Two Sith Lords but yet one is an apprentice....how is that possible?

Dooku refers to the republic being under the control of "The Dark Lord of the Sith". the refrence Being singular. I think that of the two the Master and the apprentice, the Master is refered to as "THE Dark Lord of the Sith". He and his apprentice together are "Sith Lords". Palpatine appears to bend the rules a little: Dooku and Vader were Masters at their craft, yet were still subservient to Sidious. I suppsoe one might argue Dooku was an apprentice, but its difficult to say he knew s little about the Sith. sometimes Sith Lords are refered to as A Dark lord of the Sith, whetehr they are master or apprentice, but only the master is THE Dark Lord, although Palpatine gave Vader the title for some reason. Perhaps since the Jedi were defeated, he gave himself and Vader some special reward. by declaring his apprentice Dark Lord, and himself Emperor.

 

I know there can only be two, a master and an apprentice, but how can you be a apprentice to some master when you are a Dark Lord of the Sith yourself?

Because Palpatine is the master and Vader is the apprentice. They are both Dark Lords of the Sith. It's really quite simple.

 

No, it isn't simple. There can be many dark lords but there can only be ONE Dark Lord of the Sith.

That is like saying that there can be two Presidents of the United States. Yes there can be two head people, but only ONE is the President and the second is the Vice President. Yes the Vice President is a President....but he isn't THE President.

Get what I'm saying? Same thing with Vader and Sidious. Yes there is two Dark Lords....but there can only be ONE Dark Lord of the Sith. And If Vader is the Dark Lord of the Sith as said at the SW Databank, then why is he the apprentice to Sidious? Should Sidious be the Apprentice? But yet....Sidious is also THE Dark Lord of the Sith.

It doesn't make since. And again, no...it isn't simple.

 

Yes, it is. You simply don't accept Lucas' explanation.

 

Tell me then, what is Lucas's explanation? What is his excuse for having 2 Dark Lords of the Sith at the same time?

In EP1-3 Sidious is the Dark Lord of the Sith. It is confirmed by Dooku in EP2 to Obi-Wan "But he was betrayed by the Dark Lord 10 years ago....". I would assume that in the OT he is still the DLOTS. But yet it is also said (On the SW Databank) that Vader is the Dark Lord of the Sith....but yet Sidious is still alive tell Vader what to do.

What is his explanation for that?

 

Easy...that there are always two Dark Lords of the Sith. He did write the damn stories, after all. It's not his fault that you can't wrap your head around this fact.

What's next? Are you going to tell us that you can't hear explosions in space, or that lightsabers and hyperspace are impossible? Get over it, man. This is how Lucas is telling his story, like it or not.

 

"Easy...that there are always two Dark Lords of the Sith. He did write the damn stories, after all. It's not his fault that you can't wrap your head around this fact.

What's next? Are you going to tell us that you can't hear explosions in space, or that lightsabers and hyperspace are impossible? Get over it, man. This is how Lucas is telling his story, like it or not."

GL said that there can only be ONE Dark Lord of the Sith. You are trying to justify that he means it is okay for there to be Two DLOTS.

Again, give me substancial proof to where GL states something that its okay for there to be 2 DLOTS. Until then, your reply remains 100% opinion and 0% fact.

Nuff said, come back when you have proof.

 

No, it isn't simple. There can be many dark lords but there can only be ONE Dark Lord of the Sith.

Nothing says there can only be one, and besides, the movies show that there are two.

 

"GL said that there can only be ONE Dark Lord of the Sith."

Lucas On The Sith:

"One of the themes throughout the films is that the Sith lords, when they started out thousands of years ago, embraced the dark side. They were greedy and self-centered and they all wanted to take over, so they killed each other. Eventually, there was only one left, and that one took on an apprentice. And for thousands of years, the master would teach the apprentice, the master would die, the apprentice would then teach another apprentice, become the master, and so on. But there could never be any more than two of them, because if there were, they would try to get rid of the leader, which is exactly what Vader was trying to do, and that's exactly what the Emperor was trying to do. The Emperor was trying to get rid of Vader, and Vader was trying to get rid of the Emperor. And that is the antithesis of a symbiotic relationship, in which if you do that, you become cancer, and you eventually kill the host, and everything dies." (5/1/99). - Read 'em and weep

This thread = DONE!

 

MeBeJedi,
Thanks for clearing that up Captian Obvious. W/your explanation, you've proved Palpatine, not Vader, is the one Dark Lord of the Sith. He's the master, Vader is his apprentice, Palpy is the Lord of the Sith and Vader is a Sith Lord.

 

More arguments, less sarcasm please.

 

"you've proved Palpatine, not Vader, is the one Dark Lord of the Sith. He's the master, Vader is his apprentice, Palpy is the Lord of the Sith and Vader is a Sith Lord."

"Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith, was the scourge of the Jedi, a master of the dark side of the Force, and one of the Emperor's most trusted servants. He wasn't always a fearsome enforcer, however." - OS: Darth Vader

I knew someone was going to say that..apparently, Lucas doesn't make the distinction that you do. Notice how it doesn't say "The Dark Lord of the Sith". In fact, I've yet to see you or Lord-Draco come up with this phantom quote where Lucas says there can only be ONE Dark Lord of the Sith at one time. Were this actually to be the case, then the apprentice would the the one Dark Lord, according to the OS, and in direct contradiction of your assertion.

Of course, it's quite easy to see that "Sith Master" = "Sith Lord" = "Dark Lord of the Sith". The terms are interchangeable, and I dare you to find anything stating otherwise, all semantics aside.

[/Captain Obvious]

 

Oh my God. Ok, Palpatine and Vader and Dooku and Maul were: Lord, Dark Lord, Sith, The Sith, The Dark Lord, Dark Lord of the Sith, The Dark Lord of the Sith, and any other title you can think of using the words listed above. There were 2 of them, no more no less. They were evil. They were dark. They were Lords. They were Sith. One is evil, the other is "eviler". A master of an art is called master. If he has a master, then the younger master will call the senior master his master. The senior master will not refer to the younger master as master, but will likely confer on him a title to differentiate him from the lower ranking apprentices, as in "Lord Maul, use caution, let them make the first move." "Yes, my master." Anyone beneath them will call them both master, or Lord, or whatever name is appropriate. NOW, this thread is done.

 

Exactly.

 

Not that it makes a difference, but in case someone tries to use the "OS can be wrong" excuse, I ran across this in the Annotated Screenplays...

The awesome, seven-foot-tall Dark Lord of the Sith makes his way into the blinding light of the main passageway. This is Darth Vader, right hand of the Emperor. His face is obscured by his flowing black robes and grotesque breath mask, which stands out next to the facist white-armored suits of the Imperial stormtroopers.

Still waiting on that Lucas quote that states otherwise...