Talk:Dark Lord of the Sith
I was wondering why Flint was including in the Dark Lords of the Sith page. As far as I am aware he turned to the Light Side again. You can't be a Light Side user and a Sith -- Heru Jameson
- He was redeemed, just like Darth Vader. Prior to that redemption he was the apprentice of Lady Lumiya.
- (I'm guessing you did the edit) First of all, thanks for the information, I now understand what you consider a Dark Lord of the Sith to be, which makes sense as Vader (who was nto the Master was considered a Dark Lord of the Sith). I'm glad that you removed Exar Kun cause he did not belong their and added Carnor Jax as he did. - Heru Jameson
Actually, considering that neither Flint nor Carnor Jax ever used the title Dark Lord of the Sith, and have never been referred to by that title -- or indeed, ever even been referred to as Sith Lords -- , they most certainly do not belong on a list of Dark Lords of the Sith. Furthermore, considering that Exar Kun was explicitly called "Dark Lord of the Sith" by no less a figure than Marka Ragnos himself in Tales of the Jedi: Dark Lords of the Sith No. 6, I should think that the exact opposite is true: Exar Kun does belong on the list, and Flint and Carnor Jax do not. Publius 06:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Dooku was never called a Dark Lord of the Sith either, so far as I know, yet, since in Bane's Order both Master and apprentice carry the title of Dark Lord, he obviously is one. Flint and Jax, as the apprentices of the ruling Sith Master, are Dark Lords of the Sith. Flint is even referred to as such in Marvel Comics' Star Wars #92: "The Dream." Jon Hart 21:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Looking at "The Dream" right now, I see no reference to Flint as "Dark Lord of the Sith," only as Dark Lord.
Apprentices?
I'm slightly confused as to some of the members on the list. Why are Darth Maul, Darth Tyranus and Darth Vader all included? For their entire lives, they were apprentices to Palpatine. Maul and Tyrannus were both killed during Palpatine's lifetime, and Vader repented before Palpatine's death. Surely only Palpatine counts as Dark Lord of the Sith? -- Supermorff 00:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actully It Was one of darth banes former allies from the brotherhood of darkness that established that all sith where to be proclaimed with the title, "Dark Lord of The Sith." His Name was lord kaan. The reason he did so was that his allies feared he was too weak to futher lead them in battle against the jedi and they confronted him about it. It is then when he announced that infact all sith lords where nao all equal and all titled dark lord of the sith. When he used his time bomb to kill what he thought would be all jedi in the last battle he infact killed all life forms in the area exept for darth bane. When darth bane reformed the sith orded in stated that from this day foward only be 2 dark lords of the sith will exsist at a time( the reason for this is somthing like the shadow war. They wanted to hide in the backround and strike at the right time.(and we see that it lasted until the rise of the empire When siduos started trainning forced adepts and using them as the emperor's hand.But i guess he felt he has the right to change the order since it was him that put the sith order back ontop of the food chian) Another feat. that he added was to keep Kaans fomer statment that all sith will carry the title, 'DARK LORD OF THE SITH". [Added by the user sirbizzy]
- As the article says, Darth Bane's reformations to the Sith Order allowed both the master and the apprentice to take on the title of Dark Lord of the Sith. Nufy8 00:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Which is cannon as Darth Vader is called the Dark Lord of the Sith in the movies. In fact, he is the only directly called that in the Origonal Series (even though we know the Emperor, a.k.a Darth Sidious, is also a Dark Lord of the Sith). --Heru Jameson
- NO dialogue in Episode IV - VI has ever mentioned the term Sith at all! please note that! even in the DVD Edition! i think that Maul, Tyranus and Vader should be removed from this page. --Kevinmhk
- The Star Wars Databank calls him the Dark Lord of the Sith. Nufy8 15:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- yes i know, but Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker's entries have not updated for Episode III yet, and after watching Episode III i definitely dont think that Vader was a Dark Lord of the Sith. Anyway i think "Dark Lord of the Sith" should be considered as canonical contradiction. Darth Kevinmhk 03:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Anakin's entry was updated for Episode III (in "The Beginning of the End..." theme update), and still includes the sentence, "He became Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith, apprentice to the evil Emperor Palpatine." What exactly in the movie made you think he wasn't? Nufy8 04:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- According to Original Trilogy only, the terms "Sith" and "Dark Lord of the Sith" never appear in the dialogues. Dialogues in the movies receive the highest canonical level (i think the dialogues are ever slightly higher than offical site databank). And we know that things in Star Wars change from time to time as more and more products surface. For databank entries, Darth Sidious' "The Movies" section does not say he is a Dark Lord; Darth Maul's "The Movies" section does not say he is a Dark Lord too; Dooku's "The Movies" section mention Sidious is Dark Lord, but does not say Tyranus is a Dark Lord. So while Maul and Tyranus and Vader are Sidious's apprectices, why Vader is Dark Lord while Tyranus and Maul are not? Exar Kun is a Dark Lord, but usually we dont consider Ulic as a Dark Lord. If Vader is the Dark Lord, what is Sidious then? Darth Bane's rule is to minimize civil war inside the Sith. I don't think Bane and Sidious would allow an apprentice to be Dark Lord, which would post a threat to their own rulership. I think because Sidious/Palpatine never reveal his secret identity to the public, no one know he is a Sith, and thus consider Vader as the only Sith and Dark Lord of the Sith.
