What should the True Sith BE Like?

[Sir Vougalot]

The problem with comic books like that is that we already know how it will all play out. That said, they're doing the KotOR comic book with Zayne Carrick right now, which takes place just before the Mandalorian Wars, and that is still interesting, primarily since they've introduced all new characters, who can live or die as the writers please...

True, but we also knew how the prequels were going to end (roughly). We also knew what would be the fate of Outbound Flight. Yet, these stories were still eventually told. Why? Because people love stuff like that. That's why I think covering the Hundred Year Darkness would be a great idea.

[RobQel-Droma]

First of all, I apologize for the long wait. I've been pretty busy.

 

Yes, but we cannot assume it was because the Sith did not know where the Republic was. Sadow used the arrival of the Starbreaker 12, a Republic ship, to infer that a Republic sneak attack was underway and that the Daragons were advance scouts and spies - that's why he had them thrown in jail. Of course, he didn't believe that himself, but he did exploit their arrival toward that end, which only underscores that he was already hellbent on attacking the Republic IMHO.

 

Yes, I know about that. But actually, I'm not assuming in the first part; they forgot how to get to the Republic, it's a fact. Otherwise they might have attacked earlier.

 

They didn't. They've been extinct for well over a thousand years. The Sith species does not equal the Sith Empire, however. A lot of people tend to get that mixed up. The sith species ruled worlds such as Korriban, but they did never had a starspanning empire of their own. That didn't happen until the dark jedi arrived, enslaved them, and then established the Sith Empire of Ragnos, Sadow, Kressh and others. By their time, around 5000 BBY, the original sith species was already gone, but clearly it was still the golden age of the sith empire, so obviously "sith species" equals neither "ancient sith" nor "Sith Empire". Those terms belong solely to the halfbreed descendants of the dark jedi and the original sith species, such as the aforementioned Ragnos, Kressh and Sadow. The question we don't quite know the answer to is who the "true Sith" are.

 

It seems I started out with a misunderstanding, then. I take it you don't believe the "True Sith" are the ancient Sith Species then, but something else? Because if I did believe the True Sith would be in KOTOR III, I would agree about them not being the original Sith species.

 

If there were half-breeds in Exar Kun's time, then how can we say there are no descendants of the Sith Empire? That's less than 50 years before KotOR. I must confess that I haven't seen or heard of any of them in Kun's time though - I just think they're not all gone.

 

Perhaps I was mistaken, but there are at least no full or close to full blood descendants left in his time. All that was left was the Massassi, who were a half/alchemically enhanced Sith descendant. And they died out soon after as well.

 

But "ancient Sith" does not necessarily mean "original sith species". Indeed, since Kreia seems to speak of the "ancient sith" in relation to the Sith Empire, it seems more likely to me that these "ancient sith" are people such and Ragnos, Sadow and Kressh, who were not members of the "original sith species", since that species were already extinct by their time, leaving only halfbreeds such as Ragnos, Kressh and Sadow.

 

And if we examine a few comments, it does seem that the "true Sith" are tied to the "ancient Sith", who seem to have been the masters of the Sith Empire, and not the original sith speicies.

 

Sion (talking about the Trayus Academy on Malachor V): "It has been here for thousands of years. It is a place where the Sith teachings run strong... it is the threshold of the borders of an ancient empire. Kreia says it was a place of reflection for the ancient Sith... a gateway to their lands."

 

Sion mentions the ancient sith and an ancient empire. He does say it's the sith empire, but since we're talking about the ancient sith and they only ever had one empire, it seems rather obvious to me that it must the empire of Ragnos, Sadow and Kressh.

 

Kreia: "... because Malachor, like Korriban, lies on the fringes of the ancient Sith Empire, where the true Sith wait for us, in the dark."

 

Now, added with what Sion says above, it is quite obvious to me that we're talking about the Sith Empire, that the "ancient sith" are the people of Ragnos, Sadow and Kressh (not the sith species, who never had an starspanning empire), and that the "true Sith" are their descendants - the remnant of what was left when the Sith Empire fell.

 

So it sounds like we're getting some more bad-ass Sith Lords. Where does the True Sith "species" come in that everyone is blabbing about? Or do you hold a different position?

 

Kreia does not admit this casually - you actually have to build influence with her to get her to admit it.

 

Kreia: "The Sith is a belief. And its empire, the true Sith Empire, rules elsewhere.And Revan knew the true war is not against the Republic. It waits for us, beyond the Outer Rim. And he has gone to fight it..."

 

So yes, she does tell us what has become of Revan and where he is now.

 

But that is not directly in the same sentence about his masters. That was my point.

 

But if you're going to dismiss what my argument regardless, that does not seem to leave me with much incentive to answer in the first place...

 

On that principle, why are we even posting?

 

It's called a debate, my friend. Not everything is accepted by both sides during the argument. Besides, I was just saying that I might not agree with it; but at least you gave an answer, so it shows you have a reason why you believe it.

 

Some do, but it's almost always a fallacy to infer something from a lack of a response because one can never know why the other person chose not to respond. Maybe he didn't have a response, as you suggest, but it could also be that he simply didn't want to give one. And in either case, to speculate on the reasons, particularly for the purpose of provoking a response - and I emphasize that I'm not saying that's the case here - is trolling at best and a personal attack at worst.

 

Didn't say how accurate it was. Just said what it looked like. And just not wanting to give a response is an illogical reason to not give one in a situation like this.

 

And I think you're going a bit too far by making it into "trolling" and "a personal attack." Come on, Jediphile - I know you said that you weren't talking about what I did, and I believe you - but there's no need to take general advice/musing to an attack on a person themself.

 

Did I say that was necessarily the case? No, I didn't. I just outlined it as a possibility. That's what "could be a reference" means. I actually did take great care to describe this as a possibility. I certainly did not say it was definitely the case beyond any doubt.

 

Does it make sense that the true Sith have not yet attacked if they are engaged in a civil war? I think so.

 

Is it possible that Revan left to stage such a civil war? I think that is possible too, especially given that Kreia describes Revan as "someone who was willing to wage war to save others" (and those are her exact words).

