will SK die in TFU2? (possible spoilers)

[Lord Foley]

Oh yeah, the Lost Tribe of the Sith does technically violate the Rule of Two (which is ironic because they've been so diligent about preserving it since The Phantom Menace came out and have retconned all previously contradictory instances to fit with it, and now they go ahead and violate it with the most unlikely scenario). But I guess if you look at it from the perspective that this tribe was an offshoot of the Sith and had departed so far from traditional Sith doctrines that they would not be taken seriously by the "true" Sith (Bane's order), I guess it's not very serious.

 

If that makes any sense.

 

All the talk of "True" Sith is retarded in my humble opinion. There's the lost tribe of the Sith, and Vergere supposedly studied under Palpatine (during the time of Maul) but then betrayed him and had to flee? Then Lumiya, a nonsense cyborg, also magically becomes a powerful "Dark Lady of the Sith." When Vader destroyed the Sith and brought balance to the Force I don't think Lucas intended Palpatine to come back, followed by generations more of Sith. Doesn't look much like the Sith are destroyed to me. Doesn't look much like balance.

[LordOfTheFish]

I kind of hope he dies.

 

Same here, I never liked him in the first place. I agree that he is far to powerfull/dangerous to be left alive.

[Sir Vougalot]

All the talk of "True" Sith is retarded in my humble opinion. There's the lost tribe of the Sith, and Vergere supposedly studied under Palpatine (during the time of Maul) but then betrayed him and had to flee? Then Lumiya, a nonsense cyborg, also magically becomes a powerful "Dark Lady of the Sith." When Vader destroyed the Sith and brought balance to the Force I don't think Lucas intended Palpatine to come back, followed by generations more of Sith. Doesn't look much like the Sith are destroyed to me. Doesn't look much like balance.

 

You can think it retarded all you want, but it's true. And I'd hate to sound annoyed, but Vergere and Lumiya were not Sith, only self-proclaimed Sith. They were never ordained into the order as we see Palpatine ordaining Anakin in Revenge of the Sith, they were only given instruction in the ways of the dark side by the Sith. These do not break the Rule of Two, and this has been discussed to death for ages. Frankly, it's getting a little annoying now. I really wish people would do their homework.

 

You view of balance isn't quite right either. It's not the existence of the Sith per se that caused the imbalance, it was what they had been doing behind the scenes for a thousand years while the Jedi grew complacent thinking they were extinct. Anakin destroyed this line of Sith that was keeping the Force unbalanced. Once balance was attained, it did not make any difference if the Sith returned or not after that, whether it be Palpatine's reincarnated spirit in a clone body (which you can't blame the author for as it was written long before the prequels debuted; and George Lucas reportedly liked it very much at the time) or Darth Krayt's One Sith. The Force was now in balance. The action had been carried out.

 

Simply not liking something doesn't invalidate it. Quite frankly, I'm thankful that Lucas Film cares enough to take such measures to preserve the continuity of the Expanded Universe somewhat coherently rather than letting it remain a mess without much order. The Star Trek EU is a good example of the latter.

[Lord Foley]

You can think it retarded all you want, but it's true. And I'd hate to sound annoyed, but Vergere and Lumiya were not Sith, only self-proclaimed Sith. They were never ordained into the order as we see Palpatine ordaining Anakin in Revenge of the Sith, they were only given instruction in the ways of the dark side by the Sith. These do not break the Rule of Two, and this has been discussed to death for ages. Frankly, it's getting a little annoying now. I really wish people would do their homework.

 

I'm sorry, but this argument doesn't even really address what I'm saying. You're saying these things are fine because of the in-universe explanation for them, and I'm saying they never should have been written because the in-universe explanations are contrived and retconny. The invent things like "true Sith" so that they can have as many "fake Sith" running around as they feel like inventing without breaking continuity. That's as distilled as contrived gets. Think about it- "There can only be two As, but we want more, so we make B, which is identical to A except in what it's called. Problem solved."

 

You view of balance isn't quite right either. It's not the existence of the Sith per se that caused the imbalance, it was what they had been doing behind the scenes for a thousand years while the Jedi grew complacent thinking they were extinct. Anakin destroyed this line of Sith that was keeping the Force unbalanced. Once balance was attained, it did not make any difference if the Sith returned or not after that, whether it be Palpatine's reincarnated spirit in a clone body (which you can't blame the author for as it was written long before the prequels debuted; and George Lucas reportedly liked it very much at the time) or Darth Krayt's One Sith. The Force was now in balance. The action had been carried out.

 

I don't presume to know what exactly balance means, however, the act of restoring balance to the Force by destroying the Sith is irreparably cheapened by stuff like a new Sith order, which has been in hiding, waiting to strike, that then lays waste to the galaxy and takes it over. Sounds familiar. After the movies, it's right back to same-old, same-old, as if Vader never did anything. Two Sith die, a million more take their place, like always.

 

Also, Lucas has stated in no uncertain terms that in his vision the emperor never comes back to life. And while he's said that the expanded universe is not his world and he doesn't exercise total control over it, there is way too much room in something like the Star Wars universe to be so uncreative as to keep having more Sith versus Jedi.

 

Simply not liking something doesn't invalidate it.

I don't like that they killed Chewbacca how they did. I don't like that they killed Anakin Solo so young. I would have done things completely differently. But New Jedi Order is still my favorite EU series, because it something novel, because it introduced some real philosophical problems for a universe with "the Force," because it had unorthodox characters who acted unexpectedly. It was the first time they ever really explored what was possible outside of Imperials/Sith versus Republic/Jedi.

 

I'm not criticizing ideas just because "I don't like them." I'm criticizing them because every time a "new" story or game is released, it's the same thing as before.

