Jump to content

The Best View in SWTOR contest has returned! ×

Which makes the better Sith?

DarthMors

By DarthMors
in STAR WARS Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

DarthMors

DarthMors

Posted
Posted

The being taught, possibly born into Sith servitude or raised by his master, exclusively Sith teachings? Or the fallen Jedi, taught the Jedi way before embracing the dark side and learning the way of the Sith?

Examples of “pure” Sith: Darth Maul, his master Darth Sidious.

Examples of Jedi taught: Count Dooku, Darth Vader, Revan.

Conversely, which makes the better Jedi?

Please, discuss.

I will render my own decision soon. :hope_02:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aurbere

Aurbere

Posted
Posted

Well, let's take a look at the community's list of most powerful Sith:

 

1. Darth Sidious

2. Darth Caedus

3. Sith Emperor

4. Darth Plagueis

5. Darth Vader

6. Exar Kun

7. Darth Krayt

8. Darth Malgus

9. Darth Traya

10. Darth Bane

 

It would appear that the list is half and half. Take that for what it is worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trollokdamus

Trollokdamus

Posted
Posted
IMO it's easier to redeem a fallen Jedi to the Light Side since he was there before and may still remember the feeling of being a "good guy". Also, a fallen Jedi may have an inner conflict between his original and new dark personalities, while a pure Sith is, well, pure, he has no doubts in what he's doing since he can't imagine the alternative.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sell-dog

sell-dog

Posted
Posted
Well, let's take a look at the community's list of most powerful Sith:

 

1. Darth Sidious

2. Darth Caedus

3. Sith Emperor

4. Darth Plagueis

5. Darth Vader

6. Exar Kun

7. Darth Krayt

8. Darth Malgus

9. Darth Traya

10. Darth Bane

 

It would appear that the list is half and half. Take that for what it is worth.

 

This is the approach I was going to take when I read the OP. I'd like to take it a step further though and assign points inversely so to speak (Sid = 10, Caedus = 9... etc.)

 

Exclusive Sith: 29 Points

Fallen Jedi: 26 Points

 

Pretty close and Exclusive having 3 of top 4 helped. I'd also like to speculate that whenever more information on the Bane Line of Sith becomes available the top 10 will probably change and be (slowly) more in favor of Exclusive Sith in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beniboybling

Beniboybling

Posted
Posted

I don't think it has any effect on power, so we shouldn't attempt to judge it that way.

 

In terms of philosophy? Fallen Jedi are twisted perversions of their former selves who all to often achieve 'redemption' - proving themselves mentally incapable of adhering to their chosen path.

 

Those who began as Sith however how no such mental conflict, they are more likely to stay true to themselves and their ideals and I can't think of any real case of a 'pure' Sith becoming a Jedi or abandoning the dark side.

 

So I'd say pure Sith are better simply because they are less mentally conflicted and corrupted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aurbere

Aurbere

Posted
Posted
It was pretty emotional for a Star Wars book....

 

Anakin and Obi wan cost the deaths of thousands of Jedi.

 

Nice going >.>

 

They really messed up. Though it was Palpatine's fault. I think he was the one who suggested Obi-Wan and Anakin go to look for Yoda. Imagine that, right? :rolleyes:

 

But yes, it is a very good book. One of my all-time favorites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stinghen

Stinghen

Posted
Posted
IMO it's easier to redeem a fallen Jedi to the Light Side since he was there before and may still remember the feeling of being a "good guy". Also, a fallen Jedi may have an inner conflict between his original and new dark personalities, while a pure Sith is, well, pure, he has no doubts in what he's doing since he can't imagine the alternative.

 

I don't think matters are so clear-cut. As a wise Jedi once said, we must not deal in absolutes XD

 

The point being - it all depends on an individual's path to the Dark Side. The best example of this is Darth Vader.

 

Vader fell to the Dark Side because he was afraid to lose his wife. He never stopped loving her, even after he caused her death indirectly, so when it turns out his kids had actually been delivered, they were his anchor to the days when he lived by an ethical code that didn't involve murder :p You can say Darth Vader was the "worse Sith" because of this - if Palpy had been somehow more diligent in his work, such as driving a far more effective hunt for Obi-wan and Yoda after Mustafar and the duel in the Senate rotunda, then many of the loose ends wouldn't come back to haunt his regime and return his prize Sith apprentice from the Dark Side. Quite interestingly, that works both for the Jedi and the Sith. Vader was a "worse Sith" because his existing connections to the galaxy, and these very connections themselves were what caused his fall to begin with. Maybe they are useful to cause someone to fall to the Dark Side, but for the Sith to remain uncompromised in his commitment to the Dark Side, these connections should be purged. Preferably by the Sith Lord himself xD Like Darth Zannah did, after she drove her sole surviving cousin mad so the Jedi would kill him, thinking he was the last surviving Sith Lord.