 

Does this mean that the true Sith are definitely involved in a civil war staged by Revan? No. We don't know what they are doing. But it would at least explain why they have not attacked while the Republic is definitely at its weakest.

 

And I agree with you. Here's the problem:

 

Did I say that Kreia's reference could point to a connection with the true Sith? Yes, of course.

 

You are in effect saying that when Kreia said what she did, she was referring (which means she was talking about Revan and the True Sith indirectly) to something Revan was doing. This outlines almost a direct connection between what she said and what Revan is doing. You lost me when you said that her general statement was a "reference" to Revan. The meaning of the word just made me wonder - it sounded like you were saying that Kreia was specifically talking about Revan (although the PC didn't know it).

 

Now if you are saying that what she said about Sith can be applied to a possible storyline plot in KOTOR III as to what Revan is doing, I can understand that. But the way you made it sound - A is a possible reference to B" lost me.

 

I hope that clears it up, I don't want to keep hammering it.

[Sir Vougalot]

I think that the "true Sith" are one of two possibilities:

 

1. "More recently, it was discovered that, after the Sith King Adas died while driving the Rakata from Korriban in 28,000 BBY, the Sith species possessed the technology to relocate themselves to nearby Ziost. It is therefore possible that some Sith from this era became the "True Sith," taking up residence out in the Unknown Regions, and eventually constructing the Trayus Academy on Malachor V." - Wookieepedia

 

2. It has to do with Xendor and his Legions of Lettow, the first group of schismatic Dark Jedi in 24,500 BBy.

 

Personally, I'm hoping for a mixture of both. These Sith (species) who possessed the technology took with them their king, an heir to Adas, leaving behind the lower-class, primitive people on Korriban and Ziost, and traveled out as far as the Malachor system. There, they came upon Xendor and his followers and helped them war against the Jedi. Defeated, they retreated into the Unknown Regions and built an empire unknown to Republic space. So here we have two lines of succession fusing together: those of Adas and Xendor, and herein creates the true line of Dark Lords. These will return to Republic space and be integrated into Darth Ruin's New Sith Empire when he unified all of the various surviving Sith organizations, thus making him a part of the true Dark Lords from the line of Xendor, and making all of those we've encountered in both KOTOR and the Tales of the Jedi comics false. It is from this line that Bane, Plagueis, Sidious, Maul, Tyrannus and Vader will spring. When Anakin cut this line off, he brought balance to the Force. This solves the problem of why the Sith seem to have been totally wiped out many times before, why they kept being reconstructed from nothing, and why they are able to return again in the time of Darth Krayt once the prophecy had been fulfilled and the Force had been balanced. The answer is simple: all of these groups were false. The true, unbroken line of Sith Lords, from Xendor to Palpatine, had been detroyed by a redeemed Anakin Skywalker.

 

Now, since both Adas' and Xendor's lineages had left their respective peoples, the Sith on Korriban had to create a new line of kings, which would not be in succession with Adas' line, for it had departed. In like manner, the Dark Jedi who separated from the Jedi order during the Hudred Year Darkness also had to create an entirely new line of leadership, since they were in no way connected to Xendor (though they liked to believe themselves to be his successors). And, as you all know, these latter two groups merged once the Dark Jedi had been exiled from Republic space and came upon the Sith species. This was the line of Ajunta Pall, Dathka Graush, Marka Ragnos, Naga Sadow, etc. However, this line was not true, because it was unconnected to either of the original ruling parties of Xendor and Adas, who had merged with one another elsewhere, near Malachor. And also the next line to rise - that of Revan, Malak, Nihilus, Scion and Traya - also weren't true for the same reason.

 

Revan, methinks, as the Dark Lord of the Sith had somehow come to knowledge about this line of true Sith, but kept it from his apprentice, Malak. He knew that once he conquered the Republic he would need to depart into the Unknown Regions and conquer these "true Sith" in order for his order to be a true Sith order, and for he himself to be a true Dark Lord. However, none of this ever came to pass because he was captured by the Jedi, and his memory was erased. However, as KOTOR II tells it, that memory, like his memories of the star maps, came back to him, and as a Jedi fighting for the light side of the Force, he retreated into the Unknown Regions because he who who the true enemy was, and he had to prevent them from invading conquering the Republic. He had gone to fight the mixed lineage of Adas and Xendor. And I think that he and those with him had defeated them significantly, to the point where they no longer posed a threat; but he did not destroy them completely. What remained of them - even if it had only been a couple of people, it would have been enough - came back to the Republic came back into the Republic at the time of Ruin, and ordained him and his followers into the true line of Sith Lords, making Ruin the first true Dark Lord of the Sith that the Republic has ever known since Xendor.

 

Of course, I know that none of this will ever happen, and it entirely the dream of this fanboy. However, I wish Bioware, Obsidian, or whomever will be making the next game has someone on there who thinks like me, so that things will make more sense. My way of thinking fixes many inconsistencies in the Star Wars universe, particularly the problem of the Sith being repeatedly wiped out and resurfacing, and why their destruction with the death of Palpatine was so significant; and why no true Sith could ever come back after Palpatine's death.

 

Still working on explaining why Palpatine's resurrection didn't undo the fulfillment of the prophecy, though. Maybe it has something to do with Palpatine's state of mind after his resurrection? Don't know.

 

Anyways, carry on.

[Jediphile]

Yes, I know about that. But actually, I'm not assuming in the first part; they forgot how to get to the Republic, it's a fact. Otherwise they might have attacked earlier.

 

It's not a fact unless you can provide proof of it. If not, then it's merely a supposition, and one that I tend to agree with. After all, if the Sith of the time truly do not know where the Republic is, then Sadow's thirst for vengeance BEFORE the Starbreaker 12 arrives makes no sense - why would he quarrel with Kressh over this, if they don't even know where to go? Had that been the case, then the arrival of the Starbreaker 12 would have instigated Sadow's call for revenge against the Republic, yet it didn't - he was already advocating that BEFORE it's arrival, and then used the incident to compel others to join his quest.

