguish themsevles from Dark Side Adepts.

Unless it's too confusing.

I'm good either way.

[Rognan Dar]

Could we just say that there is no such thing as a 'Dark Jedi'? Or just make a notice about how they are just about the same thing as a Sith? Because I really dont like the idea a dark jedi, or in my mind a fence sitter. Not on one or the other. Now, I'm not saying that people can't do this, but dont leave it as a main group to be called by.

Or maybe we could just set a definition for what a Dark Jedi could be, since its obvious that we dont know what they are anyways.

[Morgan Evanar]

Dark Jedi aren't fench sitters. They just might have initial motivations other than direct power.

[Drin Kizael]

Originally posted by Rognan Dar
Could we just say that there is no such thing as a 'Dark Jedi'? Or just make a notice about how they are just about the same thing as a Sith? Because I really dont like the idea a dark jedi, or in my mind a fence sitter. Not on one or the other.

I think this is the best solution. Seriously. And I'd add on a more basic level... "Dark Jedi" is an unwieldly term both to say aloud and type repeatedly. Sith is simple and to the point.

For those characters who don't want to be trained to such an extent, they can be the fence riders, so to speak, and not call themselves Sith if they want.

And if your character wants to be elitest about the whole thing and say "You're no Sith. Bah!" to those he considers beneath him in the dark arts or because they don't follow the teachings of Bane or whoever... fine. But I don't think it's a good idea to impose those standards on everyone. It would cause too much confusion.

That's my 2 creds.

[ReaperFett]

Originally posted by Arya Ravenwing
From what I understand then, there *is* no discernable difference between a Dark Jedi and a Sith. Disregarding EU, there is no mention of "Dark Jedi" and therefore a Sith would be considered a Jedi who is... Dark.

From TPM:

QUI-GON
...my only conclusion can be that it
was a Sith Lord.

MACE WINDU
A Sith Lord?!?

KI-ADI
Impossible! The Sith have been extinct
for a millenium.

If there are no Dark Jedi:

- What do they think Qui-Gon fought?

- Why have they practiced sabre combat when there is no one to fight?

- What do Jedi who have turned to the darkside do?

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I imagine that they call them dark side adepts.

[Blade Bacquin]

Well I think it depends on weather we are going strictly by the movies or if we are including EU.

If we are Including EU then there is a difference between Dark Jedi and sith. If we are going strictly by the movies (which i think restricts creativity) then there are no such things as dark Jedi.

Also if any of you have read EU exstensively what would you consider the Jenseri they study both sides of the force?

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Stupid.

[Darth Lucid]

Why is that stupid?

[Liam Jinn]

I always thought that the Sith had a code, and those who followed it were Sith.

The Jedi have a code, and those who follow it are Jedi.

Dark Jedi don't have a code, they're just kinda torn between two sides.

[Anbira Hicchoru]

No they're not. They're on a side. They just don't have any established dogma.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Using both sides of the Force is stupid. It can't be done. We also don't allow it to be RPed here at swfans as 'shadow Jedi' because, as it has been said many times over, once you start using the dark side, you are a dark sider. It's like putting a little bit of dirt into clean water. Can't say it's still clean water, because it is now dirty water. Doesn't matter if it's a lot of dirt, or a little, it's still dirt.

Same goes for Dark side usage by a 'lightsider.' Anakin stopped being a Jedi as soon as he lopped off Mace Windu's arm in anger. There is no "study both sides" of the Force. Palpatine claimed to have studied both sides of the Force, and he is no 'shadow jedi' or whatever, he is a full blown Sith Lord.

[Drin Kizael]

2 more creds into the pot...

If I were to structure this setting as if for my own campaign setting --which I'm not, so this is hypothetical-- I would establish some basics. This isn't based on Lucas and it's not even strict EU canon. It's how I like to see it...

Jedi and Sith are organized groups that follow established methods and doctrines. Bearing the title Jedi would be like being, say, a Shao-Lin Monk, for example. Not all monks, nor all martial artists are Shao-Lin. Jedi is not a general noun. It's a title that implies a certain type of skills and philosphy.

