Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Yea Hello

I hear alot in Episodes I II & III about a Prophacy about the one who is born by the force and all that Jazz basically the Jedi Equivilant of the Sith'ari

But here is the question. WHO MADE THE PROPHACY WHO STARTED IT WHO WROTE IT WHAT JEDI MAST FOR GOD SAKE!

if you got a link please type it in for me

I've been informed by an unreliable source that it was Yoda.

How come people never state there sources?

"Well... my sources tell me this.." who are you protecting?

And by the way I've registered at EoD so maybe you can get off Polaski's figurative balls, eh?

So you know the EU equivalent to the Chosen One, but not the Chosen One from the prequels? Nevermind, they are sh*t.

EoD? the Jedi Outcast Clan? IM IN IT!

Originally posted by nmensfinest
I've been informed by an unreliable source that it was Yoda. definately nt yoda i remember reading somewhere it was by smebody around the time Nar Shada was around i think, if not later. might have actually been some jedi guy that was a alien species that was like a tree, but i can't remember

Is the 'prophacy' anything like the Prophecy?

So in other words The Prophecy is CRAP! we dont know its ORIGINS or who wrote it Was it Jedi? we dont know so GL made this Bull Shit Crap about a Jedi that is born of the force and makes BALANCE.....can anyone smell ignorence in the AIR

Ignorence, indeed.

The details of the prophecy are a bit vague, but I don't particularly believe in it when you try to figure EU into the mix. For the movies alone, yes, balance seems to be maintained. But in EU, balance is an impossibility. I personally think that's a more realistic approach anyhow.

I like this explanation:

Anakin was supposed to bring balance, he did. The balance was so strong, even the Sith returning didn't affect it again..

In essence they did by existing. True, the darkness hasn't seemingly overshadowed the light for any extended amount of time since RotJ, but then again it never really did before that until the Jedi Civil War. If perhaps the prophecy is meant to be vague or all-encompassing, it could be that a Chosen One is selected each time the dark side seems to dominate, and then restores balance for a millenia or so. You could draw parallels between Revan and Anakin in a sense.

One explanation I do admit I dislike: The idea that 'noone said it had to stay balanced' which kinda ruins the idea....Anakin was supposed to be a unique one of a kind, after all.

One could make the argument after the whole Palpatine thing, there hasn't been a 'real' Sith since

lol

But the QUESTION IS what is the Prophecy's Origins WHO WROTE IT WHERE DID IT COME FROM...

Why do you use capslock? Aren't you familiar with netiquette?

And in any case, the answer is not around for us to share so we can only speculate. To that I submit that the answer is not important; it is what it is, and it has a purpose. Who cares if it came from a fortune cookie or a Jedi master?

What Janus is apparently saying is, this crap is comparable to the Matrix, where there isn't one "chosen one", but a few everytime something bad happens. I think this is rather unoriginal and the Anakin idea was great, if the EU didn't ruin it. But as LS said, one could make the case that the real sith died during the battle of Endor and the rest are pretenders, as stated by the holocrons in Legacy.

Really, I think the whole idea about the Chosen One prophecy detracts from the overall good things that come from the films. In any series where a similar type hero is used (Such as the horrible Matrix, or Harry Potter, for example), the storyline becomes more and more about the hero's destiny and less and less about other issues the series raises. In the case of the Matrix, the ideals of freedom, control, and survival became absolutely moot by the last movie (Which I still regret watching). Likewise, Harry Potter's all about... Well, Harry Potter. That's probably the intent, and it's not badly executed. But there's no real depth to the great and imaginative characters, background story, and depth when you make all this great stuff and then make it all about one person's destiny. Just undermines the effort, IMO.

And the Sith after Sidious were pretty much pretenders, but the same could be said for those after the Hyperspace War, or the Jedi Civil war, etc. The Sith as a collective have been reshaped many many times.

I wouldn't say the Sith post Hyperspace war were Pretenders-given they officially recognized Nadd and Kun- and even further than that....Palpatine was certainly considered an honored member of the line of SIth Lords, as was Bane

It's a matter of point of view; each Sith "line" was fundamentally different in either structure, approach, or such. Exar Kun was nothing like the ancient Sith who came before him, though Nadd was more like them than the others. Revan and Malak's Sith were entirely different, more like a combination between the Galactic Empire and the Brotherhood. And the former and latter were different in approach and structure too. Then there's Sion's assassins, Nihilus and his solitary request. Traya's approach that the Force must be destroyed.

