Darth Nihilus: Sith Lord or not?

[Ben_Walker]

Oh the subject of Nihilus, perhaps at a time he was a Sith Lord. Maybe he had followed Revan to the Mandalorian Wars and turned to the Dark Side after Malachor V. Might explain why he got that battered flagship and all those Sith Fighters.

 

Perhaps he even wore his mask in reverence of Darth Revan? Or maybe Nihilus was to have some connection to the True Sith and the Unknown Region. Who knows?

[Jediphile]

Traya is not tha name of an individual person. It is a title used by betrayers, like Kreia. Also Atris, who, as we all can see, betrayed the Jedi. True, she wanted to destroy the Sith, but she used Sith holocrons ans began studying the Dark Side, and it began to consume her. I think that Atris gained the title of Darth Traya, then when the Exile killed her, Kreia took it back.

 

Actually, if you decide not to kill Atris, she realises that Kreia fooled her and that she was never meant to hold the position Kreia suggested. Atris also admits this to the Exile.

 

Atris: "Now you know... but perhaps you always knew.These Sith are spawned of you, spawned by the Mandalorian Wars... all those deaths, all those Jedi. Their power is to feed on life, until nothing is left except a hollow galaxy, echoing with the screams of the Jedi lost to us.Yes. I had thought she was awaiting me at that place, but I see now that she lied. It was not meant for me... but for you.She is waiting for you there, to finish what you started. She has gone there. She is waiting for you to travel to Malachor V, to finish what you started."

 

Now to get back on topic, no I don't believe Nihilus is a true Sith Lord. So what if he retained the title. Just because you have the title doesn't mean you are what you say you are. I could say I'm a Martial Arts expert and everyone might believe me, but that doesn't mean I am. Nihilus is a Sith Lord in title, but he is not a true Sith Lord.

 

He is a powerful force-user at the top of the Sith order. Hence a sith lord.

[Titanius Anglesmith]

He is a powerful force-user at the top of the Sith order. Hence a sith lord.

No he was not at the top of the Sith Order. He no longer followed the teachings of the Sith nor did he care anything for them. He no longer had a will, because he was a slave to his own power. He may have been called a Sith Lord, but he was not a true Sith Lord.

[Jediphile]

^^

 

Whatever you prefer to call him, he was the head of the Sith order and the Sith all followed his commands. Therefore he is a Sith lord, i.e., the ruler of the Sith, which is called the dark lord of the Sith. When you're at the top of the hierarchy in a dictatorship, nobody gets question how or if you follow the rules. And whether Nihilus was a slave to his own power or not has no bearing on his status in the hierarchy.

[Titanius Anglesmith]

I tend to believe that Sion was at the top. Nihilus was a rogue, and the only reason that anyone followed him was because he had drained their life force out of them, and they had no will of their own.

[Jediphile]

From Wookieepedia

 

In Star Wars: The Ultimate Visual Guide, it states that Darth Sion was the apprentice of Darth Nihilus, though they were both apprentices of Darth Traya.

[Balderdash]

No he was not at the top of the Sith Order. He no longer followed the teachings of the Sith nor did he care anything for them. He no longer had a will, because he was a slave to his own power. He may have been called a Sith Lord, but he was not a true Sith Lord.

All Sith are slaves to their own power. That's what the dark side is all about, after all. Nihilus just had more power than almost anyone ever. I don't believe that's the issue at all here.

[Jason Skywalker]

I believe that Nihilus was neither Sith Lord, nor man nor anything. Just pure shadow, created by the billions of lifes taken away at Malachor.

[Kas'!m]

Nihilus's name explains it all.

 

 

ni·hil·ism –noun

1. total rejection of established laws and institutions.

2. anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.

3. total and absolute destructiveness, esp. toward the world at large and including oneself: the power-mad nihilism that marked Hitler's last years.

4. Philosophy.

a. an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.

b. nothingness or nonexistence.

5. (sometimes initial capital letter) the principles of a Russian revolutionary group, active in the latter half of the 19th century, holding that existing social and political institutions must be destroyed in order to clear the way for a new state of society and employing extreme measures, including terrorism and assassination.

6. annihilation of the self, or the individual consciousness, esp. as an aspect of mystical experience.

 

So no, he was not a Sith Lord.