[adamqd]

But I guess if you look at it from the perspective that this tribe was an offshoot of the Sith and had departed so far from traditional Sith doctrines that they would not be taken seriously by the "true" Sith (Bane's order), I guess it's not very serious.

 

 

They are direct descendants of Naga Sadows Sith, a Sith Order unbroken since the Dark Jedi Interbred with the Sith species (6900BBY-5000BBY as part of the Sith Empire, and 5000BBY-40+ABY on Kesh)... and to my Knowledge Darth bane (Circa 1000BBY) invented the Rule of Two. How are a previous order of Sith, who have no knowledge of Bane, Hundred Years Darkness, Sith Defeats at the hands of the Jedi etc, who do not follow this doctrine, break the Rule? I'm not arguing, I just don't see how they are subservient to Bane Maybe I have missed some literature hehe.

 

BTW I'm Talking in universe, obviously in GL's eyes the Sith Started in 1000BBY when the Republic did (lol@continuitybetweenfilmsGL)

[Sir Vougalot]

I'm speaking in terms of Bane being the lone survivor when the Sith were completely wiped out, and his new order being a continuation of what was otherwise wiped out. I think the idea was that the Sith had been complete destroyed except for this one guy, who carried on with it in secret by means of the Rule of Two, and having other Sith sort of cheapens that.

 

That leads to into what I wanted to say to Lord Foley. Foley, I agree with you on the cheapening factor, I really do. There are so many directions that Star Wars has taken recently that I saw coming a mile away, and wished it hadn't. However, having all of these little technicalities within its rich fictional history adds an element of realism for me that makes me appreciate it despite its cheapness. In real-life history, we're constantly discovering all of these little avenues that shed a different light on things we thought we knew. It happens with both ancient history as well as what was very recent (research Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt and FDR, for example, and be blown away by just how inaccurate your previous perceptions of them were).

 

I'm sorry, but this argument doesn't even really address what I'm saying. You're saying these things are fine because of the in-universe explanation for them, and I'm saying they never should have been written because the in-universe explanations are contrived and retconny.

 

True, but you can't really say this of all of these instances. Some of these things, like Lumiya and Palpatine's resurrection, were written long before the prequels. How could these authors have known about things like the Rule of Two and the prophecy of the Chosen One before they even existed? Personally, I think it's admirable that Lucas Film has gone out of its way to come up with ways to work around it and keep these things canonical out of respect for both the writers and the stories themselves as classics. How often do you see that happen elsewhere? Not often.

 

As for what came after the movies, like Darth Caedus, Darth Krayt's One Sith, and various Sith splinter organizations: I agree with you wholeheartedly that they are cheap, stale, repetitive and predictable. (In fact, I once came up with an idea to bring the Sith back after the movies as well, and I knew that such an idea had all of these truths attached to it. But I had it set not so soon after the movie era and did my best to make it completely unlike anything we'd ever seen previously. But the Legacy was announced, and it was such a movie-era wannabe that it was painful: a new Empire, the Dark Lord of the Sith is the Emperor of the galaxy, et cetera.) However, these things add realism to the universe. I get the whole Sith-are-gone poetic justice thing, but what's to stop some other group from rising up and declaring themselves Sith? What's to stop two Sith Lords under the Rule of Two from bending it beyond recognition by jumping through any loophole they possibly can? Things like this happen in real life all the time (well, not with Sith, but you know what I mean), and so it adds another level of veneration for the franchise for me. There are conflicting stories, inconsistencies, multiple accounts, and all that stuff. It sort of makes me feel like I'm reading a combination of Greek mythology, history and politics. It adds a whole new level of appeal despite being largely cheap in many ways.

[Raz Agul]

Yeah, the name "Starkiller" is kinda dumb and kiddish if you ask me! I think we should refer to him as Galen or the Apprentice. It would just be stupid if he died at the end of this game too, because they will probably make a third, and if he comes back to life AGAIN in the third, it would just be another reason not to play it. I sure hope this one has a logical explination of how he is suddenly alive again. I hope it isn't some sort of dumb reserection. I still look forward to this game though!

 

I read somewhere that starkiller was originally going to be lukes last name!

[Kurgan]

That's right. In Lucas' early scripts for Star Wars back in the 70's, it was Luke Starkiller. In the earliest scripts where the name appears, "the Starkiller" was a wise old man who had a bunch of sons that he trained as Jedi warriors.

 

The game just took and recycled the name into a new character.

[HockeyGoalie35]

yea, i heard about that too^

that wouldn't make sense if it cae to be because starkiller is sort of a dark, Sithy name

[Kurgan]

Why, because they used it as a "bad guy protagonist"'s name in this game?

 

Or because it's been 33+ years since it was invented and you have certain preconceptions about names in the universe?

 

Because it has "killer" in the name?

 

What kind of a name is "Biggs DARKlighter"?

 

If he were a Sith, as we all know, he'd have "DARTH' in his name (according to the new rules Lucas made up in the mid 1990's).

 

Think about it though...

 

Darth Skywalker

Darth Calrissian

Darth Organa

Darth Solo

 

Doesn't make a real difference, does it?

 

Anyhow, it isn't a big deal. The names switch all over the place. I mean, the "Dianongahs" were at one time a name for a group of people (even good guys too if memory serves), not garbage eating tentacle monsters. Even General Vader was just an ordinary official (like General Veers) before he was turned into a Sith Lord. Prince Valorum was a Sith Lord, and then, 20 odd years later was turned into an ordinary politician (though the original character sketch of Valorum eventually became Palpatine the Emperor).

[Zwier Zak]

Same here, I never liked him in the first place. I agree that he is far to powerfull/dangerous to be left alive.

 

Look at us sith talking.