 

It seems I started out with a misunderstanding, then. I take it you don't believe the "True Sith" are the ancient Sith Species then, but something else? Because if I did believe the True Sith would be in KOTOR III, I would agree about them not being the original Sith species.

 

There none of the original sith species left. They died out even before the Golden Age of the Sith Empire, where only the half-breeds were left. I have never seen a source that suggests otherwise, nor have I said so. Ragnos, Sadow and Kressh were all half-breeds, and any so the same would be true of any of their descendents. Since any KotOR material takes place a thousand years later, there can be no Sith species, and the term "true Sith" cannot in any possible way refer to the original Sith species, since they have been extinct for well over a millennium. It is impossible for me to say it any clearer than that, and I fail completely to see how I have in any way given anyone any other impression or how anyone could ever possibly interpret it as such from what I have been saying on this topic.

 

Perhaps I was mistaken, but there are at least no full or close to full blood descendants left in his time. All that was left was the Massassi, who were a half/alchemically enhanced Sith descendant. And they died out soon after as well.

 

Actually, it's established that there are som Massassi left. Certainly Exar Kun left one alive. And as adamqd established above, there are Massassi half-breeds even in the KotOR era. I would agree, however, that they should neither appear in the games and that they should not be used in any other way. They are, to me, a complete non-factor in regards to the KotOR games.

 

But "ancient Sith" does not necessarily mean "original sith species". Indeed, since Kreia seems to speak of the "ancient sith" in relation to the Sith Empire, it seems more likely to me that these "ancient sith" are people such and Ragnos, Sadow and Kressh, who were not members of the "original sith species", since that species were already extinct by their time, leaving only halfbreeds such as Ragnos, Kressh and Sadow.

 

And if we examine a few comments, it does seem that the "true Sith" are tied to the "ancient Sith", who seem to have been the masters of the Sith Empire, and not the original sith speicies.

 

Sion (talking about the Trayus Academy on Malachor V): "It has been here for thousands of years. It is a place where the Sith teachings run strong... it is the threshold of the borders of an ancient empire. Kreia says it was a place of reflection for the ancient Sith... a gateway to their lands."

 

Sion mentions the ancient sith and an ancient empire. He does say it's the sith empire, but since we're talking about the ancient sith and they only ever had one empire, it seems rather obvious to me that it must the empire of Ragnos, Sadow and Kressh.

 

Kreia: "... because Malachor, like Korriban, lies on the fringes of the ancient Sith Empire, where the true Sith wait for us, in the dark."

 

Now, added with what Sion says above, it is quite obvious to me that we're talking about the Sith Empire, that the "ancient sith" are the people of Ragnos, Sadow and Kressh (not the sith species, who never had an starspanning empire), and that the "true Sith" are their descendants - the remnant of what was left when the Sith Empire fell.

 

So it sounds like we're getting some more bad-ass Sith Lords. Where does the True Sith "species" come in that everyone is blabbing about? Or do you hold a different position?

 

At the risk of repeating myself - there is no "true" Sith 'species', and I have never said or inferred that there was. What you.

 

The passage you quote here clearly does not speak to any sith species, as the opening statement of what you quote obviously points out. The rest establishes a connection between the true Sith and the ancient Sith Empire, which is the point I'm making here.

 

On that principle, why are we even posting?

 

It's called a debate, my friend. Not everything is accepted by both sides during the argument. Besides, I was just saying that I might not agree with it; but at least you gave an answer, so it shows you have a reason why you believe it.

 

 

Which I may or may not do, but whether I choose to share my opinion and the reasons for it is my choice to make, and attempts to compel me to give them will have the opposite effect. I'll tell people my opinions and the reasons for them if I feel like it, and if I don't then I won't. And if you give me the impression that you'll disregard my comments regardless, then I'm also far inclined to do the latter.

 

Did I say that was necessarily the case? No, I didn't. I just outlined it as a possibility. That's what "could be a reference" means. I actually did take great care to describe this as a possibility. I certainly did not say it was definitely the case beyond any doubt.

 

Does it make sense that the true Sith have not yet attacked if they are engaged in a civil war? I think so.

 

Is it possible that Revan left to stage such a civil war? I think that is possible too, especially given that Kreia describes Revan as "someone who was willing to wage war to save others" (and those are her exact words).

 

Does this mean that the true Sith are definitely involved in a civil war staged by Revan? No. We don't know what they are doing. But it would at least explain why they have not attacked while the Republic is definitely at its weakest.

 

 

And I agree with you. Here's the problem:

 

Did I say that Kreia's reference could point to a connection with the true Sith? Yes, of course.

 

 

You are in effect saying that when Kreia said what she did, she was referring (which means she was talking about Revan and the True Sith indirectly) to something Revan was doing. This outlines almost a direct connection between what she said and what Revan is doing. You lost me when you said that her general statement was a "reference" to Revan. The meaning of the word just made me wonder - it sounded like you were saying that Kreia was specifically talking about Revan (although the PC didn't know it).

 

No, I say that this is possibly what Kreia was suggesting, not that in necessarily was. That's what the word "could" means, which is clearly used in what you quote. I tend to believe it was a reference to Revan, but I did not state that it was a fact or imply in any way that it was not possible that people can disagree with me or that I could simply be wrong. Here I actually stated what I thought, yet somehow that doesn't seem to meet with your approval either, even though you did suggest I do so above.

 

Now if you are saying that what she said about Sith can be applied to a possible storyline plot in KOTOR III as to what Revan is doing, I can understand that. But the way you made it sound - A is a possible reference to B" lost me.

 

I hope that clears it up, I don't want to keep hammering it.[/Quote]

 

Sadly it doesn't, since I fail to see your point completely. Suffice it to say that I don't feel responsible to for how you choose to interpret my comments. All I said in what you state is a possibility, which has been clearly marked as such from beginning. What you choose to apply to it after that cannot be my problem.

