FANDOM


Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "One Sith."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

MergeEdit

if This "One Sith" is almost certainly Darth Krayt's new Sith Order. as it says it is then why has this article appeared it should be remerged with New sith Order --Dark Lord Xander (Embrace The Dark Side!)Neo-Crusader emblem 09:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Infact after reading the New Sith Order article it is exactly the same as this one containing the same info only more so why was this page created if there was already one there ?? --Dark Lord Xander (Embrace The Dark Side!)Neo-Crusader emblem 09:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • How the phrase "We are only one Sith now." got to describe the name of the order and not their ideology, is beyond me. If this is a McEwokism, then he's once again wasting bandwidth. I say redirect or merge or whatever. VT-16 12:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Done since these to are crealy one in the same and the information is on the other page i will redirect this one and since no one has voiced there opinon against this there shouldn't be a problem Dark Lord Xander (Embrace The Dark Side!)Neo-Crusader emblem 05:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

One sith or New Sith Order?Edit

that's my question. MuanN 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  • One Sith. IFYLOFD (There is no death. There is the Force.) 19:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Can someone show me where the organization is called "One Sith" rather than the "New Sith Order", that's given in the Legacy 0 issues? Don't use "We are one Sith now" as a source, describing a philosophy does not equate to a name. To illustrate, people wouldn't say a sentence like "We have one common goal" means the person is part of an organization called "One Common Goal". :P VT-16 19:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    • agree with VT-16. well, i'm OK with the name "One Sith", if there's a source. i'm just curious because this article was named "New Sith Order" for a long time. that's all. MuanN 20:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I haven't read Inferno for a little bit but that we are one Sith now line is the only time i remeber them saying that. They never say we are the One Sith or anything like that. I think New Sith Order makes more sense. Steves490 04:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    • i went to "New Sith Order"'s talk page. someone said that in legacy 27 it is called "One Sith". i went look for it and found this. [1] ... whould this work as a source? i find it more acceptable than the quote "You were taught the old ways. We are only one Sith now." MuanN 04:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
      • That is better, but it doesn't completely replace the "new Sith Order" which is seen elsewhere, though without the capital 'n' at the beginning. VT-16 08:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Main ImageEdit

OneSith

I've been thinking about this for a while, and after looking at what has been the main image for quite a while now I came to the conclusion that the best picture for this article might in fact be the one we have of Krayt, Maladi, Talon and Stryfe near the bottom of the article from issue 30.

I know that the current main image represents Krayt's vision of One Sith, and also manages to present Krayt a the recognizable leader with a number of follower Sith behind him who are unknowns and therefore give the picture a greater sense of objectivity, but despite those positive aspects I don't feel like it's a very good main image at all.

I feel like the other picture allows one to see Krayt a lot more clearly, as well as see some of his Sith and how they look (red skin and tatoos), and although they are individual and recognizable characters I still feel that this little group picture manages to illustrate very well what the "One Sith" is. What are other people's opinions on making this the new main image? -Sauron18 09:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  • i think the original image is more than good enough. as you said, it present Krayt as a leader, greater sense of objectivity. the only negative point of the current image you said is "i don't feel like it's a very good main image". —202.28.183.10 08:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The current image looks a little intimidating to people who thought Darth Caedus was the last Sith. 90.199.56.28 12:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The current image also shows what the One Sith is about... lots of Sith Lords under a sole authority. The one with Stryfe and Talon looks like a screenshot and could be replaced with the one of Krayt, Maladi, Wyyrlok and Nihl during the coup on Fel.--Gonzalo84 19:06, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Wha?Edit

Who the H is Darth Tuhuka? 209.247.23.40 00:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No appearence in RevelationEdit

The One Sith does not appear, nor are they mentioned, in the novel "Revelation". So, it should be removed as a listing of their appearence.

RaceEdit

In the main image, what race is the male between Darth Krayt and the female to the right?

Zabrak, By the look of it. ░▒▓ Alex | Talk ▓▒░ 20:24, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Unidentified HumansEdit

What happened to the humans in the 'Unidentified' sectionSorciri 19:49, May 5, 2010 (UTC) Sorciri

how is darth krayt not dead?Edit

As on his other thread, this is confusing how his death confirmation has been removed. How has he survived? JM2008 16:04, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Red and Black Tatooes=DarthEdit

What did you think about this ? For me, it's implied throughout the series, notably with the comments from Stryfe to Saarai ("little unmarked things", she was an apprentice and had no tatooes so One Sith apprentices didn't have tatooes) and from Isen to Azard ("I'm not a Darth", he was an acolyte and had no tatooes so One Sith acolytes didn't have tatooes). By deduction, these exemples left only wearers of the Darth title with the right to had sith tatooes. My question concerns the fact that Yuln and Bokar were Darth. Maxattac 22:47, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • We're not a forum for amateur detectives, so deduction isn't good enough. A source needs to explicilty state it. That aside, the deduction is flawed. Those tattooed individuals may simply be proficient in combat as opposed to acolytes who study other ways of the Force. Combat proficiency having been mentioned by Isen as prerequisite for Darths explains why all Lords are tattooed. Indeed, tattooed individuals not stated clearly to be Lords are almost always seen in combat encounters (be it melee or starfighter combat), suggesting they might as well be Sith Warriors. Or any other speculation anyone feels like, so let's stop here. Gorthuar 22:57, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • Lo and behold, page 18 of Legacy 49 brings us a tattooed Sith nearly groveling before Antartes Draco whom he mistaken for a Lord. Therefore not every tattooed Sith is a Lord. Gorthuar 19:00, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Notable MembersEdit