[Feagildin]

It all depends on what you call a Sith Lord.

 

It doesn't look like Nihilus is interested in anything except his hunger. For me, that is not a Sith lord, but a force sensitive rancor.

 

I couldn't have said it better myself, so I won't try to.

[Jediphile]

"In the fictional Star Wars universe, Darth is the traditional title of a Sith Lord, the first part of the new name they take on."

 

Description of the Nihilus Mask from TSL: "You have taken this trophy from the remains of Darth Nihilus - it is the last surviving piece of the beast who died and was reborn in the shattered world of Malachor V. By taking it from him, you have gained a stronger tie to the Force."

 

Kriea: "He... if he can truly be called a man any longer... is one of the dark lords that pursues you. I do not think he knows what you are, not yet. He spared the Miraluka, and that may have been the last shred of feeling that exists within him. Keep his slave close to you. I suspect there was a reason he spared her... and perhaps a reason that she survived when the rest of her people and the Jedi did not. Perhaps he is bound to her... as I am bound to you. If so, there may be a death served by hers. It is a technique that is almost as old as the Sith themselves... it is a means of severing connections between life, the Force, and feeding upon the death it causes."

[Jason Skywalker]

Just because he is called Darth Nihilus, doesn't mean he IS a Sith Lord. You can just be an adept of the dark side, call yourself Darth, but that doesn't mean you are a Sith Lord.

 

I remeber Kreia said that "Sith is a title, yes".

[Jediphile]

Just because he is called Darth Nihilus, doesn't mean he IS a Sith Lord. You can just be an adept of the dark side, call yourself Darth, but that doesn't mean you are a Sith Lord.

 

Actually, that's precisely what it means, which is why I quoted it.

 

If not, then feel free to mention a "Darth" who was not a Sith lord.

 

Or simply consider the following:

 

Aurra Sing - dark jedi, not Sith

Asajj Ventress - dark jedi, not Sith (according to Dooku)

Jerec - dark jedi and Sith acolyte, but not Sith lord

Desann - dark jedi, not Sith lord

Tavion - dark jedi, not Sith lord

 

Darth Revan - Sith lord

Darth Malak - Sith lord

Darth Bandon - Sith lord

Darth Traya - Sith lord

Darth Sion - Sith lord

Darth Bane - Sith lord

Darth Ruin - Sith lord

Darth Plagueis - Sith lord

Darth Sidious - Sith lord

Darth Maul - Sith lord

Darth Tyranus - Sith lord

Darth Vader - Sith lord

 

Now, where does that leave DARTH Nihilus?

 

I remeber Kreia said that "Sith is a title, yes".

 

Which I think just proves my point. However evil or dedicated to the Sith principles a character is has no bearing on the title, which is precisely what "Darth" is - it's used as a title for whoever is a Dark Lord of the Sith in the Sith order. Therefore DARTH Nihilus is a Dark Lord of the Sith. Whether he follows the Sith principles according to Traya is immaterial.

 

Besides, even the spirit of Freedon Nadd declared Exar Kun a pretender to the Sith legacies after he failed to control him. Traya's claims are quite similar, if you ask me. No Sith lord seems to like a fall from power and are quick to condemn those who take it from them, if they live long enough to do so.

[Anakin Skywalker]

Darth Maul - Sith lord

 

WRONG! Maul was an apprentice, and a Sith Assassin, not a Sith Lord

[moneal2001]

WRONG! Maul was an apprentice, and a Sith Assassin, not a Sith Lord

 

 

If that is so then, Tyranus and Vader were never Sith Lords either only apprentices. The Title DARTH means DARk lord of the siTH.

[Kas'!m]

Actually, Vader became Dark Lord of the Sith when Palpatine became Emperor

[Jediphile]

WRONG! Maul was an apprentice, and a Sith Assassin, not a Sith Lord

 

Please check you facts before shouting at other people.

 

"Darth Maul was a Dark Lord of the Sith"

 

And regardless that DARTH Maul is an apprentice doesn't matter. Darth Vader was a Sith lord, even though he was an apprentice to Sidious as well. Or will you claim that Vader and Tyranus were not Sith lords, since they were both apprentices to Sidious? Vader was always the apprentice and never the master. Yet he is still the best known Dark Lord of the Sith in Star Wars history.