 

I don't think it has any effect on power, so we shouldn't attempt to judge it that way.

 

In terms of philosophy? Fallen Jedi are twisted perversions of their former selves who all to often achieve 'redemption' - proving themselves mentally incapable of adhering to their chosen path.

 

Those who began as Sith however how no such mental conflict, they are more likely to stay true to themselves and their ideals and I can't think of any real case of a 'pure' Sith becoming a Jedi or abandoning the dark side.

 

So I'd say pure Sith are better simply because they are less mentally conflicted and corrupted.

 

I think it's a matter of perspective. A Sith is more than his fancy gimmicks, his lightnings and chokes and transfer essences. A truly good Sith is defined by his success in facing the age-long enemies of the many incarnations of the Sith Order - the Jedi and the Republic. So, a Sith's philosophical upbringing is at least as important as personal power when it comes to defining the better Sith.

 

And to defeat your enemy, you must first know it. Sith Lords like Exar Kun, Ulic Qel-Droma, Darth Revan, Darth Traya, Skerre Kaan and, of course, Darth Vader, were extremely succesful in their large-scale scuffles against the Jedi Order. The effect of this little list on the Jedi Order is far greater than the effect exercised by the "alien Sith Lords", that is the ones that did not come from Jedi roots (like Vitiate and Naga Sadow). Surely, not saying Sadow and Vitiate were any less deadly, be it personally or militarily, but their opposition would never be able to shake the Jedi Order to its foundations, in my opinion, unless they had been able to destroy it. But when a Dark Lord of the Sith was once a Jedi, that forces all the masters to take a step back, re-evaluate their stance, their methods, see their past mistakes and attempt to correct them. This is especially true after the war with Skerre Kaan, with the Ruusan Reformation that changed the face of the Jedi Order for the following 1000 years.

 

However, as you stated, that little bonus may have its drawback, which is the fact that the previous contact with the Jedi philosophy could perhaps "contaminate" a Sith's personal morals, or rather the lack thereof. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. Philosophical "reformations" were what caused every reconstruction of the Sith Order in its several incarnations, and determined their failure or success as the time went by, and knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the Jedi moral code could be an asset to a reformationist Sith Lord, though the examples of reformationists that I know of do not only include fallen Jedi. The most prominent ones are Darth Bane (obviously) and Darth Millennial, but there is also Darth Krayt (his rejection of the Rule of Two) and Darth Ruin (who wrote his own Sith Code), both of whom were formerly Jedi.

 

But a Sith society that spurs "pure Sith", as mentioned, also has many flaws. I take as an example of this the Sith Empire in SWTOR. The Emperor created a brain-washing Sith society that was beneficial only to one of the Sith powers that be - Vitiate himself. An example of this is Darth Malgus, which stated that the Sith should place the needs of the Empire ahead of their own needs. It was good for the Empire, but it made for individual Sith who were not as independent in their approach to power, whereas other incarnations of the Order spurred more the sense of selfishness that caused the creation of powerful Sith Lords as Naga Sadow, Exar Kun and every Sith of Bane's Order of the Sith Lords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beniboybling

Beniboybling

Posted
Posted
I think it's a matter of perspective. A Sith is more than his fancy gimmicks, his lightnings and chokes and transfer essences. A truly good Sith is defined by his success in facing the age-long enemies of the many incarnations of the Sith Order - the Jedi and the Republic. So, a Sith's philosophical upbringing is at least as important as personal power when it comes to defining the better Sith.

 

And to defeat your enemy, you must first know it. Sith Lords like Exar Kun, Ulic Qel-Droma, Darth Revan, Darth Traya, Skerre Kaan and, of course, Darth Vader, were extremely successful in their large-scale scuffles against the Jedi Order. The effect of this little list on the Jedi Order is far greater than the effect exercised by the "alien Sith Lords", that is the ones that did not come from Jedi roots (like Vitiate and Naga Sadow). Surely, not saying Sadow and Vitiate were any less deadly, be it personally or militarily, but their opposition would never be able to shake the Jedi Order to its foundations, in my opinion, unless they had been able to destroy it. But when a Dark Lord of the Sith was once a Jedi, that forces all the masters to take a step back, re-evaluate their stance, their methods, see their past mistakes and attempt to correct them. This is especially true after the war with Skerre Kaan, with the Ruusan Reformation that changed the face of the Jedi Order for the following 1000 years.

