Discussions Who was the worst Sith Lord conceived in the EU?

I see him as more of a homage. A way to have him in TOR without "having him in TOR." Besides, he had his own set of failures; like Revan punking him and the Hero of Tython destroying him.

 

I see your point and could go both ways. Still feels rip-offish imo.

 

Not really. Both share the same goals of becoming a god and destroying the galaxy (albeit gradually in Palpatine's case), but it's the marriage between the very modern Sith of Palpatine and the ancient Sith that makes Vitiate poorly developed.

It's a rip-off of two very well developed and very different Sith concepts (which automatically loses it points), and then it attempts to merge them together, which is just wrong.

 

That was already done by KOTOR, thought when they decided to forgo the TOJ aesthetic. Darth Revan too, was very much a fusion of old and new. What if Vader was mind-wiped instead of redeemed? Similarly what if Palpatine worked outside the government and already had his own Empire?

 

I would go one step further and say the likes of Revan were firmly in the 'modern' camp, even down to a prototypical Rule of Two.

But we're not talking TOTJ aesthetics here. We're talking about the true Sith being an entirely separate, ancient forebear to even the Sith of Exar Kun, and there's no room for fusion between ancient and modern in a depiction of the most ancient, original Sith Empire.

For example, you can't have a Nihilus Force drain, the Rhandite desire for destruction rather than domination that KOTOR II established, and the cognitive faculties and plans of galactic lordship of a Palpatine. Attempting to have the best of both worlds, and adding in "Wow, our Sith Lord drains the colour from planets too!" ... it didn't work.

 

Well it isn't the original Sith Empire, in so much as the Lost Tribe of the Sith isn't that either. It's an evolution of that Empire over time, given the environmental conditions they were faced with. As for clarity of goals, that I can understand, but then it calls into question many of the motives of previous Sith Lords as well. What exactly was Dooku trying to accomplish by leading the Separatists and warning Obi-Wan there was a Sith Lord in office, versus allowing himself to be captured and believing the Republic would accept him back? That kind off silliness does not mesh well with the aristocratic intelligence displayed by the Count.

 

Exactly; they aren't the True Sith, despite being called such. Bioware had one job, which was to depict the ancient Sith Empire, and instead utterly destroyed it, to be replaced with a Galactic Empire clone (which makes no IU sense at all) that has the audacity to claim to be its very different predecessor state.

That is the poor conception of the TOR Sith Empire in order to pander to casual fans (thus insulting the casual fans' ability to understand and embrace original concepts), and Vitiate is just an ugly symptom of this. There's no consistency, it's all a jumbled mess of ancient and new, a failed attempt at a fusion, and it shouldn't have even been a fusion in the first place. For example, Vitiate made the Darth title mainstream. Yet he doesn't use it himself... Oh, and there's multiple Dark Lords of the Sith, despite the fact this is pre-Kaan...

 

Why would the need to be exactly what came before them? The Jedi of TOR still call themselves Jedi and yet they are quite different from the TOJ Jedi. Bioware's job wasn't to recreate the Ancient Sith Empire, it was to make a fun game. As for the lore, Vitiate not using the title Darth as we have come to know it is not exactly unexpected (given the large spans of time we are dealing with) and Kaan didn't originate the idea of multiple Sith Lords, he united them and then postulated they should be equal.

 

He is using "Darth" as we know it now. Except in his case it means there are hundreds of Darths, instead of two cause the rule of two ain't a thing. Which makes for very boring naming convention indeed.

 

There are in-universe contrivances by which we can make the TOR Sith work to a degree, but this thread is about poor conceptions from an OOU perspective. And yes, the Jedi of TOR are indeed different from the TOTJ Jedi - this hardly works in Bioware's favour! They're another example of Bioware trampling over the continuity in the name of making a "fun game" - but this is very stictly unnecessary, as you don't need to clone the prequel Jedi and the OT Empire to make a fun game even for casual fans, and furthermore, if you don't want to stick to the well established continuity and aesthetics of the era, then don't set your game in the era.

I join many other fans in thinking that TOR would be more palatable if it was set in the Draggulch Period.

And we have an ancient Sith Empire where the 'Darth' title was not prevalent, and then a successor state in which they're everywhere (and terrible at that), and yet the founder of said Empire is not among their number, despite Dark Councillors centuries before TOR bearing the title? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Vitiate wasn't a Darth, as the Darth title doesn't quite befit the Old Sith Empire, but it is nonetheless an example of the nonsensical mess that arose from their attempted fusion.

As for Kaan, note I was talking about Dark Lords of the Sith, the title Jen'ari, not the lesser Sith Lords or 'ari. The Old Sith Empire only ever had one Jen'ari, a replacement for the Sith species' Sith'ari, and Kaan (until aforementioned recent retcons) was the first to have multiple Dark Lords, and it was the fact that they held title of equal authority that made them (ostensibly) equal.