Since we have a section of the article that lists every known member of the One Sith can we use the "Notable members" section of the info-box to list "notable" members rather than every member who has been named - the definition of nottible being "a prominent, distinguished, or important person". What is notible about Darth Rauder for example? Or Darth Kruhl who in Maladi's words didn't matter if he died or lived - a pawn.

She like many others are just members of the One Sith. It actually also takes away the importance of the truly notable members. Darth Wyyrlok III, Darth Nihl, Darth Talon, Darth Stryfe and Darth Maladi - as these were all shown to be the only members who got regular audiences with Krayt and were tasked with very important jobs with in the empire - it could include also Darth Wyyrlok I and Darth Wyyrlok II who were important prior to there deaths despite knowing little about them.

As it is at the moment we have notable members such as the Director of Intelligence and the Fist along side a failed assassin. I'm going to remove them, if you have any problem please say. Alexsau1991 (Talk page) StupidSithEmblem-Traced-TORkit 17:30, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Vul Isen, regardless of not being a Darth, is pretty much one of the deadliest Sith.--Gonzalo84 20:10, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Maleval, Kruhl and Reave were glorified redshirts. But Rauder, Azard and Havok have some level of importance, Rauder as a foil to Gunn Yage and the Skulls, Azard for Isen and Havok for these last issues.--Gonzalo84 05:19, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as pointed out by Vul Isen himself, he is low level and he answers to Darth Azard. And as for most dangerous, he in profession is similar to Maladi, she like him is an expert of alchamy and sciences; she was the Sith who manipulated the Empire and the Alliance to go to war; she manipulated the Moff Council into putting Krayt in place of Fel as Empire, this all started with poluting a planet too. Although since Vul Isen is known as the Butcher of Dac I realise that does give him a level of notability.
Rauder, Azard and Havok are not prominent and have little importance when you put them beside people like Maladi, head of intelligence and Darth Wyyrlok who is Krayts loyal lieutenant. Sith like Rauder, Azard and Havok are legion, they are 3 of hundreds or thousands of Sith commanding portions of the Imperial military. Alexsau1991 (talk page) StupidSithEmblem-Traced-TORkit 16:43, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Founding DateEdit

while most sources i've seen state that the one sith were founded in 30ABY but others say that they invited lumiya to ally with them in 25ABY, which was 5 years before their supposed founding date, any suggestions? Swordsquirrel 17:34, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

"Targets for Assassination by GA Commandos"Edit

Can we please remove that from their description at the top of the page? Not only would such information be unnecessary for that part of the page, it also isn't relevant and there is no cited source.

Rejected by Ship too Edit

Shouldn't we note that these guys were considered heretical by Darth Andeddu, Darth Nihilus, Darth Bane AND Ship? I mean, it's a ship without a pilot, sitting around doing nothing in space, and when one of these "Sith" shows up, it says: "I will not serve. I will find a better purpose." I'm pretty sure these people would be rejected by ancient Sith doorknobs. --Master Starkeiller 15:11, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Vestara Khai Edit

Should Vestara Khai be added to the list of Sith Lords/Ladys since Ship said he was taking her to another faction of Sith, which has been agreed upon is the One Sith. --Senjuto 13:58, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

After the war Edit

"After the Sith–Imperial War, they were targets for assassination by Galactic Alliance Core Fleet Commandos." Where is this part from? It wasn't in Legacy War, and I didn't think anything else touched on post-Legacy stuff, so it sounds like speculation.ZeroSD (talk) 08:06, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Structural/Philosophical Change of the One SithEdit

Seems that after their defeat during the War, the One Sith have systematically restructured their order almost akin to a Rule of Two per system deal. Given the mask the apprentice was wearing in Prisoner of a Floating World, it seems the new age One Sith forgo the tattoos for the sake of subterfuge. Now they kill off the tattoo masters who obviously cannot fulfill the new Sith mission.

Any thoughts on this?

(Garrett Roberts53332 (talk) 03:40, April 4, 2013 (UTC))

  • .... we have seen exactly one issue of the new story. Any kind of thinking at this point is entirely speculation. Cade StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 03:42, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
    • Seconded, it's pretty quick to judge. ZeroSD (talk) 04:29, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree it's speculation and it isn't a judgement but rather just something to think on. I don't think that one issue can clear up anything, maybe this volume won't even explain it. But it's more just a thought nothing more or less than that. (Garrett Roberts53332 (talk) 00:42, April 24, 2013 (UTC))
        • In light of the recent issue, I will take back what I said. (198.82.209.188 20:31, April 24, 2013 (UTC))
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Some of the links below are affiliate links meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase.

Stream the best stories.

Some of the links below are affiliate links meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase.

Get Disney+