 

However, as you stated, that little bonus may have its drawback, which is the fact that the previous contact with the Jedi philosophy could perhaps "contaminate" a Sith's personal morals, or rather the lack thereof. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. Philosophical "reformations" were what caused every reconstruction of the Sith Order in its several incarnations, and determined their failure or success as the time went by, and knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the Jedi moral code could be an asset to a reformationist Sith Lord, though the examples of reformationists that I know of do not only include fallen Jedi. The most prominent ones are Darth Bane (obviously) and Darth Millennial, but there is also Darth Krayt (his rejection of the Rule of Two) and Darth Ruin (who wrote his own Sith Code), both of whom were formerly Jedi.

 

But a Sith society that spurs "pure Sith", as mentioned, also has many flaws. I take as an example of this the Sith Empire in SWTOR. The Emperor created a brain-washing Sith society that was beneficial only to one of the Sith powers that be - Vitiate himself. An example of this is Darth Malgus, which stated that the Sith should place the needs of the Empire ahead of their own needs. It was good for the Empire, but it made for individual Sith who were not as independent in their approach to power, whereas other incarnations of the Order spurred more the sense of selfishness that caused the creation of powerful Sith Lords as Naga Sadow, Exar Kun and every Sith of Bane's Order of the Sith Lords.

I wouldn't exactly say that, after all did any of them actually succeed in destroying the Jedi, no. Why?

 

Exar Kun was betrayed by Ulic Qel-Droma who, never being truly dedicated to the path of the dark side - was redeemed, a direct result of him being a fallen Jedi as opposed to a pure Sith.

 

Darth Revan was betrayed by Malak, but regardless of that Malak would likely have suceeded if Revan hadn't been redeemed and turned against him, again a direct result of Revan's Jedi heritage which allowed for this to happen.

 

Darth Traya abandoned both the Jedi and Sith path and instead went on a self-destructive campaign to effectively undo all her progress and make things 'right' for the galaxy. This was also a direct result of her Jedi heritage which allowed her to see the contrast, recognise the flaws in both ideals and ending up wiping both of them out.

 

Skere Kaan, well he just failed.

 

Darth Vader betrayed and killed his Master, fulfilling the prophecy of the Chosen One by restoring balance to the Force. This was again a result of his Jedi heritage, he was never truly dedicated to being a Sith Lord.

 

There are also no fallen Jedi who have bare any similarities to the "reformationists" you refer to. All reformations to the Sith Order we instigated by pure Sith, with the exception of Skere Kaan who's reformations only made the Sith weak. Sith and Jedi philosophy don't blend well together, hence why Jedi don't make as good Sith most of the time.

 

I also disagree with you concerning the flaws of the Sith Empire. Indepedence and selfishness is the bane of the Sith Order, it leads to a coveting of power and shortsightedness. The likes of Exar Kun and other Sith Lords have failed to leave any lasting legacy, or lay down any foundations for future generations because they have been to selfish and only interested in gaining power for themselves. This leads to brief spikes in Sith dominace, but ones that quickly dissapitate once the head has been severed. However if Malgus were to be killed (which eventually he was) the Sith would go on, because he chose not to be independent and instead work towards a greater cause, as as such his actions had a far wider and more beneficial impact for the Sith Order as a whole.

 

The same applies for the Order of the Sith Lords, they may be independent in the sense that their are only two, but that is where the similarities stop. They are all working towards a greater cause, Bane and others realised they would never live to see the Grand Plan fufilled, but that didn't matter. And because that didn't matter the plan succeeded. If they had all been selfish and inward looking the line would have ended with Bane, he would have coveted all the power for himself and left no lasting legacy for the Sith Order. But he didn't, none of them did, they all worked towards a greater cause as so finally the Grand Plan was fulfilled and the Jedi Order was destroyed.

 

Essentially individual power is purposeless if one does not great any foundations, and I my opinion those who do are far better Sith that those who burn brightly, but quickly go out. Exar Kun for example I feel is a failed Sith Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stinghen

Stinghen

Posted
Posted
I wouldn't exactly say that, after all did any of them actually succeed in destroying the Jedi, no. Why?