[RobQel-Droma]

It's not a fact unless you can provide proof of it. If not, then it's merely a supposition, and one that I tend to agree with. After all, if the Sith of the time truly do not know where the Republic is, then Sadow's thirst for vengeance BEFORE the Starbreaker 12 arrives makes no sense - why would he quarrel with Kressh over this, if they don't even know where to go? Had that been the case, then the arrival of the Starbreaker 12 would have instigated Sadow's call for revenge against the Republic, yet it didn't - he was already advocating that BEFORE it's arrival, and then used the incident to compel others to join his quest.

 

Read the New Essential Chronology.

 

"Over millenia, the dark rulers of the Sith Empire lost their charts and hyperspace maps, so that they did not even know how to locate the Republic."

 

Proof enough?

 

There none of the original sith species left. They died out even before the Golden Age of the Sith Empire, where only the half-breeds were left. I have never seen a source that suggests otherwise, nor have I said so. Ragnos, Sadow and Kressh were all half-breeds, and any so the same would be true of any of their descendents. Since any KotOR material takes place a thousand years later, there can be no Sith species, and the term "true Sith" cannot in any possible way refer to the original Sith species, since they have been extinct for well over a millennium.

 

Yes. I know that. I mean, I've just been saying that exact thing for all of my posting on the subject. So there's no need to give me the lecture.

 

It is impossible for me to say it any clearer than that, and I fail completely to see how I have in any way given anyone any other impression or how anyone could ever possibly interpret it as such from what I have been saying on this topic.

 

OK, now it's my turn to do your little thing.

 

You're right - obviously it could NEVER in thousands upon thousands of years EVER give an impression like I thought it did. Oh, for shame!!! Please forgive my horrible and INEXCUSABLE sin of uttering such pathetic nonsense in your presence. How shall I ever redeem myself in the eyes of the jedi council again? Oh, woe is me!!!

 

*ahem* OK, forget that. Anyways, have you looked at all your supporters in this theory and what they think of the True Sith? Perhaps the people in this thread are different, but that vast majority of people I have talked with in threads long before this one believe that "True Sith" = Ancient Sith Species. In case you haven't noticed. I'm kinda suprised you think this so astonishing, perhaps you haven't read some other people's, uh, ideas on the topic.

 

You know... you could have just said no, that's not my opinion.

 

At the risk of repeating myself - there is no "true" Sith 'species', and I have never said or inferred that there was. What you.

 

The passage you quote here clearly does not speak to any sith species, as the opening statement of what you quote obviously points out. The rest establishes a connection between the true Sith and the ancient Sith Empire, which is the point I'm making here.

 

I didn't say "Jediphile", I said "everyone", meaning everyone else not in this debate. As I said earlier, at the risk of repeating myself, I have seen many other True Sith opinions - and the majority was, at least some time ago, that we were going to fight the original Sith species.

 

What you.

 

Er... I'm guessing that isn't what you meant to say.

 

Which I may or may not do, but whether I choose to share my opinion and the reasons for it is my choice to make, and attempts to compel me to give them will have the opposite effect. I'll tell people my opinions and the reasons for them if I feel like it, and if I don't then I won't. And if you give me the impression that you'll disregard my comments regardless, then I'm also far inclined to do the latter.

 

I didn't say disregard. I said disagree. Two slightly different meanings.

 

However, I have to compliment you on your attitude. If it was applied to your whole post, I couldn't even have a discussion with you. I would be suprised if anyone else against your position would want to either - although you probably wouldn't have any problem talking with someone who agreed with you.

 

Jediphile, there's a difference between feeling like you have to defend everything and simply not giving a rat's behind for explaining your position. If you take that attitude, fine... but then why the heck start a debate like this. I can't talk with someone who's responses are based on whether they feel like answering or not.

 

No, I say that this is possibly what Kreia was suggesting, not that in necessarily was. That's what the word "could" means, which is clearly used in what you quote. I tend to believe it was a reference to Revan, but I did not state that it was a fact or imply in any way that it was not possible that people can disagree with me or that I could simply be wrong. Here I actually stated what I thought, yet somehow that doesn't seem to meet with your approval either, even though you did suggest I do so above.

 

I know you said "possibly". You don't understand, that's not the point of conflict. In otherwords, it's not "could be" but "making a reference to" that is the problem. I didn't want to put the definition up here, and be accused of splitting hairs or whatnot from other people (I'm not specifically talking about you), but since it seems to be the problem I will.

 

reference n:

 

1. a spoken or written comment that either specifically mentions or calls attention to somebody or something, or is intended to bring somebody or something to mind

2. the process of mentioning or alluding to somebody or something

3. applicability or relevance to, or connection with, a particular subject or person

 

Now let's reexamine what you said. You said that Kreia's mention of the nature of the Sith to squabble and fight (A) was a possible "reference" to what Revan is doing with the True Sith in the Unknown Regions (B).

 

Rephrase:

 

Kreia's mention of the nature of the Sith to squabble and fight (A) was a possible "calling of attention to somebody" to what Revan is doing with the True Sith in the Unknown Regions (B).

 

Or put in specific mention... Or allusion to... They are all meanings of reference. The way you originally put it, and it's fine if this isn't what you were implying, but it sounded like Kreia was saying that for a possible purpose of implying that Revan was starting a civil war among the True Sith. A huge jump. I'm not even discussing possibility, just the relevance of A to B. As if you could put "which is what Revan is doing in the Unknown Regions" on the end of what Kreia said and keep the original intent, because that is really what she was talking about indirectly - possibly.

 

Sadly it doesn't, since I fail to see your point completely. Suffice it to say that I don't feel responsible to for how you choose to interpret my comments. All I said in what you state is a possibility, which has been clearly marked as such from beginning. What you choose to apply to it after that cannot be my problem.

 

If you use words which have definitions that give an incorrect meaning, yes, it is very much your responsibility, and it is your problem. Again, I repeat myself. I know it's a possibility. I already said that that wasn't the problem. I don't know, you seem to apply that to my response as what my problem with my statement was. I'm not sure how you interpreted what I said that way, but heck...

 

It's not "my problem."

