Lit Did Sidious Palpatine truly train three Sith? Or three Dark Jedi?

I do think that Bane was closest to Sith doctrine. The idea of an apprentice supplanting the master and thereby taking all power is the most vicious aspect. It's compared to Nietzsche and Satanism by some, but I find the latter comparison absurd. To me, Lumiya's Sith was a sequel to the Banite line. But that artificial dynasty was never as secure. Krayt's Sith was similar to the Sith of old insfoar as Krayt was willing to have many, many minions, but he was worse than Palpatine because he attempted to drain out individuality at a massive scale. Palpatine liked to manipulate people to death, but he was not foolish enough to believe that he could make everyone into Darth Maul (who in Shadow Hunter is a shade better than a Terminator in that he is content with his indoctrination and wants to prove himself worthy, even if he is just the servant).

Good points about Kaan. He may not have been the most powerful personally, but he was on the verge of victory. Bane did undermine him more than he undermined Lord Hoth and the Army of Light. But that's the interesting thing about Bane, isn't it? He truly wants Zannah, or later, Cognus, to overthrow him. And Zannah does so. Yet when he's younger, he's caught up in grand schemes due to his political competition with Kaan and others. Bane isn't as powerful as he was made out to be. He could not beat Sidious, Krayt, or Vitiate. He could give Revan, Vader, Malak, and Malgus a challenge, but he certainly could not beat Vader or Malgus. It's possible that Revan could have defeated him. I like early Revan's psychology and philosophy in that he's the anti-Palpatine. But I don't think he's as powerful as he's made out to be. But I do like that one scene of Revan turning on the lights with his finger or whatever. Heh. Revan was a great fighter, though, but I think that, as a tactician, Thrawn could have outwitted him in a naval battle.

 

Eh I think bane got closer to the heart of Sith doctrine as a religious or ideological thing.

Kaan and the Sith before him had "secularized" Sith teachings to the point that they became diluted.

The brotherhood of darkness is more a political faction, while the banite order of the Sith Lords is a religious cult.

At least that's my take.

 

It honestly goes to show that the Sith religion is no less dogmatic than that of the Jedi. In theory, the Sith should be all about pragmatism and being the first ones to adapt, but we see with Darth Bane that this isn't the case. IMO, the most successful Sith are the ones that left behind the Sith dogma, and that'd be Palpatine. Once he took power, he fully abandoned any notion of continuing Bane's line and proclaimed himself to be the Sith'ari, because he realized he didn't need to uphold Bane's legacy anymore.

 

True, but it's important to remember the Sith like the Jedi are religious organizations. It's easy to forget that and focus on the powers they wield, the lightsabers they brandish or the particulars of their individual members, and lose sight of the fact that they are religious sects.

 

Sidious is a master manipulator basically a very good poker player he trains maul very well and feeds him everything he wants to hear about the rule of two and overthrowing him some day. Yet also does the same to his master “maul is just a pawn for us both to use and be put down when necessary” the facts remain we don’t know which story is true from sidious pov.

Obviously he means to overthrow his master and bides his time to make sure there are no mistakes and he learns every last thing he can before discarding him

The doubt is does he see maul really as a Sith Lord or like dooku a pawn until he finds exactly what he’s looking for

 

I feel like Sidious is like George Lucas in a way. When he needs to make some change to his plan he says "Oh, yeah, that was what I intended all along."

 

I guess this is only possible if Plagueis and Sidious really created Anakin by using the midicholorian manipulation.

Because there is no way he could know that someone as powerful as Anakin would come. And we know Lucas said Sidious shouldn't have lost his apprentice in the first place;

''Well, he shouldn't have gotten himself in a position of getting his apprentice killed anyways.''

--- Source: George Lucas / AOTC DVD Commentary

 

Discarding one apprentice for a stronger one doesn't mean that we shouldn't count the earlier one. By that logic Vader wouldn't, since Sidious wanted to replace him too. To a Sith, everyone is a pawn, your apprentice is simply your most important one, yet still expendable

 

I stil think there's nothing wrong with Vader's actions in that issue. He's just been put in the suit, having lost Padme, his good looks, limbs and lightsaber. On top of which, he's been forbidden to seek out Obi-Wan to take revenge. Of course he's going take out his anger on any target that presents itself.

Moreover, his actions in that issue are very much presented as him testing his abilities in his new cyborg state. Both his piloting and his combat abilities. Which, he quickly discovers, are as formidable as ever, in their own way.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

 

Honestly, any true difference between Sith and Dark Jedi has often been, because unplanned, relatively inconsistent in terms of how convincing it was. It mostly boiled down to a dark sider being accepted as part of a legacy.