What I'm getting at is that not everyone with knowledge of the Force -has- to come from Jedi or Sith traditions. I like the term adept to describe those who weren't trained by an actual Jedi and aren't part of some other order like the Jensari.

Likewise if a Force adept is a selfish bastard or a Jedi falls to the dark side, but does not receive training FROM a Sith... technically he's not a Sith. If someone is proficient in the dark side and squanders it for selfish means without direction beyond evil whims... then chances are they are not a Sith. Sith training assumes a level of discipline and purpose.

BUT!

We are in a large public community with an open-invitation policy. There are far too many people with widely differing views about the Force. That's part of the fun.

So if someone makes a character and wants to call himself a Sith or a Jedi, you can react to that IC all you want. But don't bust their chops about it OOC.

[Droo]

Originally posted by Drin Kizael
So if someone makes a character and wants to call himself a Sith or a Jedi, you can react to that IC all you want. But don't bust their chops about it OOC.

I'm finding myself in agreement here which is interesting since when this discussion began I was of the opposite opinion. We don't really to have a clearly defined difference between Dark Jedi and Sith to complain about someone calling themselves Darth or not.

I'm simply looking at it as the Sith are the Jedi antithesis, the Jedi are a subservient order of protextors of peace and justice, the Sith are self-serving order of power-hungry vengeful darksiders. Dark Jedi are simply Jedi who have fallen from grace and have not undergone training in the ways of the Sith.

[Darth Lucid]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Using both sides of the Force is stupid. It can't be done. We also don't allow it to be RPed here at swfans as 'shadow Jedi' because, as it has been said many times over, once you start using the dark side, you are a dark sider. It's like putting a little bit of dirt into clean water. Can't say it's still clean water, because it is now dirty water. Doesn't matter if it's a lot of dirt, or a little, it's still dirt.

Same goes for Dark side usage by a 'lightsider.' Anakin stopped being a Jedi as soon as he lopped off Mace Windu's arm in anger. There is no "study both sides" of the Force. Palpatine claimed to have studied both sides of the Force, and he is no 'shadow jedi' or whatever, he is a full blown Sith Lord.

I never said they used both sides of the force I said they studied both sides of the force as did palptine. The Jensari tend hold code of honor though that keeps them from being tainted fully by the darkside. They don't use both sides they do choose on or the other but they keep in check.

Plus there already has been one jensari already played here at fans and Meras and never once got called on god moding. He was an old member by the name of Morino ryu and good friend of mine in real.

(studing and using are two different things. You can study chemistry but not nessarily know how to use it.)

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Basically with Bane's Rule of Two, a Jedi could fall to the darkside and not be apprenticed to a Sith Lord, which would make them a dark Jedi, and not a Sith. Dooku/Tyrannus and Anakin/Vader are examples of Jedi who fell to the Dark Side and were also apprenticed to a Sith Lord, and that makes them Sith.

My character, Lilaena De'ville, was a youngling padawan to a Jedi Knight who managed to escape the purge. The Jedi Knight was twisted by anger and bitterness over the betrayal of the Jedi, and vowed revenge. She taught Lilaena all she knew, which includes using the Dark Side. She was not a Sith, so Lilaena is not a Sith.

After ten years of training, her master was killed by a bounty hunter. Lilaena is mad about that too, so she's just a Dark Sider who doesn't know she isn't a Jedi. After all, it's all she's been taught. I would consider her to be a Dark Jedi, if we use the term, because she has not been trained by a Sith Lord.

[Darth Lucid]

I like that idea LD.

another question is are al sith required to follow the rule of two now?

[Morgan Evanar]

Well, the last line of "real" Sith is dead. We can't enforce the rule of two :)

[Kelt Simoson]

I've not counted but the amount of darths on this board right now would give George a bloody heart attack.

[Droo]

Originally posted by Kelt Simoson
I've not counted but the amount of darths on this board right now would give George a bloody heart attack.

Yep. Which can't be a good thing, to be honest.

[Darth Lucid]

It means the sith are finally making a come back on this board is all the majority of Darth though also have alt accounts like this one has Blade ice.