 

Let's say I call you every bad name possible in this post. Then, when you respond angrily, I say: how you chose to take what I said is your problem, not mine, so don't blame me. Doesn't make any sense at all, does it?

 

Geez, lighten up a bit. It's like your whole attitude is against everyone who disagrees with you, at least that is what you've given me. But you want to keep saying that you don't have to answer to anyone if you don't want to...

 

Usually, people who don't feel they have to answer to anyone can then choose to not respond to conflicts with their theories or ideas on a whim. And it's pretty hard to debate with people like that.

[Sir Vougalot]

How come no one ever pays any attention to my long, thought-out posts?

[Darca Lar]

They're too long and we get bored easy by them.

[adamqd]

Who'd of thought a few comment's by a Deceptive old Women could cause such a Fracas.

[Sir Vougalot]

They're too long and we get bored easy by them.

But everyone else's are equally as long or longer, and equally as boring or moreso.

[Jediphile]

Read the New Essential Chronology.

 

"Over millenia, the dark rulers of the Sith Empire lost their charts and hyperspace maps, so that they did not even know how to locate the Republic."

 

Proof enough?

 

I have not read the New Essential Chronology (nor am I likely to), so I cannot say, but even if you are correct (and that is a statement of uncertainty only, not a jab against you), I still think that leaves us with a plot hole, since that would mean Sadow's call for an attack on the Republic BEFORE the arrival of the Starbreaker 12 makes no sense. Why would he risk his position in the empire on such an attack if they don't even know where the Republic is?!?

 

That makes no sense to me and leaves a gaping plot hole, IMHO. Therefore I would prefer if the Chronology would simply shut up and not burden us with a new plothole in Star Wars canon.

 

Yes. I know that. I mean, I've just been saying that exact thing for all of my posting on the subject. So there's no need to give me the lecture.

 

Maybe not, but I've been saying the same thing for several posts now, and yet you've continued to answer them with questions of whether I want the Sith species in KotOR3 or not. If you already got it, then fine, but then I don't understand why you keep asking

 

OK, now it's my turn to do your little thing.

 

You're right - obviously it could NEVER in thousands upon thousands of years EVER give an impression like I thought it did. Oh, for shame!!! Please forgive my horrible and INEXCUSABLE sin of uttering such pathetic nonsense in your presence. How shall I ever redeem myself in the eyes of the jedi council again? Oh, woe is me!!!

 

How original... Well, at least you can't blame me for it now... Or as Obi-Wan would say, "Who's the more foolish - the fool or the fool who follows him?"

 

*ahem* OK, forget that. Anyways, have you looked at all your supporters in this theory and what they think of the True Sith? Perhaps the people in this thread are different, but that vast majority of people I have talked with in threads long before this one believe that "True Sith" = Ancient Sith Species.

 

I do not recall people saying so here. People have said so at times, sure, but they have been few in my experience. I know the guys at theforce.net had a very different perception of the true Sith along those lines, but to my knowledge that's about it.

 

You know... you could have just said no, that's not my opinion.

 

I already tried that several times with limited success.

 

I didn't say "Jediphile", I said "everyone", meaning everyone else not in this debate. As I said earlier, at the risk of repeating myself, I have seen many other True Sith opinions - and the majority was, at least some time ago, that we were going to fight the original Sith species.

 

Well, that has not been my experience much, and actually less so here than on the Obsidian boards when I still frequented those waters.

 

I didn't say disregard. I said disagree. Two slightly different meanings.

 

Yes, but if you say you'll disagree with opinion even before I've said it, then it makes little difference, since it comes to the same thing.

 

Jediphile, there's a difference between feeling like you have to defend everything and simply not giving a rat's behind for explaining your position. If you take that attitude, fine... but then why the heck start a debate like this. I can't talk with someone who's responses are based on whether they feel like answering or not.

 

In that case, who can you talk to? After all, if people don't feel like talking, then not saying anyting else is pretty easy to do.

 

I know you said "possibly". You don't understand, that's not the point of conflict. In otherwords, it's not "could be" but "making a reference to" that is the problem. I didn't want to put the definition up here, and be accused of splitting hairs or whatnot from other people (I'm not specifically talking about you), but since it seems to be the problem I will.

 

reference n:

 

1. a spoken or written comment that either specifically mentions or calls attention to somebody or something, or is intended to bring somebody or something to mind

2. the process of mentioning or alluding to somebody or something

3. applicability or relevance to, or connection with, a particular subject or person

 

Now let's reexamine what you said. You said that Kreia's mention of the nature of the Sith to squabble and fight (A) was a possible "reference" to what Revan is doing with the True Sith in the Unknown Regions (B).

 

Rephrase:

 

Kreia's mention of the nature of the Sith to squabble and fight (A) was a possible "calling of attention to somebody" to what Revan is doing with the True Sith in the Unknown Regions (B).

 

Or put in specific mention... Or allusion to... They are all meanings of reference. The way you originally put it, and it's fine if this isn't what you were implying, but it sounded like Kreia was saying that for a possible purpose of implying that Revan was starting a civil war among the True Sith. A huge jump. I'm not even discussing possibility, just the relevance of A to B. As if you could put "which is what Revan is doing in the Unknown Regions" on the end of what Kreia said and keep the original intent, because that is really what she was talking about indirectly - possibly.

 

So what? It still comes down to me thinking that Revan is trying to start a civil war and that Kreia's comments about fighting amongst themselves have been foreshadowing of that... or not. Or put differently, can you or anyone else prove that there is no way that this could be what Kreia is suggesting, or even what the devs are suggesting by letting Kreia say that, even if Kreia doesn't even know it?

 

If you use words which have definitions that give an incorrect meaning, yes, it is very much your responsibility, and it is your problem. Again, I repeat myself. I know it's a possibility. I already said that that wasn't the problem. I don't know, you seem to apply that to my response as what my problem with my statement was. I'm not sure how you interpreted what I said that way, but heck...

 

No, it's not my problem. I suggested a possible interpretation. I did not say or even suggest that I was right. That's what it comes down to. I am not responsible for what leaps of conclusion you or anyone else decide to jump to after that. That's their own problem.