 

Malak was a Sith Lord even when he was apprentice to Revan, and Bandon became a Sith lord when Malak took him as apprentice after throwing Revan from power.

 

"Darth" = Dark Lord of the Sith = Sith lord

 

Actually' date=' Vader became Dark Lord of the Sith when Palpatine became Emperor[/quote']

 

True. Though in this context, it would be more relevant to point out that Vader was a Dark Lord of the Sith even though he was "merely" the apprentice of Sidious and never took the position of master. That Sidious was also emperor has no particular relevance to their respective positions in the Sith order.

[Emperor Devon]

I know this post is off-topic, but I must step in and correct all these errors. There's clearly a lack of people who've read their Star Wars history.

 

WRONG! Maul was an apprentice, and a Sith Assassin, not a Sith Lord

 

Nope, that's not entirely true. Just because he was a Sith Lord doesn't mean he couldn't be an apprentice to someone stronger. Look at Vader or Dooku, for instance - they were both obviously Sith Lords, but were still apprentices to Sidious.

 

I've also yet to see any direct evidence that Maul was an Assassin. With Darth Bane's Rule of Two, many old ranks were abolished.

 

Actually' date=' Vader became Dark Lord of the Sith when Palpatine became Emperor[/quote']

 

Nope, with the Rule of Two both Sith could be known as Dark Lords. It was left over from Kaan's time, when practically dozens of Sith gave themselves that title.

 

"Darth" = Dark Lord of the Sith = Sith lord

 

Not totally, Jediphile. There've been Sith Lords and Dark Lords without the title of Darth (such as Lumiya, Kaan, Kopecz, Caox, Sadow, Kreshh, Exar Kun, Ragnos, etc.). And if I interpreted part of your post wrong, Dark Lord is a title awarded to some Sith Lords.

 

Jerec - dark jedi and Sith acolyte, but not Sith lord

 

Where'd you get that? Jerec was an Inquisitor (a group of Dark Jedi), but never a Sith. He was more powerful than an Acolyte in any event.

[Jediphile]

"Darth" = Dark Lord of the Sith = Sith lord

 

Not totally, Jediphile. There've been Sith Lords and Dark Lords without the title of Darth (such as Lumiya, Kaan, Kopecz, Caox, Sadow, Kreshh, Exar Kun, Ragnos, etc.). And if I interpreted part of your post wrong, Dark Lord is a title awarded to some Sith Lords.[/Quote]

 

Because Revan was the apparently the first to use the Darth title. Lumiya was introduced as "Dark Lady of the Sith", so she would have every right to call herself Darth Lumiya if she wanted to. That she chose not does not invalidate the use of the term, since the reverse is not the case. At least, I've never seen a Darth who was not a Dark Lord (or Lady) of the Sith.

 

Jerec - dark jedi and Sith acolyte, but not Sith lord

 

Where'd you get that? Jerec was an Inquisitor (a group of Dark Jedi), but never a Sith. He was more powerful than an Acolyte in any event.

 

He was affiliated with Palpatine, serving as inquisitor and rumored to be Emperor's hand as well. But he was definitely associated with the Sith and even trained by Vader. But he was not a Dark Lord of the Sith. So he can claim only to be a "mere" dark jedi.

 

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Jerec

[Emperor Devon]

Because Revan was the apparently the first to use the Darth title.

 

Nope.

 

At least, I've never seen a Darth who was not a Dark Lord (or Lady) of the Sith.

 

There've been some. The title of Darth doesn't mean the person who has it has to be a Dark Lord.

 

But he was definitely associated with the Sith and even trained by Vader.

 

Ah, and here we see another example of how Palpatine liked to bend (but never break) the Rule of Two. Regardless of who trained Jerec, he was never dubbed a Sith by Vader or Palpatine. Regardless of what he learned, that technicality alone is enough to say he isn't a Sith.

 

So he can claim only to be a "mere" dark jedi.

 

Dark Jedi aren't always mere - there've been a good few who were more powerful than many Jedi and Sith (C'baoth, Nyax, Kadann, Tremayne, etc.)

