Discussions Dark Jedi: An Oxymoron

I have a bone to pick that has been bothering me for years. It is with the term "Dark Jedi." Now admittedly I'm getting kind of obsessive and nerdy here, however, I'd like to state my case! I'd like to hear feedback as well.

The term "Dark Jedi" is an oxymoron. The term is used in the EU and is even in the Star Wars wiki, however, it is not used on the official site and is never mentioned in any of the films or in anything that is "canon" and I believe it is for good reason.

A "Jedi" is a force user who uses their powers for good, who has passed the trials and has been accepted into the Jedi order. There is no way a Jedi can be "dark", because the Jedi are selfless. The words "Jedi" and "Dark" can not be used to describe the same person, since they represent opposite values. ...That would be like someone who believed in the teachings of Jesus but worships Satan - It makes no sense.

Just because a character can use the force, it does not make them a Jedi or Sith. They have to follow the rules and be accepted into the Jedi or Sith organizations. There is no organization called "Dark Jedis." A character might claim they are a Jedi or Sith because they can use the force, however, they are simply not until they are accepted into the one of the orders.

The term "Dark Jedi" has been used to describe a "bad guy" who can use the force but is not a Sith. I get this, however, a character who uses the force for evil is farther than anything from being a Jedi, and therefore should not be called one in any way shape or form.

In conclusion, instead of using the term "Dark Jedi" I propose we use the following:

DARK FORCE USER

or

SITH FOLLOWER

These terms describe characters who can use the force to some extent, for their own personal gain. They may or may not be Sith. They may deceive those around them by claiming that they are Sith even if they are not. Some Dark Force Users may be called "Fallen Jedi" if they were once part of the Jedi order, which basically means "Former Jedi." To be clear, these characters are no longer Jedi, just selfish Force-sensitive beings.


*****


Since I'm doing this, the term "Rogue Jedi" also does not make sense because if the character has gone rogue, it implies that they are not part of the organization. If they are not part of the Jedi organization then they are not a Jedi. Therefore, they should be called "Rogue Force Users" or "Rogue Jedi Followers."

Here's a couple more terms:

Light Force User: (or Jedi Follower) A character who can use the force to some extent and uses it for selfless purposes. This character may or may not be a Jedi.

Force User: (or Force-sensitive) Any character who can use the force in any way, for good or for evil.

 

This really bothers you?

 

Hah! It doesn't keep me up at night. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Moving to EU Community

 

Well I think Dark Jedi are Jedi that turned to the darkside of the Force, but haven't been trained as a Sith. For example: Asajj Ventress.

 

He acknowledges that. His problem with the term is that 'Dark' and 'Jedi' shouldn't be used in the same breath. Granted, its never bothered me, but meh

 

What? Dark Jedi are morons?^^ Jedi are light side users and Dark Jedi are light side users practicizing the dark side. Makes sense, somehow.

 

The Jedi are the most famous Force users in the galaxy and most sentients view anyone who can wield the Force as a Jedi. The average person doesn't know the term "Force sensitive". So to make things simpler those who had fallen to the dark side were termed Dark Jedi because they were different from the standard Jedi who fought for good. Over the centuries the term just caught on and became the title for any dark-side user. In-universe it makes a lot of sense.

 

Dark Jedi describes a very specific set of skills that other terms would not.

Anyway, I believe that the Jedi like to label people. The Jedi Order themselves have labelled things like the Dark Jedi Conflict. So in 'In Universe' terms it is certainly a description that is used.

Jedi vs Sith, The Essential Guide to the Force has no less than 27 pages that mention "Dark Jedi" so the lingo is pretty well established.

On a philosophical level I get what you are saying, and I realize this was redirected here for whatever reason, but the EU is considered to be canon by LFL - that is their official policy. Frankly I think the entire thread was redirected here in error as clearly fans of the EU are not going to want to talk about how it isn't official canon.

 

Uhh... I understand where you're coming from, but the term Dark Jedi is essentially like a Dark/Black Knight. A Dark Jedi is simply a Jedi that has been corrupted by the dark side, but one that has not been fully exposed to the secrets of the Sith. Calling them "Dark Force Users" is just being extremely naive and picking nits where they don't need to be picked.

 

I think you have a point actually. Jedi isn't a name for a force user, but rather a force user belonging to a very specific and exclusive organization. The same with Sith. I disagree with you on Rogue Jedi. If a marine goes AWOL, we don't call him a rogue civilian. Not only does that not really make sense, but it is misleading. "Rogue" at least by a contextual meaning, essentially means one who was part of, but has since rescinded membership with a group, usually in a violent or otherwise negative way. In that way I think Rogue Jedi works, though Dark Jedi admittedly does not.

 

This is exactly the way I view it.

 

You're right, I realize most people will not argue the term on here and I know I'm fighting a loosing battle. I just wanted to see what other people's opinion was. I just have always found that title awkward. No matter how you put it, Dark Jedi are not Jedi, they are Sith followers but not officially Sith. I'll continue to call them Dark Force Users, Dark Side Users or Sith Followers.

One more thought... If a character turned away from the Dark Side and became good again but was no longer officially a Jedi, would you call him a Light Sith? I know that makes no sense but that was basically my point.