 

When I said succesful, I did not mean ultimately succesful. They all failed in the end (except Vader, which destroyed the Jedi Order before the Sith regime was put down). What I meant to say was that the effect of fallen Jedi turning into Dark Lords of the Sith was much more devastating to the Jedi Order as a whole than any other incarnation of the Sith threat (namely Sadow and Vitiate and their respective Empires). In a sense, the threat they perceived in these fallen Jedi was very dire, because the mistakes they made with one of them (such as Revan, Kun, Kaan) were mistakes more likely made with many other Jedi, that transmits a sense of discomfort for the Jedi as a whole. The impact of the fallen Jedi upon the only beings in the galaxy who can oppose the Sith is much greater. Proof of that is the Jedi Civil War. And mind you, Revan's redemption had also much to do with the fact the Council brainwashed him. He would only regain the memories of past events long after the Battle of Rakata Prime.

 

Exar Kun was betrayed by Ulic Qel-Droma who, never being truly dedicated to the path of the dark side - was redeemed, a direct result of him being a fallen Jedi as opposed to a pure Sith.

 

Qel-Droma was redeemed because he had strong ties to his brother, whom he assassinated in cold blood. That was the turning point for Qel-Droma, and what caused him to see through his own corruption and give up the Dark Side. Nomi would have likewise had a similar effect on Ulic, because he once loved her (as Vader loved Padmé). Now, imagine a situation where both Nomi and Cay died under very different circumstances. Do you think he could have been redeemed? I think it is highly unlikely, he'd be as redeemable as someone like Phanius or Skerre Kaan himself.

 

And I remind you, Kun himself was a fallen Jedi, and yet without any personal connections that reminded him of "happier days", so to speak, he would be beyond redemption. His only connections were to Sylvar (whom he hated, because she saw through his arrogance ever since they've known each other), Crado, whom he thought inferior and sent to his death for his failure on Ambria, and Vodo, whom he brutally killed without hesitation.

 

Darth Revan was betrayed by Malak, but regardless of that Malak would likely have suceeded if Revan hadn't been redeemed and turned against him, again a direct result of Revan's Jedi heritage which allowed for this to happen.

 

Malak planted the seed of his own destruction, by the manner in which he chose to betray his master. If he had bided his time, made himself stronger, instead of firing on his master's ship, Revan would have butchered the smug Jedi that came to capture him, and then the two Sith Lords could have their little scuffle in peace, and not worry about the pesky Battle Meditation anymore.

 

Darth Traya abandoned both the Jedi and Sith path and instead went on a self-destructive campaign to effectively undo all her progress and make things 'right' for the galaxy. This was also a direct result of her Jedi heritage which allowed her to see the contrast, recognise the flaws in both ideals and ending up wiping both of them out.

 

Again, Traya planted the seeds for the survival of the Jedi Order herself. And yet, she conducted quite the Jedi purge, that would've made Palpy proud.

 

Skere Kaan, well he just failed.

 

Betrayed by Bane, goaded into abandoning his previously highly effective military tactics, that won him many victories against the Army of Light, for shady Sith rituals that only served Bane's purpose. There's no telling whether or not Kaan would've succeeded in his war, if it had not been for the Seventh Battle of Ruusan, without Bane's meddling. What Bane did was not ensure that the Sith would eventually be succesful, it was instead that the "values of the Sith philosophy", which as he saw things were threatened by Kaan and his brotherhood, were protected.

 

Darth Vader betrayed and killed his Master, fulfilling the prophecy of the Chosen One by restoring balance to the Force. This was again a result of his Jedi heritage, he was never truly dedicated to being a Sith Lord.

 

Prior to that, Vader caused the destruction of the entire Jedi Order. His redemption, like Ulic's, happened only because he had strong ties to the days in which he upheld peace and justice as a Jedi Knight, through his son Luke Skywalker.

 

There are also no fallen Jedi who have bare any similarities to the "reformationists" you refer to. All reformations to the Sith Order we instigated by pure Sith, with the exception of Skere Kaan who's reformations only made the Sith weak. Sith and Jedi philosophy don't blend well together, hence why Jedi don't make as good Sith most of the time.

 

Darth Ruin was an example. Revan's Sith Empire was also quite different from Vitiate's (not racist in any fashion, respecting power alone and their focus on turning Jedi to the Dark Side). And Exar Kun was the first new incarnation of the Sith, that set the groundwork for many latter Sith cults. Also, despite Kun's focus on sorcery and eldritch knowledge, he had no ties to the Red Sith except for the use of their teachings and "culture" in his Brotherhood of the Sith. And Darth Krayt, which came up with a new paradigm for his Sith Order, was also a fallen Jedi (A'Sharad Hett).