- The fact that not every section dealing with a specific character calls him by that certain title does not mean he isn't the Dark Lord. And while the movies are the highest form of canon, the next level is still canon and it doesn't interfere with the continuity of the movies. Speaking of the movies, Sidious is referred to as the Dark Lord in the prequels, so in the highest form of canon he is the Dark Lord of the Sith, and mentioning that title in every Databank entry he appears in would be unnecessary. Nufy8 15:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- ya, and so my second point was how can two Dark Lords exist at the same time? just like how can two US Presidents exist at the same time? Darth Sidious is definitely the master and the Dark Lord, while he is alive how can Vader achieve the title? If one accept "Dark Lord of the Sith" is different and higher in rank than "Sith Lord", then one must consider there is only 1 highest ranking leader at a time. Unless one consider Dark Lord = Sith Lord (there are indeed many people consider Sith Lord is just the short form of Dark Lord of the Sith), otherwise my point is still only the master is the Dark Lord. Again I think (and guess) because the public in the galaxy knows nothing about Sidious/Palpatine stuff, so they just consider Darth Vader is the only Sith and the only Dark Lord, just like only a very few know Vader was Anakin. Darth Kevinmhk 15:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Darth Bane's changes made it so that the title of Dark Lord would encompass two Sith. This is not to say they were equal; the designation of master and apprentince seems to be the titles that would divide the power amongst the Dark Lords. So while two could take on the title, one would indeed have to be more powerful; the "master". I understand where you're coming from, this whole Dark Lord business is kind of confusing. It's most likely true that Lucas didn't have a difference between Sith Lord and Dark Lord in mind when creating Star Wars, and that the Expanded Universe helped shape that. It might help to split the list up between Old Sith Order and New Sith Order and explain how the title of Dark Lord of the Sith changed between the two. Nufy8 15:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- i agree to most of your points here, but i dont think there is any piece of work that can prove exaactly the meaning in the sentence "Darth Bane's changes made it so that the title of Dark Lord would encompass two Sith."... if indeed there is a prove please kindly show me. i would very much like to read. thanks! Darth Kevinmhk 16:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It's not explicitly stated anywhere, but the proof is that both Sidious and Vader hold the title of Dark Lord. Jon Hart 20:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- The most updated databank entry of Anakin Skywalker in "Sith Vengeance" has deleted the sentence "He became Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith, apprentice to the evil Emperor Palpatine." The term "Dark Lord of the Sith" no longer appears in Anakin's entry. Isn't that enough proof? Let's wait for Darth Vader's entry update. Darth Kevinmhk 05:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- And a new entry, Mustafar, says "Kenobi bested Vader, leaving the Dark Lord to die on the Mustafar river banks." Nufy8 16:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- The most updated databank entry of Anakin Skywalker in "Sith Vengeance" has deleted the sentence "He became Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith, apprentice to the evil Emperor Palpatine." The term "Dark Lord of the Sith" no longer appears in Anakin's entry. Isn't that enough proof? Let's wait for Darth Vader's entry update. Darth Kevinmhk 05:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's not explicitly stated anywhere, but the proof is that both Sidious and Vader hold the title of Dark Lord. Jon Hart 20:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- i agree to most of your points here, but i dont think there is any piece of work that can prove exaactly the meaning in the sentence "Darth Bane's changes made it so that the title of Dark Lord would encompass two Sith."... if indeed there is a prove please kindly show me. i would very much like to read. thanks! Darth Kevinmhk 16:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Darth Bane's changes made it so that the title of Dark Lord would encompass two Sith. This is not to say they were equal; the designation of master and apprentince seems to be the titles that would divide the power amongst the Dark Lords. So while two could take on the title, one would indeed have to be more powerful; the "master". I understand where you're coming from, this whole Dark Lord business is kind of confusing. It's most likely true that Lucas didn't have a difference between Sith Lord and Dark Lord in mind when creating Star Wars, and that the Expanded Universe helped shape that. It might help to split the list up between Old Sith Order and New Sith Order and explain how the title of Dark Lord of the Sith changed between the two. Nufy8 15:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- ya, and so my second point was how can two Dark Lords exist at the same time? just like how can two US Presidents exist at the same time? Darth Sidious is definitely the master and the Dark Lord, while he