There are in-universe contrivances by which we can make the TOR Sith work to a degree, but this thread is about poor conceptions from an OOU perspective. And yes, the Jedi of TOR are indeed different from the TOTJ Jedi - this hardly works in Bioware's favour! They're another example of Bioware trampling over the continuity in the name of making a "fun game" - but this is very stictly unnecessary, as you don't need to clone the prequel Jedi and the OT Empire to make a fun game even for casual fans, and furthermore, if you don't want to stick to the well established continuity and aesthetics of the era, then don't set your game in the era.

I join many other fans in thinking that TOR would be more palatable if it was set in the Draggulch Period.

And we have an ancient Sith Empire where the 'Darth' title was not prevalent, and then a successor state in which they're everywhere (and terrible at that), and yet the founder of said Empire is not among their number, despite Dark Councillors centuries before TOR bearing the title? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Vitiate wasn't a Darth, as the Darth title doesn't quite befit the Old Sith Empire, but it is nonetheless an example of the nonsensical mess that arose from their attempted fusion.

As for Kaan, note I was talking about Dark Lords of the Sith, the title Jen'ari, not the lesser Sith Lords or 'ari. The Old Sith Empire only ever had one Jen'ari, a replacement for the Sith species' Sith'ari, and Kaan (until aforementioned recent retcons) was the first to have multiple Dark Lords, and it was the fact that they held title of equal authority that made them (ostensibly) equal.

 

But that's a bad thing. A character shouldn't be another character in all but name.

 

I think Darth Malgus is worse in that respect tho. "Okay so you know how Malak was a lot like Vader? Let's do Malak again, but this time, more like Vader." This concludes the creative process behind Darth Malgus.

 

Yup. Same creative process behind Angral in Threat of Peace.

And let's not forget the name. "So, uh guys, given that we've just developed a Malak rip-off, shall we try and hide this from our fans by giving him a name as different from Darth Malak as we can?"

"Good idea. Let's call him Darth Mal...us. Oh, there's already a Darth Malus? Oh alright, scratch that. Darth Mal... G... us. Yes, Malgus."

 

Vitiate being a rehash of Palpatine and Nihilus doesn't really mean much to me. I mean, the single most powerful force user to ever live, successfully deceiving an entire empire of powerful dark side users and driving them to conquest while at the same time unwittingly assisting in his desire to consume everything. Insane and unoriginal yes, but not horrible. I think Malak's nothing goals of "blow up everything cuz I'm evil" and Thanaton throwing a hissy fit and running for protection after losing his own game get them in the top spots.

 

Malak didn't want to blow up everything. He wanted to conquer the galaxy. It just happened that he wasn't as a good a fleet admiral as Revan and needed to make up for it with brute force.

 

Jacen Solo/Caedus/bad prequel rehash. If I hadn't stopped reading the EU at that point, that would've sealed the deal. Horrible turn to the Dark Side, horrible actions and stupid death. Not to mention some lame-@$$ retcon to try-and FAIL to make somewhat better sense of why he turned.

 

What I'm saying though is his motives weren't very well defined. Malak might have wanted to rule the galaxy, but he tried to do so by simply blowing up everything not his instead of conquering and rebuilding. His indiscriminate total annihilation tactics shut him off from many supporters and usable spoils of war.

 

Darth Venamis seemed a bit useless to me. He loses his only duel, then spends years being tortured, trapped in a tank, and killed. Then Plaguies resurrects him a few times. He really achieved nothing at all.

 

He destroyed Taris because it contained the two biggest threats to his power, he doesn't do that with every planet.

 

Taris wasn't the only example. Telos IV as well. Revan kept the infrastructure of conquered worlds intact so they could be used for the war effort and post war reconstruction. Malak, on the other hand, left nothing standing and left so survivors. Potential recruits, allies, usable factories and mines, all destroyed. Not to mention his choice of apprentices was less than impressive. I'd say Malak's only redeeming feature was his ability to recognize important threats like Bastila's meditation and the reborn Revan.

 

He recognised the need for kolto and thus agreed to not make open war on Manaan. He lets the Czerka corporation conduct their business on Korriban as well. There have been dumber Sith is all I'm saying.

 

I'll agree with you in saying there have been dumber sith, but I think Malak was the dumbest sith to ever rule an entire empire, as opposed to having superiors to answer to.

 

I think Lord Kaan was still dumber with his "We are all equal Lords of the Sith! ...Everyone still do what I say though!!"

 

Darth Zannah imo.

She isn't terribly strong, skilled, and Bane really only chose her due to her being the most potent force sensitive on Ruusan. Her buildup isn't particularly impressive either, Bane has better showings in the force- and we're just supposed to accept that she "surpassed" him in power when nothing she ever showed in the force was better than his feats.

 

Darth Caedus. Sorriest sith lord of all time, IMO. First of all I hated the fact that they made Jacen Solo turn to the dark side anyway but since they did, I thought things started off interesting with him nearly leading his own cousin down the primrose path. But then when he became a sith lord he didn't do much.Just weak.