If the movies/shows/comics/books tell us that a character is Sith, as they have, I think we are wise to take them at face value. It’s hard for storytellers to find legitimately convincing qualities or practices that are unique to Sith because it’s hard for the storytellers to explore the Force on too deep a level. It’s meant to remain relatively general, sayings and advice and trials, otherwise it starts to seem more like spellcasting or very mechanical magic seen in other fantasy fiction. Or it starts getting too close to religion, which SW shies away from, of course.

So if a character is a dark sider and another Sith says they’re a Sith, that’s nowadays good enough for me. Same if it’s stated they aren’t Sith (Snoke and Kylo Ren).

In retrospect, I do sort of miss when we didn’t know what the Emperor was, beyond his having “Jedi” powers, nor did we know what Vader was, beyond knowing that he’d been a Jedi and (in some media) was called the Dark Lord of the Sith. In some sense, the ST has recreated that with Snoke and Kylo Ren, and for that reason, despite my curiosity, I would prefer it if we did not explore too much of that.

It’s a bit of a shame the movies have been set so close together, preventing other media from using those characters and that mystery to their advantage, as books and comics would around the OT. Heck, even if there were no media, the tight timeline prevents viewers from having space to imagine more about these characters, their cults, the mysterious names or events that are referenced. Perhaps the Sith work best as a poetic device, where words are the power, rather than any too literal interpretation of them.

(Off-topic, that reminds me a bit of the different approaches toward exploring the Time War in Doctor Who. Sometimes showing truly is inferior to telling, if things are told well.)

 

I would say the archetypical dark Jedi is someone like set Harth-primarily interested in his own gratification and not devoted to any sort of broader or deeper cause.

Sith Lords on the other hand whether they want to admit it or not are very much participating in a religious organization. The Sith have doctrine, ritualized practices, and a belief about the world and how it is. Same as the Jedi.

Palpatine as stated above wanted to get rid of the rule of two, but I don't think personally he ever stopped considering himself a Sith Lord.

Palpatine wanted to fulfill the Sith code to its fullest extent.

Through victory, my chains are broken
The force shall free me

The Sith pursuit of immortality and absolute dominion over life, death and the universe is embodied within these two lines.

In fact I would say far from not being a Sith, palpatine was the quintessential Sith Lord.

 

I maintain the Sith are like any other religion where the rules of what qualifies as a Sith or not are very dependent on who is doing the qualifying.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoTrueScotsman

For the most part, I think there's no such thing as a "False Sith" as the criteria for a True Sith may vary dramatically.

After all, we have Light Side Sith now.

If you have been trained as a Sith by anyone with any connection to the past Sith or as powerful Force User who just declares yourself one, you're a Sith.

It's like when Darth Wyrrlock kicked Darth Aneddu's butt.

"I'm powerful enough to knock you around. If I'm not a true Sith, what does that make you?"
-Paraphrased greatly

 

Well we don't have a Sith "orthodoxy" per se, but the Sith code is universally upheld and referred to. However it can be interpreted in many different ways.

 

Yeah, its not indefensible. I'm glad it worked for you.

For me the build up to that moment, such as it was, appeared to be a case of working backwards from "I want Vader to crash an episode of TCW and butcher everyone because that would be awesome" more than anything else.

As someone for whom such a moment isn't all that compelling?



But, hey, wasn't the end of the world. And Soule's run as a whole ended up being quite fun. I have no major complaints.

 

Maul was, I think, truly intended to be a Sith - a Lord, OTOH, now that's debatable. He's a Sith warrior, not an inquisitor like Palpatine, although I do think underestimating how cunning Maul became over time is foolhardy.

Nevertheless, Palpatine was so far beyond Maul in scheming and power levels that it was never truly a contest.

Dooku is ... weird. Not in that he went dark - his ego and Galidraan twisted his aristocratic noblesse oblige into something Palpatine could use - but his narrative is so conflicting (is he a humanocentrist? Is he not a humanocentrist?) that I'm not convinced he could've posed sufficient threat to Palps. It depends on how deeply Dooku delved into Sith Magic School (TM) as to whether he could truly confront Sidious.

Vader, though? Oh, KRIFF YES.

Soule's run - no spoilers - showed that Vader had stepped up his game through sheer putting in the time and work to embrace Sithdom HIMSELF.

Yes, he's limited by the suit - ROTJ proved it - but mentally and emotionally, Vader was SITH by the end of Soule's run.

And with a talented and committed enough apprentice, Vader could've taken Sidious. Almost certainly, one of the pair (Vader or the apprentice) would've died - we're talking Sidious, after all - but Palps could've been overwhelmed, IMO.

 

Doesn't the fact that there's no such thing as a "Dark Jedi" render the initial question moot?

 

Set Harth

Sora Bulq

Alema Rar

Ventress(arguably)

Are all examples of dark Jedi

 

Those look like examples of people who stopped being Jedi to me.

"Dark Jedi" is a term that makes about as much sense to me as "atheist pope". Theoretically possible? Only by lying to yourself and everyone around you, I guess.