is alive how can Vader achieve the title? If one accept "Dark Lord of the Sith" is different and higher in rank than "Sith Lord", then one must consider there is only 1 highest ranking leader at a time. Unless one consider Dark Lord = Sith Lord (there are indeed many people consider Sith Lord is just the short form of Dark Lord of the Sith), otherwise my point is still only the master is the Dark Lord. Again I think (and guess) because the public in the galaxy knows nothing about Sidious/Palpatine stuff, so they just consider Darth Vader is the only Sith and the only Dark Lord, just like only a very few know Vader was Anakin. Darth Kevinmhk 15:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The fact that not every section dealing with a specific character calls him by that certain title does not mean he isn't the Dark Lord. And while the movies are the highest form of canon, the next level is still canon and it doesn't interfere with the continuity of the movies. Speaking of the movies, Sidious is referred to as the Dark Lord in the prequels, so in the highest form of canon he is the Dark Lord of the Sith, and mentioning that title in every Databank entry he appears in would be unnecessary. Nufy8 15:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- According to Original Trilogy only, the terms "Sith" and "Dark Lord of the Sith" never appear in the dialogues. Dialogues in the movies receive the highest canonical level (i think the dialogues are ever slightly higher than offical site databank). And we know that things in Star Wars change from time to time as more and more products surface. For databank entries, Darth Sidious' "The Movies" section does not say he is a Dark Lord; Darth Maul's "The Movies" section does not say he is a Dark Lord too; Dooku's "The Movies" section mention Sidious is Dark Lord, but does not say Tyranus is a Dark Lord. So while Maul and Tyranus and Vader are Sidious's apprectices, why Vader is Dark Lord while Tyranus and Maul are not? Exar Kun is a Dark Lord, but usually we dont consider Ulic as a Dark Lord. If Vader is the Dark Lord, what is Sidious then? Darth Bane's rule is to minimize civil war inside the Sith. I don't think Bane and Sidious would allow an apprentice to be Dark Lord, which would post a threat to their own rulership. I think because Sidious/Palpatine never reveal his secret identity to the public, no one know he is a Sith, and thus consider Vader as the only Sith and Dark Lord of the Sith.
- Anakin's entry was updated for Episode III (in "The Beginning of the End..." theme update), and still includes the sentence, "He became Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith, apprentice to the evil Emperor Palpatine." What exactly in the movie made you think he wasn't? Nufy8 04:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- yes i know, but Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker's entries have not updated for Episode III yet, and after watching Episode III i definitely dont think that Vader was a Dark Lord of the Sith. Anyway i think "Dark Lord of the Sith" should be considered as canonical contradiction. Darth Kevinmhk 03:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The Star Wars Databank calls him the Dark Lord of the Sith. Nufy8 15:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- NO dialogue in Episode IV - VI has ever mentioned the term Sith at all! please note that! even in the DVD Edition! i think that Maul, Tyranus and Vader should be removed from this page. --Kevinmhk
- Which is cannon as Darth Vader is called the Dark Lord of the Sith in the movies. In fact, he is the only directly called that in the Origonal Series (even though we know the Emperor, a.k.a Darth Sidious, is also a Dark Lord of the Sith). --Heru Jameson
"Dark Lady of the Sith"
From the article: "Dark Lord of the Sith or Dark Lady of the Sith is a fictional title created by George Lucas for his Star Wars universe."
Is the term "Dark Lady of the Sith" ever actually used in the star wars cannon?
Because i always thought "Dark Lady of the Sith" was just a fannon thing, based on one sith lord (Lumiya) who is called the "Dark Lady".
Is there actually anything cannon that suggests "Dark Lady of the Sith" is a female version of "Dark Lord of the Sith"?
Didn't all the other female sith lords simply call themselves Dark Lords? Yaksha 07:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Also this clears up all the smoke in the air for u guyz above. This is a list of thw sith ranking system like the one the jedi used. This ofcourse was thrown out the window. Although im not sure when i know that it didnt go in when darth bane reformed the sith... but here it is,Sith Minion to Sith Acolyte to Sith Warrior to Sith Lord to Dark Lord of the Sith. For the most part this ranking system remained the same, through the ancient Sith Empire.[added by use sirbizzy]
Jacen Solo = DLOTS?
Is it confirmed anywhere that Jacen Solo is DLOTS? If so, a reference should probably be mentioned.
The Jacen Solo article only says that he's treading the path of the Sith and so forth- but I see nothing saying that he's actually the DLOTS. --DarthBinky 19:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Dates
Why is Sidious dated until 11ABY? Surely his reign ended when Vaders did at 4ABY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedarxide (talk • contribs) 21:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)