 

Let's say I call you every bad name possible in this post. Then, when you respond angrily, I say: how you chose to take what I said is your problem, not mine, so don't blame me. Doesn't make any sense at all, does it?

 

No, but then that example does not apply to the situation we've discussed.

 

Geez, lighten up a bit. It's like your whole attitude is against everyone who disagrees with you, at least that is what you've given me. But you want to keep saying that you don't have to answer to anyone if you don't want to...

 

Given how much I've responded to your posts, I tend to think you have little reason to complain...

 

Usually, people who don't feel they have to answer to anyone can then choose to not respond to conflicts with their theories or ideas on a whim. And it's pretty hard to debate with people like that.

 

Perhaps, but then so what? It's not as if you can force people to speak up if they don't want to. And it is dangerous to assume anything from their silence.

[RobQel-Droma]

I have not read the New Essential Chronology (nor am I likely to), so I cannot say, but even if you are correct (and that is a statement of uncertainty only, not a jab against you), I still think that leaves us with a plot hole, since that would mean Sadow's call for an attack on the Republic BEFORE the arrival of the Starbreaker 12 makes no sense. Why would he risk his position in the empire on such an attack if they don't even know where the Republic is?!?

 

That makes no sense to me and leaves a gaping plot hole, IMHO. Therefore I would prefer if the Chronology would simply shut up and not burden us with a new plothole in Star Wars canon.

 

I wish Kreia would just shut up too, but...

 

Anyways, regardless, it is still a direct quote. Besides, and I don't know if this is true or not, but the only quote you gave me of Sadow said nothing of the Republic, just that the Sith Empire was growing stagnant. If this is just because you didn't choose to put that quote in there, that's fine, but I would just like confirmation if you will that Sadow actually mentions the Republic in name.

 

Maybe not, but I've been saying the same thing for several posts now, and yet you've continued to answer them with questions of whether I want the Sith species in KotOR3 or not. If you already got it, then fine, but then I don't understand why you keep asking

 

Er.... hmmm. I don't know what's been going on, but I never saw you saw directly that you didn't believe this. I think I know what was happening in the early stages, but I guess I wasn't interpreting your posts right. Besides, as I said, most True Sith people believe that or used to, so I'm kinda already thinking that way.

 

How original... Well, at least you can't blame me for it now... Or as Obi-Wan would say, "Who's the more foolish - the fool or the fool who follows him?"

 

Earlier, you seemed to think it was quite a good response to my non-offensive post.

 

I thought it was almost similar to this here, so (ironically) I also thought that perhaps the same response would fit, wouldn't it? I wouldn't respond that way, of course, I was simply using your line. It was what the original post came across as when I basically said the same thing (your post about how it could never ever happen in a million years seemed a little like the way you took my post, the one that spawned this response from you).

 

And.... why did you throw that quote in here....?

 

Are you just trying to make it sound like some kind of wisdom that applies to what I did, or what? 'Cause it really makes no sense to give it relevance with my (actually, your response - as you probably noted I hardly changed it).

 

I already tried that several times with limited success.

 

Where? Any times it came right down to it, that was certainly not your response.

 

I do not recall people saying so here. People have said so at times, sure, but they have been few in my experience. I know the guys at theforce.net had a very different perception of the true Sith along those lines, but to my knowledge that's about it.

 

Well, it's not like your a newbie, you've been here a while, but if you never heard it you'll just have to trust me. They did.

 

Well, that has not been my experience much, and actually less so here than on the Obsidian boards when I still frequented those waters.

 

Well, as much as I believe you, that has been my experience, so I hope you understand the source of my assumption.

 

Yes, but if you say you'll disagree with opinion even before I've said it, then it makes little difference, since it comes to the same thing.

 

Wow, wow... tell me where I said that and I will take it back. Sure, if I disagreed before you even said it, that would be disregarding...

 

...And I never, ever said that. I said I might disagree with you.... that's all, I never said anything about before you even typed it. And I even didn't say I would, I said maybe I would. And after all, that is what usually happens in these kinds of things, right? It takes quite a few back and forth posts to resolve something. Or not resolve it.

 

In that case, who can you talk to? After all, if people don't feel like talking, then not saying anyting else is pretty easy to do.

 

The people who don't do that. I'm just saying, it's a very shaky standpoint with no logical basis. In that case, you know, I might not have even responded to this post after this because I didn't really feel like logging on to LF.

 

So what? It still comes down to me thinking that Revan is trying to start a civil war and that Kreia's comments about fighting amongst themselves have been foreshadowing of that... or not. Or put differently, can you or anyone else prove that there is no way that this could be what Kreia is suggesting, or even what the devs are suggesting by letting Kreia say that, even if Kreia doesn't even know it?

 

Its just.... its just a looooooong stretch. I don't mean its not possible, it's just hard to see relevance (the picking of the quote felt kind of random). I mean, she never mentions Revan or the True Sith, or current events, and what she tells you anyone could tell you. If I used those words, it would probably be if those were included in her quote, if you know what I mean.

 

No, it's not my problem. I suggested a possible interpretation. I did not say or even suggest that I was right. That's what it comes down to. I am not responsible for what leaps of conclusion you or anyone else decide to jump to after that. That's their own problem.

 

And where have I differed? You seem to often shift it to other people's problems, not yours, no matter what. I never recall saying in my interpretation of your posts that I was right. If it gave that impression, I'm sorry - with most of that I was just trying to find out what was going on.

 

No, but then that example does not apply to the situation we've discussed.

 

Despite the fact that it is a bit extreme, it is only exactly what you said taken to a bit of an extreme. So where are the other differences?

 

Given how much I've responded to your posts, I tend to think you have little reason to complain... ]

 

There were just a few overly sarcastic responses to my posts, that I thought didn't need to have. But if you really aren't trying to come across that way, fine. I'm not complaining, just don't want things to turn into a pissing match as I seen, especially this topic, do.