[Sir Vougalot]

I voted for "A Sith Lord in name only," because none of the Sith from the KOTOR era are real Sith Lords. This would include Revan, Malak, Traya, Nihilus, Sion, Visas, and all of the Sith we encounter in the games. I'm sure you all know about the "true Sith" thing, so I don't need to inform you about that. My take on it, however, is this: the "true Sith" are a hybrid line of succession combined from two previous lines: King Adas' line as the rulers of the Sith species (it doesn't actually begin with Adas but he is the first one we know of) and Xendor's Legions of Lettow, a group of Dark Jedi who split from the Order in 24,500 BBY, just 500 years after the order's founding, was doubled in number when joined by a second group of fallen Jedi in 7,000 BBY and was exiled to the Outer Rim in 6,900 BBY, where they came upon the Sith species and the two groups became one, thus mingling the two succession lines into one. (Sorry about that insanely long sentence there.) This line continued uninterrupted until Sidious and Vader, but retreated to the Unknown Regions shortly after the Great Hyperspace War in 5,000 BBY, where they continued on in secret. In the meantime, Revan and Malak discovered the remnants of what remained of the Sith Empire on Korriban before it retreated, and proclaimed themselves Sith Lords and built a new Sith Empire. However, they could not have been true Sith because they had not been a part of this other, uninterrupted line of succession which was in hiding, and had not been ordained by a true Dark Lord. They were nothing more than glorified Dark Jedi (regardless of how cool we all think they are.)

 

Millenia later, in 2,000 BBY, when the Jedi Phanius left the Order and and created a New Sith Empire, calling himself Darth Ruin, it is said that he "united all of the scattered Sith clans" as Evil Never Dies tells us. I think these clans would have included the "true Sith"--though they had been weakened and dwindled down to a few, thanks to Revan and the Exile going to fight them after the events of KOTOR II--thus grafting Ruin and his followers onto this line of succession that was as old as the Jedi Order itself. They continued until 1,000 BBY, when all of the Sith were killed except for Darth Bane, who took an apprentice and instituted the Rule of Two, which continued until the days of Sidious and Vader. Vader destroyed his master and himself, thus breaking the line of the true Sith once and for all. This is how Anakin brought balance to the Force, and this is why the Sith from the Legacy era are not true Sith, being self-proclaimed "Sith," glorified Dark Jedi just like Revan's Order.

 

That's my take on things. I just hope KOTOR III doesn't shoot my theory to hell. This is also how I reconcile the problem with Anakin destroying the Sith and breaking the chain, but the Sith have been completely wiped out and returned many times in the past. I go around this by saying that the chain was never broken but was in hiding while other "Sith" kept appearing and disappearing throughout galactic history.

[Jediphile]

Because Revan was the apparently the first to use the Darth title.

 

Nope.

 

That doesn't actually place Andeddu before Revan in the timeline. Indeed, it says nothing about when Andeddu actually lived.

 

At least, I've never seen a Darth who was not a Dark Lord (or Lady) of the Sith.

 

There've been some. The title of Darth doesn't mean the person who has it has to be a Dark Lord.[/Quote]

 

Name one then.

 

Besides, other sources disagree with you, as I pointed out in post 36

 

But he was definitely associated with the Sith and even trained by Vader.

 

Ah, and here we see another example of how Palpatine liked to bend (but never break) the Rule of Two. Regardless of who trained Jerec, he was never dubbed a Sith by Vader or Palpatine. Regardless of what he learned, that technicality alone is enough to say he isn't a Sith.[/Quote]

 

There can be only two Sith lords - a master and an apprentice - according to the rule of two, that's true. However, I don't see that this means there can be no other Sith. They just can't be lords and serve only in lesser positions. Jerec seems to have been one of those.

 

And he does appear on the list of Sith acolytes and apprentices on Wookieepedia - http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Sith_acolytes_and_apprentices

 

 

So he can claim only to be a "mere" dark jedi.

 

Dark Jedi aren't always mere - there've been a good few who were more powerful than many Jedi and Sith (C'baoth, Nyax, Kadann, Tremayne, etc.)

 

That's why I put it in quotation marks.

[The Architect]

I guess this just boils down entirely to our own point of view in the end.