 

I also disagree with you concerning the flaws of the Sith Empire. Indepedence and selfishness is the bane of the Sith Order, it leads to a coveting of power and shortsightedness. The likes of Exar Kun and other Sith Lords have failed to leave any lasting legacy, or lay down any foundations for future generations because they have been to selfish and only interested in gaining power for themselves. This leads to brief spikes in Sith dominace, but ones that quickly dissapitate once the head has been severed. However if Malgus were to be killed (which eventually he was) the Sith would go on, because he chose not to be independent and instead work towards a greater cause, as as such his actions had a far wider and more beneficial impact for the Sith Order as a whole.

 

My opinion versus yours :p The Sith require conflict to flourish. In order to prevent his Empire from turning into itself in his long incubation, Vitiate brainwashed the Sith into making them less competitive against each other. This is in direct opposition to Bane's Sith - the greatest justification for the Rule of Two was to allow the Sith to flourish with their destructive behaviour, Master turning into apprentice. By doing it in the shadows, they were not vulnerable to the Jedi and the Republic.

 

I think the only incarnations of the Sith Order that had any chance to triumph were Sadow's (the Sith had been "kept sharp" by millenia of controlled expansion), Kun's (that had just been born, but absorbed all the principles of combativeness from their philosophical antecessor), Revan's (they were bound only by their objective of destroying the Republic) and Bane's (bound only by their need for secrecy).

 

The same applies for the Order of the Sith Lords, they may be independent in the sense that their are only two, but that is where the similarities stop. They are all working towards a greater cause, Bane and others realised they would never live to see the Grand Plan fufilled, but that didn't matter. And because that didn't matter the plan succeeded. If they had all been selfish and inward looking the line would have ended with Bane, he would have coveted all the power for himself and left no lasting legacy for the Sith Order. But he didn't, none of them did, they all worked towards a greater cause as so finally the Grand Plan was fulfilled and the Jedi Order was destroyed.

 

What objective were Bane's Sith focused on? The same objective as that of any other Sith. Their commitment to the Grand Plan only became solidified when the end drew near, in the days of Plagueis and Sidious. Before that, the Sith had only sight of the final goal, knowing they would never live to see it. Instead, they sowed discord and enabled the Republic to grow complacent. But they never abandoned the sense of loathing they had towards one another, unlike in Vitiate's Empire, when they were forced to swallow it, and be looked down upon if they made bold power plays. So every Sith Apprentice had free leave to plot against his master all he wanted. But as every smart Sith (Bane's Order of the Sith Lords was not known for breeding incapable Sith), they would not betray their master if they weren't ready to take his place in his own powerbase (like Sidious, that killed Plagueis and still had the good graces of the InterGalactic Banking Clan). Likewise, every Sith Master had full leave to wipe the floor with his apprentice's @ss if he made his move too soon, or wasn't strong enough to take the mantle of Sith Master. Bane made such considerations himself, when he though Zannah was waiting for him to grow older and weaker before making her move. He got a new apprentice and prepared to kill Zannah, only to find she was indeed worthy of the mantle of Sith Master. But if he had come on top, he would've taken Zannah's body, prolonging his life long enough for Darth Cognus to become a full-fledged Sith Lord and worthy of the rank of Master.

 

Essentially individual power is purposeless if one does not great any foundations, and I my opinion those who do are far better Sith that those who burn brightly, but quickly go out. Exar Kun for example I feel is a failed Sith Lord.

 

I quote Darth Bane here. "Deploying air forces... Flanking armies... You are thinking like a dirt general, not a Sith Lord." Every Dark Lord of the Sith that caused an impact had the personal power to match. Every Sith Lord that was cunning, but not powerful enough (like Darth Zash and Darth Baras), ultimately met with their doom. If Kun had been able to cause all the ruckus he did, but been unable to kill his own Master on Coruscant, his war would've ended too soon, and Ossus wouldn't have been destroyed. If Vitiate did not have the power to match, Revan would have killed him, be it with Malak as a companion, or Surik. If Darth Bane did not have the power to match, he would've been killed or captured by the five Jedi Masters on Tython. And, of course, if Sidious lacked the power to match, his rule would have indeed come to an end at Yoda's hand.

 

 

Now Darth Zash architected the downfall of Darth Skotia, and the ritual through which she would transfer her essence to her own apprentice. But she wasn't strong enough to best Kallig, and failed in her purpose.

