Talk:Dark Lord of the Sith/Legends

Why has Kressh been removed? The ending of Fall of the Sith Empire heavily implies that he rules the Sith Empire after Naga Sadow's exile, hence having the title. QuentinGeorge 06:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, so I re-added him. --Imperialles 07:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tradition of the title

 * Power of the Jedi sourcebook, among other sources, clearly states that the tradition of a sole Dark Lord of the Sith ended with Kaan. QuentinGeorge 05:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Additionally (if any more proof is needed) various sources refer to both Darth Maul and Darth Tyranus as Dark Lord of the Sith. QuentinGeorge 05:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Finally Leeland Chee has stated "Kaan was the last Dark Lord of the Sith who ruled alone. QuentinGeorge 05:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Locked
Can this be unlocked now? I think it's been long enough. MarcK 04:26, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it needs to be unlocked, so that Darth Ruin can be added prior to Kaan.

Dubious Entries
A few dubious entries have been added in the last edits. I thought we'd decided that Traya, Sion and Nihilius were never bearers of the title? Additonally, I don't think Carnor Jax or Flint had the title (I can't be sure) because Lumiya seems to have reverted to the pre-Kaan tradition of having only one Dark Lord. Can anyone shed any light on this? QuentinGeorge QuentinGeorge 09:56, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * How can Traya and co. NOT bear the title if they have "Darth?"
 * Bearing the title "Darth" has bugger all to do with being a Dark Lord. Exhibit A: Darth Bandon. QuentinGeorge 09:56, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * As for Flint, he was called "Dark Lord of Belderone" and "Lord Flint" in Marvel Comics, for what it is worth.
 * Dark Lord of Belderone and Lord Flint are quite different to "Dark Lord of the Sith".
 * And why did Darth Andeddu get taken off the list?
 * We don't know a) That he was ever a Dark Lord of the Sith B) When he lived, so for now, let's leave him off. QuentinGeorge 09:56, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Why isn't Lumiya included on this list? --User:SFH
 * Andeddu has a tomb in the Valley of the Dark Lords. Doesn't that confirm he once held the title? Lieutenant Gerard 16:03, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Post Galactic Empire

 * The Post Galactic Empire bit is needlessly wordy and convuluted. If we are going to say Lumiya isn't Dark Lord of the Sith, then let's take her out. But let's have none of this fudging, rambling introductory paragraphs with "maybes" and "mights" and the reapparance of the dreaded question mark. QuentinGeorge 02:27, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm... What if we aren't sure if she is or if she isn't? "Fudging, rambling introductory paragraphs with "maybes" and "mights" and the reapparance of the dreaded question mark" does the trick. --Master Starkeiller 02:45, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * We know she claimed the title, so we can put her in sans question mark. With just a note saying, "After the Battle of Endor, Lumiya claimed the title "Dark Lady of the Sith"." You don't need anything else. QuentinGeorge 02:51, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. She definitely took the title, even though she might be no Sith Lord. --Master Starkeiller 00:42, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Tulak Hord
Silly_Dan, according to your last edit, "Tulak Hord was well before Revan, so he goes in the first list". But you put him after Kressh. I know there's the lightsaber issue, but we don't know everything about the Sith Empire and lightsabers yet so he belong in "Others". He could have live 25.000 B.B.Y. along with Ajunta Pal as far as we know... --Master Starkeiller 11:40, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Dathka Graush
Why did you put him in the others? It says he lived around 7,000 BBY. Technically, he shouldn't even be on this list, he was never a Dark Lord, merely a high ranking Sith Lord from my understanding.


 * If we include Andeddu because he was buried on Korriban, then we must also include Graussh.


