Lit "Dark Jedi" and "Sith": a blunder on the EU's part

Did you also read the issue where he recites the Sith Code?

 

Let's all be honest here: is there any actual substance or fecundity to the Sith code? Anyone that uses the dark side is "following" the Sith code whether they actually know it or not, so "following" it or "reciting" it doesn't really make Darth Krayt all that different than Kueller or Jerec.

And that's really the common "philosophy" that the Sith share, because they otherwise have substantially different worldviews depending upon the Sith Lord and the era, whether it be the Banite Rule of Two or Krayt's Rule of One or Ruin's solipsism or Kaan's Rule by the Strong, not to even get started on the JJM's depictions of the Sith. And when the common thread to all these Sith is the same thing which Dark Jedi follow by their very nature as Dark Jedi, the distinction becomes one without a difference, apart from pedigree.

 

A Dark Jedi might just want to be rich rather than ruling the galaxy.

 

I don't think a Dark Jedi necessarily has to be following the Sith Code. "Peace is a lie, there is only passion." Okay, it's possible, but how about Set Harth? He really didn't even seem to care about the dark side at all...he just wanted money and artifacts. Sure, he became a semi-Sith later on, but...really, he didn't have what it took. And many other Dark Jedi, just because they use the dark side, probably don't have what it takes to actually be Sith, either. For example. Depa Billiba fell to the dark side, but was she a Sith? Or how about Kar Vastor? They were definitely dark beings, but were they really, truly Sith?

 

So did Darth Vectivus (allegedly).

And just to be clear, I'm not using Chee's relatively recent definition of Dark Jedi, because I've never heard of the Nightsisters being called Dark Jedi and I'm pretty sure they weren't. Dark Jedi was pretty much a Jedi that fell to the dark side, or someone of that pedigree, e.g. Sariss and Yun trained by Jerec, though never being true Jedi in their own right.

In what way does Set Harth not follow the Sith code? Perhaps you could make an argument that Dark Jedi by reason of insanity don't follow the Sith code, because they're insane and don't follow any sort of logic.

 

As an accountant, I am offended.

 

Dark Jedi don't follow any Code. That's what sets them apart from the Sith.

 

Nope, dark Jedi definitely aren't Sith.

 

Does anyone ever feel like their post wasn't read?

 

Actually don't recall that one, though he clearly did not care all that much.

 

Right before he goes to talk to the ancient Sith holocrons. He probably cared, it regarded his continued survivial and is pretty essential to Sith philosophy

 

I bet Palpatine didn't really care about any Sith code, either.

 

Seeing as how he made a holocron dedicated to future Sith and had extensive writings on the dark side, I think he did care about the Sith tradition somewhat.

 

To a point. The difference for all the authors and designers involved in the various series seems to merely be whether one acknowledges himself as a Sith and is aware of certain techniques and philosophies, and then seeks to expand the influence of the Sith.

 

It does seem that some darksiders are more interested in being "Sith" than others.

 

Only as long as it suited his purposes somehow. Otherwise it would be out of character for him, imo. He did seem to leave some information for future Sith lords in that Holocron(Telos Holocron, I believe). But the guy never intended to die, anyway. And most of his other writings on the dark side seemed to consist of him gloating over this or that

 

Palpatine was a Sith, among many other things.

And it seems that before TPM was released, the EU used "Sith" as a title, not an alignment or an "idea".

 

Set Harth didn't seem to have any desire to rule the galaxy or dominate others, which it seems like almost every Sith does. Set didn't seem all that interested in getting stronger through conflict, either. He spent his entire life running away from conflict and hiding. All he seemed to care about was learning and living forever. He seemed too hedonist for a Sith, too much fear and too much aversion to pain.

I can certainly see a difference between Dark Jedi and Sith. It's a fine line, but it's there.

Just about all Sith are about conflict and the survival of the fittest. This isn't necessarily true for a Dark Jedi.

Most of the Sith seem amoral, or strive to be. I don't think this is necessarily true for a Dark Jedi.

Sith seem to disdain love, they tend to think it makes them weak, which they find intolerable. I think Dark Jedi could and would crave love and see nothing wrong with it.

Then you have all the various Rules of the Sith, which a Dark Jedi doesn't even have to pretend to care about. I know the Sith tend to blow off those Rules, but those Rules still play a major factor in their lives. For a Dark Jedi those rules don't even exist. It's the difference between a "bad" Catholic and an atheist, I guess. Or some comparison like that.

Then there's the Master-Apprentice dynamic, which many Sith seem to value and even find essential, like they just can't not have that relationship, like they're addicted to it, like their ego demands it. A Dark Jedi just doesn't need an apprentice at all and often doesn't even want one.

The Sith are an organization like a religion, they have beliefs, they have a culture, they have a view of the universe. The ways of the Sith have changed over their history, but what doesn't? They still have a sort of doctrine or dogma. Dark Jedi usually don't have any organization, they don't necessarily have a doctrine and they certainly don't have anything approaching a culture.

The Sith are professional darksiders, Dark Jedi are more like amateurs just playing.

Like I said, it's a thin line, but I can appreciate it. I guess it's sorta like the square and the rectangle. All Sith are Dark Jedi (sorta), but not all Dark Jedi are Sith.

 

I'll raise your Set Harth my Darth Vectivus!

I agree with the idea that all Sith are Dark Jedi, but not the other way around.

 

lol, yeah I actually had Vectivus in mind when I was typing that up, which is why I used words like "most", "many", "usually", "necessarily", etc. I knew there would be exceptions to many of the things I was saying.

I find Vectivus the Anti-Sith to be a contrived LOTF creation with the sole purpose of trying to change the definition of the Sith and therefore make Jacen choosing teh eeeeeeevilz a little more plausible. It didn't work on me.

 

A sith is anyone force user who is evil and can use lightning force. If the user cannot use lightning force, they have to be called something else.

 

We never see Maul use Force Lightning in the movie- do we in the comics?

I could see Sith Apprentices taking a long time to learn it.

 

Uh, no. Not sure where you're getting that from, but using Force Lightning isn't unique to the Sith. Not only have numerous other Dark Side Force Users with no affiliation with the Sith used it, but Jedi have used variations of it as well.

Iron_lord No Maul's never used Force Lightning. He was attacked with it by a Nightsister once though and he tanked it like a boss!

 

He does use lightning in the clone wars cartoon series. The comics, I wouldn't know.
5th season, I think.

 

I think Vectivus was to justify Vergere being a Sith even though she selflessly sacrificed herself to save the Solo twins. "See, the Sith retcon makes sense! There was this totally legit Sith that knew his station and didn't bother galactic domination either!"