Well, the last line of "real" Sith is dead. We can't enforce the rule of two

I was going to say if it was going to be enforced it has already in the process of being broken. lol

[Navaria Tarkin]

The Sith are making a come back on this board?

Um.... honestly.. they always seemed to outnumber the Jedi on this board :p

[Darth Lucid]

It didn't seem like it to me. I thought the GJO was kicking everyones butt in new recruits.

[Dasquian Belargic]

There have always been plenty of Sith. It's just more noticeable now that people are using the Darth title.

Incidentally, if you looked back at the old ezboard member lists, I think you would have seen just as many Darth's then as we have now - if not more.

[Darth Stratus]

I suppose also, given the situation in our galaxy the darkside has flourished. it seems to me however that we have lost a heck of alot of Jedi. The Enclave is very quiet to me, though i guess IC it dosent exsist yet.

[Navaria Tarkin]

Exactly. Unfortunately given the current timeline, the Jedi are spread out amongst the galaxy. Through RP we're going to build up the Enclave and have a more formalized group in time

[Drin Kizael]

About this whole gray jedi, shadow jedi, Jesari thing...

Personally I think it's an interesting concept. But the reality is that without extremely careful regulation, it would just be used by players who just want to have it both ways, all the power and none of the discipline.

To quote myself ;)... The Force itself is neutral. It's a tool. And it will do whatever you ask of it.

If you can sense and touch the Force, you have access to certain universal abilities. If you are trained to use the Force by finding your center and keeping your mind calm... it will react in a certain way. This is the Light Side. If you are trained to use the Force by channelling the intensity of your emotions... it will react in another way. That's the Dark Side.

The idea of tapping into hatred and rage to use powers, but still maintain the peace it would require to touch the light side is a little too trippy. I can understand why so many people hate the idea. Normally I love Stackpole, but Jensari was one of his weaker ideas. To be able to master all sides of the Force I think would require an extremely unique mentality.

Though I would argue that one could still us the Force for simply selfish motives and be neither type of Jedi... such a person would never have a grasp of too many powers.

[Drin Kizael]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Basically with Bane's Rule of Two, a Jedi could fall to the darkside and not be apprenticed to a Sith Lord, which would make them a dark Jedi, and not a Sith.
Then there's the model established in the Knights of the Old Republic games. Where the Sith operated in large numbers.

I saw ignore Bane.

[ReaperFett]

Originally posted by Drin Kizael
Then there's the model established in the Knights of the Old Republic games. Where the Sith operated in large numbers.

I saw ignore Bane.
Bane happened after the KOTOR era :)

[Navaria Tarkin]

I think he meant ignore Bane which had nothing to do with when he existed. Since Sith were in larger numbers at one point it doesn't have to be a rule of two.

[Dasquian Belargic]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
Bane happened after the KOTOR era :)

:huh no? Darth Traya, Revan, Malak, etc were around 3-4000 BBY. Bane was 1000 BBY. That aside, there had been an unofficial rule of two in the time of the likes of Freedon Nadd and Marka Ragnos anyway, since there could only be one Sith Lord at a time.

[ReaperFett]

Originally posted by Dasquian Belargic
:huh no? Darth Traya, Revan, Malak, etc were around 3-4000 BBY. Bane was 1000 BBY.
Making Bane happen after the KOTOR era.


Most of the early Sith stuff seen in the EU is what Lucas intended I believe, so one could argue that following it is just doing what Lucas would do :)


Easiest way to look at it IMO is that with Vader and Palpatine gone, the era of the rule of two is gone. Who is there to now make the rules?

[Lilaena De'Ville]

:D the main problem I have isn't that there are so many "darths" but that there are so many, so soon. I mean, the Emperor isn't even cold yet.

Well technically, if the atmosphere from the Death Star was vented, he'd be freezing.

[ReaperFett]

In fact, I would argue that the Darth Bane story HELPS the multitudes of Sith we may have.


3000 BBY, two men are made Sith. Exar Kun is the master, Ulic Qel Droma the apprentice. They were defeated in the end

1000 BBY, "The Sith Lord were many; their followers, legion". Only one man survived however, Bane. It was he who reformed the Sith and brought back the rule of two, naming his apprentice Darth for, I believe, the first time. The Sith were now a group of secrecy.


