Vader: Sith Lord or Dark Jedi

I saw something interesting at TOS relating to this under Dooku's databank entry.

Affiliation:

Sith, Confederacy of Independent Systems, Jedi Order

Both are listed.

 

Mr44...

Think of the term "Dark Jedi" as "Ronin" and it becomes quite simple.

Again, the term is only used for Jedi that have turned dark and left the Jedi Order by doing so. They are no longer Jedi, you are correct. But be given a term they must.

"Former Jedi" could work, but when it's someone who's still using their Jedi powers, as well as the dark side, it's not quite applacible.

"Fallen Jedi" implies someone who gave up on their powers, was too weak, or was expelled from the Order. This could apply to someone like Dooku, but again, that term infers weakness.

"Dark Jedi" is a term that people would fear, and it certainly implies great power, as well as the obvious link to the person's former allegience and colleagues.

 

Sturm, you have hit on the main point of my arguement. Dark Jedi is more than just a term. It implies a seperate order.

Someone who just uses Jedi powers is NOT neccessarily a Jedi. Former or not. In TPM, Darth Maul was 1st described by Qui-gon as being skilled in the Jedi arts. He then said he must be a long lost Sith. They didnt know what he was-but he was no JEDI!

To be called a Jedi anything- one must have alliegence to the Jedi order and code.You can use a form of the Jedi arts, be a former Jedi or whatever, but as long as you do not subscribe to the oath you aren't a Jedi. Look at my Army Ranger example. I can have Ranger abilities, but unless I am still part of a Ranger unit- I am No Ranger.

I agree, there has to be a term to describe these people. Notice- Ronin is not a form of Samurai( There are NO Dark Samurai) Once you cease to be a Samurai-you get labelled a completely different term. Ronin has a reduced social status than being a full Samurai. Just like Jedi contains a social expectation.

A padawan that learns some Jedi abilities, but then fails out and turns evil would not be a Dark Jedi,( Dark Padawan?)even though that person knew some Jedi "secrets" That person is no longer a Jedi Anything-Dark, blue, or mauve.

 

Firelight, I'm not sure who you are supporting with your post. The Issue is not if Dooku was a Jedi and a Sith( we all know he was in the Jedi Order),

My point is that once he left, he gave up the right to be called Jedi anything. I propose that he did not leave and instantly become a Sith, Palpatine took advantage of his conflicted feelings and turned him to the Sith order. During that transitional period, he was not a Dark Jedi, he was just crazy old Count Dooku.

 

Succinctly put.

 

First of all Jello- logically you have not proven anything. Using the problems of the English language is not a logical defense.

We drive on a parkway, but park on a drive way. Is there some logical link between the two-of course not, its just the quirks of language.
Second, according to Websters, the term President means:" An offical with the authority to preside over subordinates" Being popularlly elected is not part of the definition. Sure, the American President is elected, but that does not mean there are no other ways to put a President into power. Quit thinking in purely American terms.

Now back to the core of my arguement. You are either a Jedi or you are not. I agree with you on one point. We should eliminate all terms like Fallen Jedi, Dark Jedi, etc. They are meaningless and distracting.

What we need is a completely new term. Padawan, as a term, means Jedi-in-training.
You are not yet a Jedi, but you do not have a title such as Less Jedi. You are a Padawan. The term has its own meaning.
We need a term like "Foresakers" or "Thrall" that means " Former Jedi that has abandoned the code and is now evil"
Use it in a sentence- Dooku was a Jedi, but he became a Foresaker before embracing the Sith. or
Anakin became a Thrall when he was expelled out of the Jedi order.

These terms illustrate what a person is, without compromiing the meaning of "Jedi"
Notice how these examples have specific meanings. If we come up with a new term and agree, see how easy it would be. Maybe the Forum could have a contest to see who could come up with the best term. Just think about it.

 

Allow me to be the first to propose...
Dastardly
Aweful
Revenant
Knowing
Jedi
Experiences
Defying
Impossibility

And we can call them D.A.R.K. J.E.D.I. for short...



...

A fight over semantics makes the baby Anakin cry!

 

Genghis, quite the funnybone we have there huh? It's the Dark Comedian!!!
Anyway, its not semantics, look:
Padawan= Jedi-in Training, not Jedi-Lite
Ronin= Samurai without a Lord, not Bossless Samurai
<blank>= former Jedi who has now turned evil, NOT Dark Jedi
In my other examples, there is a new term that has a specific meaning when the criteria for admission has not be met.
Anakin would never introduce himself as a Half Jedi, he would say Padawan.
WE need to come up with a term that means " former Jedi who is now evil" that is not connected to Jedi, because that person is NO LONGER A JEDI!