 

Perhaps, but then so what? It's not as if you can force people to speak up if they don't want to. And it is dangerous to assume anything from their silence.

 

No, I can't force you. And you've said many times that it is dangerous, but so what? I don't really care, that isn't going to change what people will think. Like you said, I didn't say it was right or not, but don't think that because there is a possibility that the accusers are wrong... don't believe that that will shield you from people thinking you can't answer.

 

If there is a point still being discussed, and one side gives up on it, even if it is for your reasons, that point still stands. Whatever is being assumed about their silence, it still stands, since no one took it down with another response. And, in my position, I would take the view that there is nothing wrong with me considering my unanswered responses that way. Perhaps there is nothing to prove you don't have an answer, but remember; there is nothing to prove you *do*.

 

It also decreases confidence that someone else might have (for example, I consider you a pretty intelligent guy ), but I really have no way of knowing, so - especially since you still have not revealed what you thought about my very original post - I don't know if you can or not. All this discussion is still keeping you from even answering what I said, so, I just don't really know what to say . Except that point is still standing, unless you choose to make it otherwise.

 

If I don't post a response to your response of this post in a couple of days, I'm probably busy writing up my large post for another thread that I'm thinking of making to outline and discuss all my views on this topic, and why I'm against it - and all my many reasons. I'm trying to make it pretty infallible, (since it's gonna be a big post ), and I'm including stuff that I haven't got a chance to put forward in this thread, so if there's a delay, well, that's probably why...

 

And hey, all the rest of you guys that have some ideas.... I'm not ignoring you . It's just kind of taking up most of the time I have to debate with Jediphile, but I'll try and look at what some of you have to say.

[ztemplarz]

Wow. Sometimes I get amazed at what type of madness I spawn with what I believe are innocuous threads or posts.

 

So besides all the semi-enlightening debate about the who/what/where of the True Sith, does anyone actually believe that they are just going to rehash the same old Sith that everyone knows, whether they are a Kotor fanboi or a casual watcher of Star Wars? Because I don't. Why would they try to create this distinction between regular Sith and True Sith if it all boiled down to one simple distinction? That would make no sense. They would just call them, "the ancient Sith" or "the Manassi Sith" or whatever.

 

The fact that they get the capital "True" applied to their name suggests that they don't just adhere/subscribe to the Sith ideology, but rather originated it and pass it on from generation to generation. Or alternately, knew nothing of the "Sith" and just happened to live naturally in a Sith-like manner (which is what I had suggested originally, and is similar to the Manassi idea).

 

So again, the question is, what could distinguish the True Sith from essentially wannabe Sith? Because if they have an identical philosophy and social structure, they're really no different from regular Sith. What could make the True Sith so special that Revan, who was the original, and most powerful, of the philosophical Sith, would be afraid of them, even to the extent that he would be willing to accept former enemies as allies against them?

 

I'm thinking maybe they're like elemental kings (D&D reference, sorry). Kinda like Nihilus. Maybe for every dark side force power, there are sects of True Sith devoted to it's mastery. For example, True Sith that specialize exclusively in destroying minds, True Sith that specialize in draining Force, True Sith that specialize in releasing destructive Force energy (lightning, heat, etc.), True Sith that specifically focus on dark force buffs to make them unstoppable melee machines. Basically the 3 Jedi/Sith classes on steriods.

 

Maybe the Master of the True Sith (or Khan, Fuhrer, whatever they want to call him/her/it) can do all those things. Maybe he's a Nihilus/Kreia/Sion combo. Maybe you need Revan, the Exile, and the as yet un-named new force-user to defeat him/her/it.

 

Just some thoughts.

[SilentScope001]

So besides all the semi-enlightening debate about the who/what/where of the True Sith, does anyone actually believe that they are just going to rehash the same old Sith that everyone knows, whether they are a Kotor fanboi or a casual watcher of Star Wars?

 

Yes.

 

Because I don't. Why would they try to create this distinction between regular Sith and True Sith if it all boiled down to one simple distinction? That would make no sense. They would just call them, "the ancient Sith" or "the Manassi Sith" or whatever.

 

Actually, Kreia did mention of the True Sith remaining on the fringes of the ancient Sith Empire, so it is quite likely they are ancient.

 

So again, the question is, what could distinguish the True Sith from essentially wannabe Sith? Because if they have an identical philosophy and social structure, they're really no different from regular Sith. What could make the True Sith so special that Revan, who was the original, and most powerful, of the philosophical Sith, would be afraid of them, even to the extent that he would be willing to accept former enemies as allies against them?

 

Simple (the following is not simple and is in fact speculation).

 

They controlled the Mandalorians.

 

Now, you have to say: OMG, they controlled a patheic small itty-bitty army of butchers and got them to attack and destroy an empire! So what? But, the True Sith did it, and they did it with style, and without getting caught, except by Revan.

 

If the True Sith can fool the Mandalorians...who else CAN they fool?

 

Remember, according to the Star Wars Databanks, the first of the Great Sith Wars (a catogery that includes the Mandalorian Wars, the Jedi Civil War, and the Great Jedi Purge led by Kreia) was actually led by HK-01. It was a small droid rebellion, in which the droids were campagining for equal rights. Thing is, how in the world does a droid rebellion have anything to do with the Mandalroain Wars, the Jedi Civil Wars, and the resulting carange? Why do we claim that this droid rebellion was the first of the many Great Sith Wars that occured, when the droids has nothing to do with the Sith?

 

Because the True Sith caused all those wars, including the Droid Wars and the Mandalorian Wars.

 

If you realize that the whole universe is being manlipuated like a Palpatine-style chess board by True Sith...you'd go crazy like Revan too.

[wolfard88]

The true sith should be like what a certain young man is in the Legacy books.

 

Driven by what's "best for the universe as a whole" and following the whole Destruction>Purpose>Death>Life system.

 

Willing to kill if it's in what they view as "what's best for the force".

 

Kinda hard to explain. Evil. But at the same time not.

[Ancient Sith]

I still think they should look a lot like the sith from the Sith Empire such as Ludo Kressh

 

 

I agree here. I really like this comic series. "True Sith" are supposed to be more ore less human/humanoid half breeds.