 

I think the issue is that Dark Jedi is a weird term. Being a Jedi is to use the light side and avoid the dark. It's also to put others ahead of oneself. Therefore, a Dark Jedi can't be considered a Jedi. They're Jedi who have fallen, but Jedi is more of an indicator of what they once were. In Legends, Dark Jedi essentially meant a dark side force user who isn't a Sith. But just darksider, dark force user, or a title indicating their role in serving the Sith would be more accurate. This is like how Ventress is called Dooku's assassin. It describes her better than Dark Jedi does.

It's similar to gray Jedi. I originally understood it to mean a Jedi who doesn't strictly follow the code or at least how the code is interpreted by the council but is still loyal to the Order. Also, exclusively a light side user. In this way many considered Qui-gon a gray Jedi. But it's misleading because he's very clearly a light side user and avoids the dark. He's just not orthodox as it was currently defined by the council. However, he's loyal to the Order and follows the code. While still not a useful or logical term it's better than what the term most often means which is someone who uses both the light and dark. The dark side corrupts and is addictive. If you start using it you will likely fall. So you're not a gray Jedi, you're a Jedi who is in the progress of falling. Also, to begin using the dark side is to go against what it means to be a Jedi and so you can no longer be called one. A gray Jedi I'm this way is a Jedi who has turned away from what makes one a Jedi.

 

Unless the apprentice in question is another Skywalker, Vader fails in any attempt to kill his Master. We saw how it goes when the Apprentice recruits their own acolyte and tries to overthrow the Master with their aid.



Both Maul and Dooku stood no chance alone, or with an apprentice. Vader would have no chance at all. We've seen how Sidious's Force Lightning on lethal intensity ends him swiftly.

However, only a foolish Sith tries to take their Master in a straight up fight for the mantle of Dark Lord. Zannah only had to fight Bane because he came looking for her.

Plagueis killed Tenebrous through a sudden betrayal and a clever utilization of unique circumstances.

Sidious killed Plagueis by striking his Master while he slept.

Wyyrlok killed his Master when he was weak and defeated.

All that should matter to the Apprentice is ending their Master, whether by treachery, or trickery, or even through force of arms, if they want.



Given this preface, both Maul and Dooku could easily have ended their Master. All it would take is a revelation of Sidious's true identity to the Jedi Council and let things take their natural course from there. They don't do it, because the Apprentice only turns on their Master when they are no longer of use. When the Master has nothing left to offer, when the Apprentice truly feels that they are ready and deserve to be the Master, betrayal ensues.

The relationship between Sith apprentice and Master was symbiotic but in a delicate balance. An apprentice owed his Master loyalty. A Master owed his apprentice knowledge and must show only strength. But the obligations were reciprocal and contingent. Should either fail in his obligation, it was the duty of the other to destroy him. An apprentice was unquestioningly loyal until the moment he wasn’t. Both Master and apprentice knew this.

Vader never turns on Sidious because he knows he has no chance. Because he would never be able to rule the Empire. He doesn't consider himself the Master, because a Master without an Apprentice is a Master of nothing. It's only when Luke's existence is revealed to him that Vader realizes that he has a chance. An opportunity to do what he wanted to do over twenty years ago. Destroy his Master and rule the Galaxy.

 

Maul was a Dark Jedi, Dooku a Sith Apprentice and Vader is a fallen Jedi

 

I would have placed Maul and Dooku the other way round, since Maul is much more immersed in the Sith tradition than Dooku is.

 

When I hear Palpatine training Dark Jedi, I think of these guys:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So out of curiosity how do you define the four individuals I listed?

 

I'd label Assajj as Dooku's assassin. Sora Bulq would be just a Separatist Commander. Dooku's apprentice or servant. I'd say apprentice because Dooku trained his force using agents even if not enough to be considered Sith. Or maybe just as one of Dooku's agents. Set Harth could be called a fallen Jedi. His allegiances changed a lot and he didn't care about political or ideological loyalties. Dark Jedi catries too much of that along with the association of being Jedi. Maybe just darksider would be appropriate. But to be honest, his independence makes labeling him feel unnecessary. He was a former Jedi who fell to the Dark Side, but cared nothing for the Sith or galactic domination. Only personal wealth. Alema Rar is tricky, especially since it's been so long since I read a book with her in it. I'd probably call her am agent of the Sith or a servant of Lumyia. Maybe even an independent darksider during some points in her story. I think if we are dealing with the Dark Neat Trilogy we could label her as a Killik ally. Fallen Jedi would work as well. I prefer fallen Jedi to Dark Jedi because it suggests one is no longer a Jedi. They used to be, hence their training, but they fell away from the Order. They're no longer a Jedi. Dark Jedi implies they're a Jedi who uses the darkside which is contradictory. But then they usually workt for the Sith or independently and so are definitely not even Jedi aligned.