 

I agree, Vader is a Sith Lord. Look at his title- Darth Vader. Darth= Dark Lord of the Sith. He is a Sith. Why would someone who is just a Jedi of some strange kind, take a new name such as Vader?
The point is a valid one, that one must be with the order to be a Jedi...
While the term Dark Jedi could, I say could be used to refer to Jedi who had left and used the Dark Side, but were not Sith, Vader is clearly a Sith.

Hmm, as for the name... Magus? Warlock? Sorcerer? Djedi? Wannabe-Sith? Necromancer? Rider of the Dark?

 

Jello- I really hate debates over defintions.
Your definition you posted yourself contains the sentence " appointed or elected" That's what I'm saying- Not all Presidents are elected. You seemed to think that a non-elected President is not valid that is simply not true, by your own defintion!

What I really like is Eagle's attempts to come up with new terms- Magus is also quite powerful. Think of it this way:
Dooku, having abandoned the Jedi Order, was reduced to the status of a Magus. Then, after being corrupted by Palpatine, he joined the Sith.
It's perfect! And the uncertainity of using "dark Jedi" is removed because "Magus" has a VERY specific meaning. IT means <former Jedi who left the Order and is now evil> A Magus is NOT a Jedi, but NOT a neccessarily a Sith.

 

EU = bad
Films = Good
Dirty, dirty, ugly EU...
Ptooew!
MMMM....classic trilogy....

 

Wait a minute Merkurian,
who said anything about not liking "Dark Jedi" because its from the EU? I LOVE the EU.

It just happens to be that the term Dark Jedi is meaningless, ambigious, and not specific. ONE is EITHER a Jedi or one is not. Once you leave the Jedi Order, you forfeit your right to be a Jedi ANYTHING. Also, go back and look at some privious replies.

A Jedi in Training is NOT a Half-Jedi. It is called a Padawan. The terms are very specific and seperate. Padawan is a seperate term to show that the person is not yet a Jedi. There is a VERY specific code that must be followed to be a Jedi. If you do not pass the test, fail to complete the training,or renounce the code, You are not A Jedi.
A Jedi that is expelled is NOT a Dark Jedi, he becomes something totally different. That person is NO longer a Jedi anything..

The point is that we need a specific term, that is not connected to the Jedi, that means <former Jedi who left but is now evil and is not a Sith>. That's the challenge...I don't care if the term comes from the EU, a long lost quote from a movie, or from Lucas himself, The fact remains that Dark Jedi just does not fit.

 

Dark Jedi don't exist.

The EU does not exist.

It is not open to interpretation, it just is what it is.

I don't call Luke "Captain Faggywhiner" even though his poor delivery of dialog in ESB and ANH makes it an appropriate title.

I think I will write an EU novel and rename the Skywalker family the "Bitchywhiners"

There can only be 2, Jedi and Sith, no more, no less.

 

Not a big Skywalker fan?

Come on-he really wasn't that bad.

It was the late 70's, half the cast was high on SOMETHING while they were filming....

 

Can someone tell me where the term Dark Jedi first appeared?

 

Ask Genghis12, if he doesn't know it, it doesn't exist...





(except for one tiny quote from George Lucas, but hey-who's counting.....)

 

JediLord...
The first mention of the term "Dark Jedi" is from Timothy Zahn's Heir to the Empire, 1991.

Heir to the Empire
(paperback, P. 40.)

---

"We might also have irritated him," Thrawn pointed out. "A Dark Jedi's pride and sensibilities are not to be taken lightly..."[hr][/ul]Mr44...
Flattery will get you nowhere. :p ;\

 

The points on the thread go round and round
round and round
round and round

The points on the thread go round and round
All day long.

 

Thank you Genghis12. I hte to do this, but...if the term Dark Jedi is not mentioned in the films, and is an EU term, then in this case Darth Vader is a Sith Lord and only a Sith Lord. *braces self*

 

Jedilord...
"I hte to do this, but...if the term Dark Jedi is not mentioned in the films, and is an EU term, then in this case Darth Vader is a Sith Lord and only a Sith Lord. *braces self*"

That's a moot point. Please mention which scene in any film thus far where Darth Vader is a Sith (and only a Sith Lord, for that matter).

We know that Vader is a Sith Lord only from sources outside the movie - i.e. things which "expand" on the movies. However, there's clear, unambiguous proof of Vader being an evil Jedi in ANH. The common term for such a person is "Dark Jedi," a term which merely happens to have originated in the EU, like Coruscant. But, the concept, the core of the term is based entirely in the films themselves.