[Darth Tenebrous]

I agree with the most recent above posts.

 

Also, it would be a good idea, I think, if the True Sith had a more exotic hierarchy of rulers instead of the typical "Dark Lord of the Sith-type" hierarchy. Also, the True Sith should be more intelligent than the typical brute-force bloodlusting evil person.

 

I definitely like the type of Sith in the Legacy books also, and think that it would be a great philisophical addition to the already-strong KotOR series.

[corcore]

I just watched A New Hope again today and the line where Vader says "the ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force" (may not be word for word) got me thinking:

 

Darth Nihilus uses the Force to destroy a planet, which scares the TSL Jedi council into hiding, but Vader would still consider this insignificant. So I'm thinking that the True Sith should be capable of Force feats that would make Vader go "WOW!"

[SilentScope001]

I just watched A New Hope again today and the line where Vader says "the ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force" (may not be word for word) got me thinking:

 

Darth Nihilus uses the Force to destroy a planet, which scares the TSL Jedi council into hiding, but Vader would still consider this insignificant.

 

Darth Nihilus didn't destroy planets.

 

He ate them.

 

That should be enough to make Vader say "Wow!" and I doubt that the True Sith would have that sort of power that Nihilus have...there is a limit to how powerful a person can be before people start rolling their eyes.

[corcore]

Darth Nihilus didn't destroy planets.

 

He ate them.

Did he suck the life force out of it, or actually eat everything on it?

 

Personally, I think the latter is much more impressive.

[JediMasterJambi]

Did he suck the life force out of it, or actually eat everything on it?

 

Personally, I think the latter is much more impressive.

 

Eat everything ON it? He ATE the entire planet baby! Moon an all.

 

 

God I wish that were true >.<

 

I do believe he simply sucks the life force from all the living beings on the planet. (I havn't played KOTOR 2 in awhile though, so im not positive.)

[Darca Lar]

Darth Nihilus Drained entire planets of all life, kinda like force drain but at a very high magnitude.

[GarfieldJL]

The true sith should be manipulative and use other people to do their dirty work.

[Sir Vougalot]

I now have an alternate theory, if those saying that the true Sith are a continuation of the Old Sith Empire who left after the Great Hyperspace War are correct. My previous theory was that they were a fusing of Xendor's line of Dark Jedi (the Legions of Lettow) and some traveling Sith species, having nothing to do with the line of Ajunta Pal, Marka Ragnos, Naga Sadow, etc.

 

My new theory is this: If the true Sith do indeed include the line of succession I just mentioned and the exiled Jedi from the Hundred Year Darkness, then there is a problem. Those Dark Jedi (and the Sith throughout the ages) have viewed themselves to be Xendor's successors, and even go so far as to call him the honorary first Dark Lord. But how? How are they in any way connected to Xendor's Legions of Lettow, which were said to be defeated in 24,500 BBY, if they were the successors of an entirely different group of schismatic Jedi who were exiled in 6,900 BBY?

 

I think that there must have been at least some of the Legions of Lettow who survived, hiding and waiting for 17,500 years for the perfect moment to overtake the Jedi; and that opportunity presented itself in 7,000 BBY when this new group of fallen Jedi showed up, Ajunta Pall being among them. The Lettow knew that this would be the perfect opportunity to double their numbers, so they sought out these fallen ones and convinced them to join forces, thus grafting Ajunta Pall and all of his followers onto the line of succession from Xendor. However, they still couldn't defeat the Jedi, and, as I'm sure you all know, they were exiled from Republic space, where they came upon Korriban and Ziost and conquered the Sith people.

 

This group abandoned Korriban and their empire following another defeat at the hands of the Jedi and the Republic in the Great Hyperspace War of 5,000 BBY, where they fled to the Unknown Regions and established a new empire in secret after building the Trayus Academy on Malachor V, again waiting in secret for the perfect time to attack the Republic. This group was severely weakened and their numbers dwindled at the hands of Revan, so they remained just a few until their return to Republic space in 2,000 BBY, when Darth Ruin brought them under his wing when he unified all of the scattered Sith organizations, thus grafting himself onto the line of true Sith Lords beginning with Xendor. This line continued from ruin to Bane, to Palpatine and his apprentices, including Vader, when it was finally cut off at the hands of a redeemed Anakin Skywalker, thus bringing balance to the Force.

 

Now, back up 4,000 years to the time of Revan. As the self-proclaimed Dark Lord who started a new Sith Empire from nothing, having no connection to the Sith Lords who came before, and thus not being "true" Sith. Revan knew that, in order to be a true Dark Lord and for his followers to be true Sith, they would have to conquer the "true" Sith who existed in the Unknown Regions, whom he gained knowledge about somehow. But first things first: they had to conquer the Republic first, and so began the Jedi civil war.

 

Revan had his mind wiped, and from the canonical light side ending, memories of these "true Sith" flooded back, and he went off to battle them in order to keep the Republic safe. In the nonncanonical dark side ending, Revan acted upon his previous plan and went off to conquer them to usurp the manle of true Dark Lord of the Sith.

 

Whew!

[SilentScope001]

Did he suck the life force out of it, or actually eat everything on it?

 

Suck the life force out. But I do consider that a form of eating.

 

It like how you see a nut, and you break the nut to drink the juice, thereby eating the nut. Nihilus broke the the "the nut" (life) to get the juice (the Force). Once the juice is drunk, you discard "the nut", which is useless, which is why Kattar remains, but nothing can live on it now.

[Darca Lar]

Suck the life force out. But I do consider that a form of eating.

 

It like how you see a nut, and you break the nut to drink the juice, thereby eating the nut. Nihilus broke the the "the nut" (life) to get the juice (the Force). Once the juice is drunk, you discard "the nut", which is useless, which is why Kattar remains, but nothing can live on it now.

 

 

A coconut would have been a better example, a simple nut cannot have juice unless you smash it with something hard or are strong enough to squeeze the juices out by hand.