 

Darth Baras architected masterfully his rise to the position of ultimate leadership in the Empire, but when confronted by his former apprentice, he was found wanting and slain.

 

 

So the perfect Sith should have the power to match, the ambition and courage to achieve his goals (Sidious betraying Plagueis, for example, or Bane destroying the entire "selfless" Brotherhood of Darkness), and the cunning to outplay his enemies. The only Sith to achieve all three objectives were Darth Bane, who was extremely powerful, had the courage and ambition to destroy the Brotherhood and recreate the Sith and the cunning with which to execute his plan; and Darth Sidious, who turned on his Master even when Plagueis offered him a place in his own reformed Order of the Sith Lords, had the power to wind up standing when facing the most dangerous Force-users in the galaxy, and the cunning to outplay all his enemies (his apprentices, the Jedi, the Senate...).

 

But being a fallen Jedi does not preclude A Sith Lord from achieving these goals (even though Bane and Sidious were not fallen Jedi). All the faults of each fallen Jedi Sith Lord came from the fact that they had lasting connections to the world which were drawn upon to turn them from the Dark Side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beniboybling

Beniboybling

Posted
Posted

Well I think we are developing a third distinction here, Ancient Sith. Pure Sith such as Darth Bane and the other members of the Rule of Two don't have connections to ancient Sith culture and are therefore better as a result. Indeed it would seem that the less ties one has to philosophies and ideals not contained within the Sith Code, the better Sith they can become. Which is why I feel Fallen Jedi and those with ties to ancient Sith culture do not make the best Sith.

 

And for that reason I would agree on Bane being the most 'perfect' Sith Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stinghen

Stinghen

Posted
Posted
Well I think we are developing a third distinction here, Ancient Sith. Pure Sith such as Darth Bane and the other members of the Rule of Two don't have connections to ancient Sith culture and are therefore better as a result. Indeed it would seem that the less ties one has to philosophies and ideals not contained within the Sith Code, the better Sith they can become. Which is why I feel Fallen Jedi and those with ties to ancient Sith culture do not make the best Sith.

 

And for that reason I would agree on Bane being the most 'perfect' Sith Lord.

 

Hold your horses! What suggested to you Bane was in any way contrary to the Sith Code? :p The Code was a personal code of "ethics", that depicted the path to true power according to the Sith tradition. I'd be damned if the two "perfect" Sith Lords I mentioned, Sidious and Bane, did not abide to each and every tenet of the Sith Code, from passion to broken chains. Both Sith Lords considered themselves the true Sith'ari, and that concept is itself irrevocably bound to the last verse of the chant.

 

Sidious and Bane both drank from the knowledge of previous Sith. For starters, they both had written their personalities as Keepers in the Telos Holocron, which is like the Great Holocron for the Dark Side, containing accounts from Sith Lords throughout the eras of their existance. Both Sidious and Bane mastered certain Force rituals that were only attainable by Ancient Sith sources, namely Transfer Essence. Every Sith who looked for, or mastered, that power looked to Ancient Sith sources, as Tulak Hord's artefacts for Zash, the ancient ritual performed by Exar Kun was also very like the practices of the Ancient Sith and there was the Holocron of Darth Andeddu. There's nothing to suggest they did not make use of other sorts of knowledge, including those not necessarily related to feats of the Force.

 

But if you just mean to say they were overall philosophically distinct from the Ancient Sith, that's too general a statement. Phanius' New Sith, for instance, were very different from the Old Sith and that did not make them as succesful as Bane's Order. I think that the Sith are fundamentally the same, regardless of their incarnation, simply because they abide to the same basic tenets that the Sith have since Sorzus Syn wrote down the code. The rest is just for decoration when you judge them at their fundament :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
wrnfkbsdgfbdsgb

wrnfkbsdgfbdsgb

Posted
Posted
If you ask me, Jedi taught Sith have more potential for greatness, because, well, kńowing both sides of the coin is always better than kńowing only one, however, in intial training and skill, pure bred sith usually have the edge, but as always there are exceptions to the rule. While pure bred sith tend to be better off intially, if one can master both sides of the force, that is True power, and obviously Revan is that poster child. Some however are already highly skilled and better than most pure bred Sith, example being Dooku. Say what you want, he is said to be the only person who can match or defeat Mace Windu and Master Yoda in a duel ( the three of them are said to be equal to eachother, look it up). On the whole, my original conclusion holds, while converts have more potential, pure breds generally have the greater skill. There are individuals who cross these lines, but like i said, there is always an exception to the rule and im going with the majority.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...