 * Andeddu isn't included because he was buried on Korriban, he is included because he was buried in the Valley of the Dark Lords. Dathka Graush, on the other hand, wasn't buried in the Valley of the Dark Lords; he was buried in the Valley of Golg. However, the RPG (or whatever it was) article that created him clearly states that he was a Dark Lord, so he is included as well.Lieutenant Gerard 21:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Symbol
It is not the symbol of the Sith. Its the symbol thats used for Old Republic Era stories. Is that so difficult to understand? Redemption 20:55, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry. You are incorrect. In-universe, it IS a symbol of the Sith, or more precisely, the Dark Lord of the Sith. Naga Sadow has it branded on his forehead when he ascends to the rank. See for yourself.
 * Why can't people read the source they are citing? QuentinGeorge 05:13, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * Well then. I guess we learn something new everyday. And there was never a source cited. Redemption 05:19, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * It's fairly self-explanatory that for any discussions about the ancient Sith, the primary sources are Golden Age of the Sith and Fall of the Sith Empire. QuentinGeorge 05:30, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Kressh
Would anyone mind if I put Ludo Kressh in the others section and detail how he proclaimed himself Dark Lord? -- SFH 23:02, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd rather we put him back where he was, since, unlike Andeddu, we know when Ludo lived. He was self-proclaimed, yes, but so was Freedon Nadd, so I don't think this should affect Kressh's placement on the list. QuentinGeorge 05:28, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Master Starkeiller 12:03, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Ahem...
From what I understand, Seviss Vaa, LaTor and Kaox Krul were Sith Lords, but not Dark Lords of the Sith. - Sikon [ Talk ] 16:33, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but they were in Kaan's inner circle and council. Besides, if I remember correctly, Kaan gave the title Dark Lord to most, if not all of the Sith Lords. --Mr. Perfection 16:45, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Are any of these established to have the title? Bane, Githany, Kopecz and Qordis are all explicitly named as such. QuentinGeorge 20:04, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Simus
I'm pretty sure no source has ever named Simus as a Dark Lord. Lieutenant Gerard 22:24, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if no one disagrees I'm going to remove all references to him as such. Lieutenant Gerard 00:00, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Kyp Durron
Can it be really said that Kyp Durron was a Dark Lord of the Sith? I suppose he was something lesser and doesn't really deserve such title yet.
 * He claimed the title, and none were there to oppose him, so yes. He was Dark Lord of the Sith, even for a little while. Jasca Ducato 15:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

First Dark Lord

 * Abel's new article confirms the title did not exist until 7,000 BBY. In other words, it was only when the Dark Jedi conquered the Sith that the title began - the native Sith didn't use it. QuentinGeorge 06:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Jacen Solo?
Ah, I don't think he's a Dark Lord yet, we don't even know what Sith order Lumiya is truly under, and besides he's only an apprentice. RushinSundaws 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree to that. Charlii 14:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Darth Maul and Tyranus?
These two were never given the title of Dark Lord of the Sith. There was only one at a time, and during their time as Sith Lords, Darth Sidious was always the Dark Lord of the Sith. Dooku even refers to Darth Sidious as the Dark Lord of the Sith when speaking to Obi-Wan in Attack of the Clones. So why are these two listed as Dark Lords when they were never given the title?
 * Incorrect. In Bane's order, both members had the title Dark Lord of the Sith - as is explained on this page, if you'd bothered to read it. - QuentinGeorge (at work)
 * Indeed. They were both Dark Lords, as was Sidious.  The title that belonged to Sidious alone was "Master."  Maul and Tyranus (and Vader), though being apprentices, were still called Dark Lords of the Sith. jSarek 03:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression Dark Lord of the Sith was the title for the de facto Sith ruler, since it was a title/position many Sith Lords fought and killed each other over, and that the title was passed from Sidious to Darth Vader once Sidious had his hands full with the title of Emperor.
 * Well, that's not correct, and never has been anything more than fanon. Maul, Tyranus and Vader were Dark Lord all in their own right, and simultaneous to Sidious. - QuentinGeorge (at work).
 * Alright, chill with the attitude. So what about the infighting that occured among Sith Lords over the title/position? I'm referring to the first and fourth paragraphs of Kaan's profile, which I don't believe is fanon at all. It's referred to as the Dark Lord of the Sith rather than a Dark Lord of the Sith, thus supporting my original "incorrect" thought that it was a single title.
 * Nevermind, I realized my mistake. I was right up until the point where Kaan changed the system around so that there'd be more than one. I hadn't seen it printed anywhere though that Maul and Tyranus held the title.
 * Yes, as explained in this article, the title was unique until the reign of Kaan, then held by more than one individual at once. It's all there. QuentinGeorge 05:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I came off a bit terse, BTW - was not my intention. QuentinGeorge 05:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Vergere

 * Vergere was never a DLOTS. QuentinGeorge 06:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fake Sith
Doesn't any Sith after Vader disrupt the films, and indeed the prophecy? I think that there should be some kind of descriptor that labels Vader as the last of the TRUE Sith, whilst Lumiya et al are just wannabes Thefourdotelipsis 03:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

NSW Dark Lord's

 * For the last time - Kaan declared the various Sith warlords as "Dark Lords" long before the Ruusan campaign. Ka'sim is specifically called "Dark Lord" in DB:PoD. There's nothing to indicate this is an error. QuentinGeorge 07:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a quote!?! Jasca Ducato Sith Council (Sith campaign) 07:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)