 

This, except, to my knowledge, Asajj was not a jedi. She was a random force-user who was drafted by Dooku to be his pawn/pseudo(?) apprentice. I would say Jedi that fit the bill of dark are, most notably, Anakin, Luke, and Exar Kun (?). Anakin had not yet been expelled by the order, but was using dark-side powers, although, that was after he became Sidious's apprentice, I think (yet Obi-Wan was still trying to pull him back.. so...). But even before he joined Sidious, he was walking down a dark path and would thus, in my mind, be considered a dark-jedi. Especially because, it seems, these jedi are characterized by wearing darker garments (lol) (see: Anakin, Luke, Exar Kun). I think, if you're going down the path to the dark side but are not yet a sith, you are a dark jedi.

I agree with the above user that Rogue Jedi is apt.

and yes, light sith sounds stupid. Also, I agree with the general premise that the term used as it usually is is not correct, but I also understand what it typically means.

 

She was trained by a Jedi though- Ky Norec- and it was his death (which she blamed on the Jedi) that led to her going dark.

 

I'm rather fond of oxymorons myself. I'm quite fond of the term "Dark Jedi" as well.

 

Keep in mind "Dark Jedi" was what Lucas wanted when Zahn crafted it....

The Original Dark Jedi:

 

Not all Dark Jedi follow the Sith, so lumping them all into the category of Sith Followers is just as awkward as the term Dark Jedi.

Fallen Jedi or Dark Jedi is a very appropriate term to use when describing a Jedi who leaves the order or begins to use the Dark Side. There are plenty of examples of these, that really had little to no training or contact with Sith.

Set Harth, though he had contact with a Sith he really didn't spend any great amount of time with her and rejected the Sith Order completely.

Those Dark Jedi who split from the Jedi Order during the First Great Schism, no Sith Order was yet founded so they couldn't have been Sith Followers. In fact the First Great Schism happened in 24,500 BBY and it wasn't until after the Second Great Schism in 7000 BBY that the Dark Jedi found Korriban and evolved into what we know as Sith.

That leaves 17,500 years of Fallen/Dark Jedi running around the galaxy prior to any Sith Order even existing. Given the evidence the odds are good that in universe, the term Dark Jedi probably predates the term Sith.

Dark Jedi is in my view really no different than the term Dark Knight when referring to a Knight who has gone astray of his order/liege. Rogue Jedi may be a bit more appropriate, but unless that Jedi has specific dealings with Sith there is no reason to call them Sith Followers.

 

It's used very loosely, but it generally refers to a Jedi that begins to follow the Dark side. Sith typically follow the Sith code, promote the ideals of the Sith, and have undivided allegiance to the Sith Empire. Dark Jedi tend to have their own agenda and oftentimes could care less about being associated with a particular organization. Some non force-sensitives refer to the Sith as "Dark Jedi" out of ignorance; to them, Sith and Jedi are all the same. All they see are anti-social demigods with superpowers and fancy glow-sticks.

The original Sith were a species with their own religion, culture, and ways of using the Force. The original Dark Jedi were exiles from the Jedi order that discovered, conquered, and subjugated the Sith peoples.

There are many dark side users that are neither Sith nor Dark Jedi (the Rakata, the Nightsisters, etc.); using the dark side of the Force does not make the user a Dark Jedi.

Dark Jedi are to Sith like a random street gang is to the mafia: Not quite as bad, but you still don't want to mess with them.


Dark Jedi


Sith

 

I agree. Some Dark Jedi like Joruus C'baoth, Jerec, and Xanatos were as terrifying and dangerous as Sith Lords. I'm not sure if Warb Null was a Dark Jedi or a Sith acolyte, but if he's the former, I would include him on that list.

 

I couldn't have said it better than Khalil. Dark Jedi are like a bunch of small gangs, whereas the Sith Order itself is like MS13.

 

Two words. Dark Angel.

Nuff said.

 

I often like to think of it thus:
Dark Jedi are hot. They are embers of rage, controlled by their emotions, a slave of the unrestrained compulsions Vergere spoke of, and decried as 'the darkness.' This assumes many forms, from lost souls bent on revenge, such as Asajj Ventress, to simple hedonist, like Set Harth. And yes, there are times when there are scores of Dark Jedi who are also followers of the Sith, but only in the sense that they follow individuals who are Sith, not who necessarily follow Sith teachings. To follow Sith teachings one must first be aware of them, and understand them, and I suspect that's what differentiates a Dark Jedi aligned with the Sith from even the lowly Sith acolyte or apprentice.

What are those teachings, you might ask? Well, aside from a wealth of tradition, secret and arcane knowledge as well as an extensively developed philosophy, I think another important aspect, to adhere to the temperature analogy, is that Sith are cold. They do not deny their emotions, they do not suppress them, for they recognise that to be emotionless is to be a machine. But, just as Vergere was saying to Luke when stressing the importance of understanding one's emotion, and thus not losing control to unrestrained passion, I think the Sith do understand their emotions, and in so doing control them. The Sith are egotists, after all; why would they wish to lose control, lose identity, in the face of base instincts? They use their emotions, use them as fuel for the exertion of imposing one's will upon the Force, and maintain a station of cold superiority above their own emotional base. Embracing passion, yes, but only in so much as we 'embrace' fossil fuels - a tool, a means to an end, and that end is power and knowledge.