In other words, we have a possible cycle. Two Sith, Sith die, Sith grow in number, Sith goes back to the rule of two.

[Dasquian Belargic]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
Making Bane happen after the KOTOR era.

I could of sworn that said before :lol


Originally posted by ReaperFett
In fact, I would argue that the Darth Bane story HELPS the multitudes of Sith we may have.


3000 BBY, two men are made Sith. Exar Kun is the master, Ulic Qel Droma the apprentice. They were defeated in the end

1000 BBY, "The Sith Lord were many; their followers, legion". Only one man survived however, Bane. It was he who reformed the Sith and brought back the rule of two, naming his apprentice Darth for, I believe, the first time. The Sith were now a group of secrecy.


In other words, we have a possible cycle. Two Sith, Sith die, Sith grow in number, Sith goes back to the rule of two.

Makes sense, it does.

[XI-20-P]

Didn't I already state that such a cycle has existed? It is the Sith's turn to come to power in the balance issue, as the Jedi have fallen from their position of power. The loss of the Emperor is a blow to the intended system but the dark side is still running on its acquired juice for the time being until the light side can mount its counter offensive, thus making the cycle go full circle.

And I seriously think the term Force Adept should be ran through for consideration as many people are already agreeing with it. You follow the Jedi code, you are Jedi, you follow the Sith code, you are Sith, anything else, you are a force adept, force sensitive, whatever. I guess one really does have to throw more mud to get it to stick on the fence...

[Bette Davis]

I also think it makes sense. :):thumbup

[Drin Kizael]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
Bane happened after the KOTOR era :)

Exactly my point. I think the way the game established the Sith is more conducive to the forums. Ignore Bane.

[Anbira Hicchoru]

Why? Some of us outright prefer Bane's style in the first place. Making the innermost teachings of the Sith something that is at least treated as an exclusive gift is a great way to jerk people's chains and manipulate them.

[Drin Kizael]

Then follow Bane.

But don't expect the whole board to. Like I said, react IC however you want to those you don't consider to be "true Sith". But this discussion seems to be about reaching some kind of standard that would be unfair for the rest of the forum.

[Droo]

I really think Fett is onto something there. Perhaps the Sith have only been in pairs and working in secrecy for so long because the Jedi have been in power. If they truly are the Jedi antithesis, then they would be in hiding no less than the Jedi were following the birth of the Empire. Previously, Star Wars lore states that Sith existed in their thousands, great armies of Sith ruled by the Sith Lords. Perhaps the Sith were never and will never be as organised and close like the Jedi Order were in their temple, nevertheless, I like the idea of the Sith rising to ultimate power again while the Jedi try to study and grow in secret.

[Anuis Ma'artra]

And perhaps this whole conversation is a bit of overkill. It isn't like we are going to limit the board to only 2 Sith or ban the name Darth, for all we know in the outer rim there could have been countless pairs of Sith abiding by what they saw as the rule of Two, it would have only taken 1 Sith to break the rule of two and train multiple apprentices keeping each one a secret from the other to create a large population of Sith and if they did it outside the normal range of the Empire or the Republic then who's to say we didn't have thousands of pairs of Sith plotting the destruction of Pal/Vader and/or the Jedi?

Basically I always thought our belief that the Sith saw themselves as followers of a religion and Dark Jedi were just power hungry Dark Siders without any set creedo worked.

[Darth Stratus]

Originally posted by Droo
I really think Fett is onto something there. Perhaps the Sith have only been in pairs and working in secrecy for so long because the Jedi have been in power. If they truly are the Jedi antithesis, then they would be in hiding no less than the Jedi were following the birth of the Empire. Previously, Star Wars lore states that Sith existed in their thousands, great armies of Sith ruled by the Sith Lords. Perhaps the Sith were never and will never be as organised and close like the Jedi Order were in their temple, nevertheless, I like the idea of the Sith rising to ultimate power again while the Jedi try to study and grow in secret.

I agree Dru, kinda KOTOR 1ish. Having the Academy on Korriban and so on and so fourth

[Morgan Evanar]

This could be part of a larger cycle. It would make sense.