 

Kriea: "He... if he can truly be called a man any longer... is one of the dark lords that pursues you. I do not think he knows what you are, not yet. He spared the Miraluka, and that may have been the last shred of feeling that exists within him. Keep his slave close to you. I suspect there was a reason he spared her... and perhaps a reason that she survived when the rest of her people and the Jedi did not. Perhaps he is bound to her... as I am bound to you. If so, there may be a death served by hers. It is a technique that is almost as old as the Sith themselves... it is a means of severing connections between life, the Force, and feeding upon the death it causes."

 

So what? Kreia says that Nihilus is one of the dark lords that pursues you, but why would that necessarily make it true? How does she know if he's still a Sith Lord or not? After all, she's the one who said that he no longer cares for the teachings of the Sith, so she should make up her mind.

 

And ah, 'it is a technique that is almost as old as the Sith themselves' has nothing to do with whether Nihilus is a Sith Lord or not. Care to explain how it does mean that he's a Sith Lord? She's talking about how old the technique is.

 

Now, he still has the title of 'Darth', but that title should only matter if it means anything to him. So, what if it's true that he no longer cared about the Sith teachings? I think it's true, but that is debatable.

 

If that 'Darth' title no longer meant anything to Nihilus, then I wouldn't call him a Sith Lord any more. Isn't that how it should be? Or do I know nothing about the ways of the Sith?

[Jediphile]

I guess this just boils down entirely to our own point of view in the end.

 

No argument there. I do think that the game itself and most of the sources that mention the characters suggest that Nihilus was a sith lord, though.

 

So what? Kreia says that Nihilus is one of the dark lords that pursues you, but why would that necessarily make it true? How does she know if he's still a Sith Lord or not? After all, she's the one who said that he no longer cares for the teachings of the Sith, so she should make up her mind.

 

She calls him a dark lord, but also dismisses his teachings as being not of the Sith at the same time. However, Nihilus studied those while he was still her own apprentice - apparently she had no such reservations about them at that time. She may dismiss them during the game, but to me that's just the same as Freedon Nadd's spirit declaring Exar Kun a pretender to the Sith legacy only after he failed to control Exar Kun himself (in "Tales of the Jedi: Dark Lords of the Sith #4"). If Kreia declaring Nihilus not a Sith is valid on the basis of her knowledge of the Sith, then Freedon Nadd declaring Exar Kun a pretender only after he rebelled against him seems just as valid to me, and I don't see how that is true. Freedon Nadd was simply crying foul because Kun resisted his ultimate attempt to manipulate him. Kreia does exactly the same. She had no problem teaching Nihilus, but when he rebels against her, then he's suddenly an imposter? She's scarcely in a position to make an objective evaluation...

 

And ah, 'it is a technique that is almost as old as the Sith themselves' has nothing to do with whether Nihilus is a Sith Lord or not. Care to explain how it does mean that he's a Sith Lord? She's talking about how old the technique is.

 

To me the fact that she mentions this in relation to the traditions of the Sith themselves simply seems to infer a relationship between the two.

 

Now, he still has the title of 'Darth', but that title should only matter if it means anything to him. So, what if it's true that he no longer cared about the Sith teachings? I think it's true, but that is debatable.

 

Certainly. That's why we're having this discussion. I don't see that Nihilus has rejected the Sith, though. He still has plenty of loyal Sith troops around, who still accept him as their dark lord. And he still uses them to hunt down and destroy the jedi, as the Sith have always done.

 

If that 'Darth' title no longer meant anything to Nihilus, then I wouldn't call him a Sith Lord any more. Isn't that how it should be? Or do I know nothing about the ways of the Sith?

 

It says a lot to me that Kreia is the only one to question his status as a Sith lord. Besides, she's doesn't even come right out and say it. Sion doesn't say it all. Also, the jedi masters are in no doubt that the Sith destroyed Katarr, and we know that Nihilus was behind that.

[TheGreenGoblin]

If you want to get technical, Nihilus was leading the strongest faction of the Sith for his time. So he'd, at least politically, be considered a Darth.

 

In reality, he was probably closer to a Warlord. Though even that title doesn't quite do him justice.

 

Spiritually, he was not a Sith. He may have been at one time, I think the change likely occured between Kreia's fall and before the destruction of Katarr. He certainly filled the selfish requirements for a Sith, but as a goal the Sith don't seek the destruction of the universe.