Which is an important distinction. The Sith are a specific style of practitioners while there are several Force users who could use the Dark Side but no be the Sith specifically.
The High Republic: A more civilized age...
- Thread starter Nightowl1701
- Start date
I'd go with generic Dark Side. I can't remember if the Darth Vader comics that dealt with the formation of the group explicitly went one way or the other with it, but I've always felt they are very much not Sith. Just darkness wielding attack dogs. There's a reason they are "Number" Brother/Sister instead of Darth Whomever. And it's pretty clear between the lines that the Emperor intends Vader to eliminate them all once the work is done. Which I've always kind of assumed to be their eventual fate, either killed by Jedi they failed to eliminate or murdered by Vader.
Kind of like Ventress. Sith? Or no? Sidious and Dooku seem to think no, but we never really hear her perspective. She doesn't get a "Darth" title or a new name, and she never seems that interested in being Sith. She just wants power, and some nebulous sense of revenge on those who she perceives as wronging her. Even when she's discarded by Dooku, she more takes offense from the personal betrayal than seeing it in institutional terms, as she isn't trying to kill Dooku to retake her place, but just because she wants him dead. I don't think she's a Sith, I think she's a Dark Side assassin and a useful tool to obfuscate Sidious' existence from the Jedi. (Rule of Two, and all)
OK, the only reason I wasn't sure wasn't sure was because they actually trained by or at least working for a Sith.
I'm assuming there are very specific Sith teachings that they are probably not getting.
I forgot about Ventress, but she does seem to be pretty similar to the Inquisitors. Someone trained by a Sith to fight Jedi, but not actually a Sith herself.
I'm assuming there are very specific Sith teachings that they are probably not getting.
Just finished the latest novel. It was pretty good. The big action sequence went on a little long and got a bit confusing in some places for me but overall I enjoyed it.
I’m even more certain now that Ro’s family were Sith worshippers. That explains the tattoos his aunt had and that Leveler creature is surely some ancient Sith weapon.
Mann and Ty were the highlights in the book. They are obviously going for a Kenobi/Anakin dynamic between them which should be fun.
I’m even more certain now that Ro’s family were Sith worshippers. That explains the tattoos his aunt had and that Leveler creature is surely some ancient Sith weapon.
Mann and Ty were the highlights in the book. They are obviously going for a Kenobi/Anakin dynamic between them which should be fun.
He has pets? I don’t remember those in his books.
It depends on who you ask really. If you ask them, then they might be under the delusion that they are Sith, or at the very least, Sith Acolytes. Ventress certainly thought something along those lines (and honestly, Dooku probably thought he was grooming her as a Sith once he got around to knocking off Sidious.) Both of them were quite mistaken.
However if you ask an actual Sith what the Inquisitors are to them, the answer you get would be one, all, or some combination of 1) useful 2) disposable, and 3) Not Sith.
Honestly, "Dark Jedi" is almost as dumb of a term as "Grey Jedi." As oxymorons go it's up there with the likes of "dry water" and "honest politician".
Last edited:
Cool story, bro. 
Well, he's right.
Cool.
The Sith were "a thing" in the original movies. It's a term that dates back to the early drafts of the ANH script and showed up in all kinds of merchandise describing Vader as "The Dark Lord of the Sith" WAY before the EU days.
As for "Dark Jedi" as a term; well 1) the fact that the EU used it doesn't make it a good term, just one that exists, 2) IIRC it first showed up in the old WEG books, which as a role playing game is want to provide the players with options and rulesets they can use. So yes, if they want to play someone that's like a Jedi but is dark side then they copy the baseline "Jedi" rules across with a few tweaks and called them "dark Jedi" for ease of reference.
It's kinda like how in video games like Jedi Outcast & Force Unleashed there's such a things as "force powers" that have to be "activated" and expend points to use, and one set of powers is for the light and another for the dark...and yet none of that is even remotely how the force works; it's just how it's adapted and translated to worth within the gaming mechanics.
You can't be a "Dark Jedi" any more than you can be a "Grey Jedi". You're either a Jedi, or not. It's a religious order of warrior monks, it's not a weekend book club. Same goes for the Sith, only they have a MUCH more exclusive membership policy.
If a character WAS a Jedi and they turn to the dark side and consequently leave or are expelled then they're not necessarily anything in particular. Unless they join or found some other group (like say the Sith or the Ordu Aspectu) they're just themselves. Same goes for people like Ahsoka or Eeth Koth who were no longer Jedi because basically "fuck that noise". They're nothing in particular, just following their own path like most everyone else.
Now it'd be nice if there were a term in Star Wars like "Ronin" which indicates "a lone wanderer trained in the Jedi arts", but as of yet they're isn't. It's a shame, but here we are.
That is true but Vader being a “Dark Lord of the Sith” was just title they gave him but they didn’t go any further as to what it is until the prequel were developed.
It’s actually interesting reading those old EU stories when they describe the “baddies”. It’s funny how close they came to them getting them Sith, but not actually saying it
It’s actually interesting reading those old EU stories when they describe the “baddies”. It’s funny how close they came to them getting them Sith, but not actually saying it
Side note for those that don't know or are misinformed as to where a lot of the pre-EU background material came from: between July and August of '77, Lucas gave a series of quasi-interviews to Carol Titelman (then head of Lucasfilm's art, publishing & creative services departments) where he'd essentially role play as each character, answering questions about their backgrounds and the world in general, as a means to record as much of the knowledge of the world he'd created in his head as they could use for the marketing and licencing side of things.
A lot of it either never actually got used (like his explanation for Chewbacca not getting a medal, the explanation for the significance of parsecs, and yes even midi-chlorians) or was changed later (like the whole thing with the space giraffes), but it's also where details like 3PO being 112, or Han being an orphan came from.
So just because a thing appears in a certain EU book first, doesn't mean that's actually where the concept came from.
A lot of it either never actually got used (like his explanation for Chewbacca not getting a medal, the explanation for the significance of parsecs, and yes even midi-chlorians) or was changed later (like the whole thing with the space giraffes), but it's also where details like 3PO being 112, or Han being an orphan came from.
So just because a thing appears in a certain EU book first, doesn't mean that's actually where the concept came from.
...by George Lucas who invented the term in the first place and was going off the background material he'd already written way back then. So what's your point exactly?
Last edited:
