RyuuKage Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 That was specualtion added to Wookiepedia as far as I know. Kriea only compared the "True Sith" to Revan's Sith Order's Empire. Exactly. Revan's "Sith Empire" was never connected to the Sith of the Hyperspace War or Exar Kun. All Revan had were their teachings, and instituted a new Sith order of his own. Neither Revan nor his followers are true Sith, here meaning whatever remnants there are of the original Sith order. They are copy of the real order, if you will. At least that's how i interpret it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCarter426 Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 According to Wookieepedia, Obsidian have stated that Kresh, Sadow, Ragnos, et al were not True Sith. Then again, this is Wookieepedia we're talking about, and there's no source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathdisco Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 According to Wookieepedia, Obsidian have stated that Kresh, Sadow, Ragnos, et al were not True Sith. Then again, this is Wookieepedia we're talking about, and there's no source. Smells like retcon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCarter426 Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Eh...not really a retcon. Obsidian were the ones that made up the True Sith, so they could be whatever Obsidian wants them to be. Well, unless someone else makes K3 (or if it's revealed in the comics, etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Maybe we should ask Avellone... OH, DEVON! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ztalker Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Qliveur wrote: OH, DEVON! You know how angry ED can become when he's called to a thread unvoluntarily, right? I remember some newer members ran away crying after his posts in the 'Tokyio Hotel fanboy/girl' thread.... Anyways, it might be a good idea to ask about his opinion about Sith and what they were trying to do with the Triumvirate and 'True Sith' ideas. There are many theories in this thread, let's see who comes the closest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathdisco Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Eh...not really a retcon. Obsidian were the ones that made up the True Sith, so they could be whatever Obsidian wants them to be. Well, unless someone else makes K3 (or if it's revealed in the comics, etc). Kresh, Sado and Ragnos were 'True' Sith. They were created long before the KOTOR games. So yes that would be a retcon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamqd Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Kresh, Sado and Ragnos were 'True' Sith. They were created long before the KOTOR games. So yes that would be a retcon. They were Sith Lords, and members of the founding group, but I'm afraid the "True Sith" is an obscure creation of Obsidian, a "geographically different group" (sucky!)to the ancient Sith Lords we know and love, and up to now features in KotOR II only. Remember, the "True Sith" have this name because Kreia says so, not because they necessarily are, and nobody else knows or has spoken of them before or since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathdisco Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 They were Sith Lords, and members of the founding group, but I'm afraid the "True Sith" is an obscure creation of Obsidian, a "geographically different group" (sucky!)to the ancient Sith Lords we know and love, and up to now features in KotOR II only. Remember, the "True Sith" have this name because Kreia says so, not because they necessarily are, and nobody else knows or has spoken of them before or since. Are we disagreeing? This is still retcon. As in new Author(s) altering previously established work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCarter426 Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 They're not altering previous work. They're just making up their own stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamqd Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Are we disagreeing? This is still retcon. As in new Author(s) altering previously established work. I agree with what you mean, but i disagree with what you say True Sith is word or title never officially used before TSL, we still don't know what the writers intended the true Sith to be or mean If True Sith does in fact mean the "original" or "proper" Sith, separate and Older than Ragnos' Order, then I hate it, if it is just meant as an ideal or ramblings of an old women then so be it. So really nothing is being retconned yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Source Posted June 3, 2008 Author Share Posted June 3, 2008 ^^ It's a good read, you wanna pick up the "SW: Jedi vs Sith: Essential guide to the Force" It's in the same line of books but more up to date and concentrates on the Force and the various groups who use it throughout the time line I didn't see that one in Borders, so I will have to look around. "SW Essentials: Chronology" covers the history of the Sith, Jedi, and Republic. I didn't realize that outside of Kreia, Nihlus, and Sion, there were other Sith fighting a civil war. When you play through "KotOR II", you never learn about the actual Sith Civil War that is taking place. I will keep my eyes out for that book. Thank man. There's far too little information to possibly make a useful or accurate hypothesis. All that's known is that the True Sith (I doubt that they call themselves that) supposedly are located in the Unknown Regions and existed at least several millennia before the "old" Sith Empire (seen in the Great Hyperspace War). My only issue is that I keep reading about a Korriban origin. "Star Wars Databank", "Knights of the Old Republic: Darth Bane", and other sources keep screaming Korriban. This does not mean that they didn't relocate to avoid being attacked by the republic. I personally theorize that the 'true Sith' started on Korriban, scattered throughout the gallaxy, and then retreated to the Unknown Regions. When it comes to who or what they are, I don't think their existance is a complex issue. They were Sith Lords, and members of the founding group, but I'm afraid the "True Sith" is an obscure creation of Obsidian, a "geographically different group" (sucky!)to the ancient Sith Lords we know and love, and up to now features in KotOR II only. Remember, the "True Sith" have this name because Kreia says so, not because they necessarily are, and nobody else knows or has spoken of them before or since. Plus, what did she actually mean by 'true Sith'? She could have been comparing philosophies between two factions of Sith. One faction follows the teachings and meditations of the founders, and the others have a twisted religion based version of the darkside. You are right on another note: Obsidian could have been trying to create something new, so they thought up an entirely different origin for the Sith. If that was Obsidian's attempt, I would have to say, "What a hell of a mess." We have seen this before in the EU novels. Someone came up with the idea of turning the Sith into a species. If Obsidian is trying to make their mark on Star Wars, I can honestly say that I am not onboard for this 'true Sith' logic. After playing through Korriban in "KotOR I", I considered it to be the starting home of the Sith. Damit! Games should be for fun. Grrr... Lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kas'!m Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 I thought the Sith came from Ziost (surprised no one has mentioned it and that it's not in the game) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Source Posted June 3, 2008 Author Share Posted June 3, 2008 I thought the Sith came from Ziost (surprised no one has mentioned it and that it's not in the game) Sounds like an NJO concept? Hmmm... I was not aware of Ziost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCarter426 Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 The Sith species was from Korriban, but relocated to Ziost circa 28,000 BBY, after driving out the Rakatans. However, we don't know if the Sith species are the True Sith; in fact, everything we do know points to the contrary (Ragnos, Sadow, et al weren't True Sith, and Kreia calls the "true" Sith a belief, not a people). Yes, Korriban was once a True Sith world...but we have no clue when. The Sith Empire of Korriban only began about three thousand years before K1; the Trayus Academy is much older than that. We already know that other species, like the Rakata, conquered Korriban long before its Sith Empire was born; it's possible someone else did as well. Or maybe the True Sith were the ones that stayed behind when the rest fled to Ziost, spread out across the galaxy, forming an empire, and over the millenia the empire fell apart, until the only ones left retreated into the Unkown Regions. Anything is possible at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Vougalot Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 It should be noted that the leaders of the Brotherhood of Darkness were all called "Dark Lords". Well yeah, but that was when that hack Kaan messed it all up by making everyone a Dark Lord and therefore equal. Bane didn't agree with this and therefore remedied it, although he didn't take it back to the one-Dark Lord rule because in the Rule of Two both the master and the apprentice shared the title. "Knights of the Old Republic: Darth Bane"... Once again, it's not a KOTOR book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darca Lar Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 no but its still a good source of info to the topic in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathdisco Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 They're not altering previous work. They're just making up their own stuff. I agree with what you mean, but i disagree with what you say True Sith is word or title never officially used before TSL, we still don't know what the writers intended the true Sith to be or mean If True Sith does in fact mean the "original" or "proper" Sith, separate and Older than Ragnos' Order, then I hate it, if it is just meant as an ideal or ramblings of an old women then so be it. So really nothing is being retconned yet I see Dark Horse's story of the Ancient Sith to be an introduction of Sith history to Star Wars fans. It's not unreasonable to think those writers thought of them as 'True' Sith. Introducing an unknown seperate faction seems a convenient way to fit someone else's story Arc. I would still consider this retcon(if that's how it plays out. Retcon being now you nullified Dark Horse's story since they were never 'True' Sith to begin with). IMHO of course, YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Source Posted June 3, 2008 Author Share Posted June 3, 2008 Well yeah, but that was when that hack Kaan messed it all up by making everyone a Dark Lord and therefore equal. Bane didn't agree with this and therefore remedied it, although he didn't take it back to the one-Dark Lord rule because in the Rule of Two both the master and the apprentice shared the title. Once again, it's not a KOTOR book. Well, it was written by Drew Karpyshyn. Drew was a writter and designer for "Knights of the Old Republic". On the novel's cover, the "Darth Bane" title is within the "KotOR" style banner. If you go to the tittle page, the book says, "A Novel of the Old Republic". I think we can clearly call this a "KotOR" style novel. As a reference to what we are talking about, I think due to the fact that it was written by the writter of "KotOR" the game it qualifies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathdisco Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 To clarify: The story is not Drew Karpyshyn's. It all ready existed in Jedi vs. Sith. He just expanded upon it for the novel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamqd Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Just to clarify, TOTJ, GAOTS, FOTSE etc are my favorite comics ever, they are the True Sith to me, it's just they were never called that, and Avellone probably wasn't referring to them in TSL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Source Posted June 3, 2008 Author Share Posted June 3, 2008 Well yeah, but that was when that hack Kaan messed it all up by making everyone a Dark Lord and therefore equal. Bane didn't agree with this and therefore remedied it, although he didn't take it back to the one-Dark Lord rule because in the Rule of Two both the master and the apprentice shared the title. Once again, it's not a KOTOR book. To clarify: The story is not Drew Karpyshyn's. It all ready existed in Jedi vs. Sith. He just expanded upon it for the novel. Darth Bane @ Wookiepedia I guess there is some inconsistant issues with "Jedi vrs. Sith" and "Darth Bane: Path of Destruction". According to the article I found, George Lucas created Bane to begin with. Everyone else tried to piece his story together, but the latest incarnation is in conflict with previous versions. Wookiepedia also places the story in "Old Republic Era". You cannot argue with all the sources pointing to the "Old Republic Era". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Vougalot Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Well, "Old Republic era" spans from 25,000 BBY to 1,000 BBY, so it has less to do with being associated with the Knights of the Old Republic series than you may think. Also, one big thing I noticed about the Darth Bane books is that there is no mention whatsoever that Farfalla has a horse's bottom half and pointy ears. Very interesting. I guess Karpyshen thought that bit was stupid and decided to leave that part out, not mentioning his appearance. But I prefer the novels to the comics on every point except for Githany's death. I think it was done much better in Jedi vs. Sith where she comes out all zombie-looking and speaks to Bane one last time before falling apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Source Posted June 3, 2008 Author Share Posted June 3, 2008 Well, "Old Republic era" spans from 25,000 BBY to 1,000 BBY, so it has less to do with being associated with the Knights of the Old Republic series than you may think. Also, one big thing I noticed about the Darth Bane books is that there is no mention whatsoever that Farfalla has a horse's bottom half and pointy ears. Very interesting. I guess Karpyshen thought that bit was stupid and decided to leave that part out, not mentioning his appearance. But I prefer the novels to the comics on every point except for Githany's death. I think it was done much better in Jedi vs. Sith where she comes out all zombie-looking and speaks to Bane one last time before falling apart. Oh! I get it! D'uh! It is how we view art, social, and technological history. Lol... First we had 'contemporary', and then we moved thrugh a few eras until we hit 'post-modernization'. Lol... At this moment in the United States technological and art history, we are in the post-modernization era of advancement. Lol... D'uh! Lol... Sorry peoples. I had a brain fart. Lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TKA-001 Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Also, one big thing I noticed about the Darth Bane books is that there is no mention whatsoever that Farfalla has a horse's bottom half and pointy ears. Very interesting. Seems like a no-brainer move on their part. They obviously realized that it was as stupid as hell, just like this crap here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.