Well, Exar was pretty like the Sith before him, in regards to intrigue, over all goals and more effective in approach and was recognized by the spirits of the Ancients....Bane and Palpatine at least as well....as far as official canon goes, the line is pretty much continuous down to Palpatine, I believe.

Except Revan and Malak were not part of that line LS

The Sith line was broken up many many times.

Initially, there were Xendor's minions who fled, one of which we know as Ajunta Pall. These arrived on Korriban and other worlds, and subjugated the Sith race, interbreeding because the natives had impressive Force potential.

The empire these rogues made culminated in the ancient Sith Empire, and was more or less destroyed thanks to Sadow's machinations. After this, the Sith were scattered and hunted by the Jedi. I believe I recall a timeframe of up to a decade and a half where they were still fighting. In any case, the ancient line was broken. No true blooded Sith remained, and the half bloods were likely dead as well.

Freedan Nadd, a rogue Jedi, finds evidence of the Sith Empire and becomes Sadow's apprentice. He kills his master and molds his own kingdom on Onderon. He rules as an open god-king, and his dynasty continues to perpetuate the dark side but never expands. Nadd hates the Jedi, but really the Jedi never come into contact with him or his kin until Arca Jeth arrived with Ulic and others. Nadd's descendants successfully corrupt Ulic, but the next real Sith Lord is actually Exar Kun, who takes the remnants of Sadow's works and attempts to rule the galaxy.

You can see clearly how the methods of the ancient Sith contrast the Nadd dynasty, and then Kun. After Kun, we have Revan and Malak, who are more military men. Revan's been said to be more of a good guy masquerading as a Sith Lord, and his intent is thought to be the unification of the Republic under the Sith to protect against an outside force. In this, he's less trying to be a god-king absorbing power for its own sake than he is trying to be a military figure using unsavory tactics. Malak differs from his master in that he's an idiot. Sorry, not glossing that one for you, folks.

After Revan, we have the Sith Triumvirate with Sion, Nihilus, and Traya. They each have separate goals; Sion hates the Jedi but cares nothing for ruling the galaxy. Nihilus is consumed by hunger, and Traya wants the death of the Force. They are hardly heirs to the ancient Sith or Xendor.

After this, all seems rather quiet until the Brotherhood is formed. They're more akin to a religious warrior community than an empire of sorts, and they wage open war against the Jedi until Bane comes into the fold. Bane then remakes the Sith Order into a shadow organization, and it's assumed to disappear until Sidious comes out of the dark closet (no pun intended) and rules openly as a master manipulator.

So really, you can say it's "one line", but that's not an accurate representation of the shifting ideals and structures of the Sith legacy. If anything, the Sith have shown to be much more versatile and adapting than the Jedi.

To elaborate:

For starters, you're incorrect on Ajunta Pall. Xendor is not related to the Ancient Sith at all. As far as we know, Xendor was an Ancient Jedi, 25,000 years before the movies (Ajunta Pall lived 7,000 years before the movies, way, way later) and led a rebellion with his lover Arden Lyn. Xendor died and Arden was frozen in Sleep for the next 25,000 years. 18,000 years, the Second Great Schism would lead to Ajunta Pall and the events that ended in the Sith Empire being founded.

While the line was indeed broken several times, the official canon has most if not all of the Dark Lords as 'True' Sith, from Marka, then Naga, then Freedon Nadd, then Exar, then Revan, Malak and so on to Darth Ruin and then to Bane and finally to Palpatine.

Also, the Brotherhood wasn't exactly a religious community. tp be pretty accurate on the matter, Ruin started the massive war, but was betrayed and killed by his followers, many of whom would carve out their own territory...Dark Lords occasionally rose to lead them, but for the most part, until Kaan, the New Sith Empire was pretty fragmented.

While the methods and styles may differ, the Sith line itself was passed on, officially, until Sidious.

You are right about Ajunta Pall. I believe I mistakenly slipped him in there because I had just been reading his bio because I was wondering if they updated it at all. I'm not typically that off when it comes to in-universe history. And I neglected to put in Ruin, as he did start the New Sith Empire and thus caused another Schism.

Still, I submit that the Sith line isn't a line in the truest sense; contact between dark lords was sometimes limited or even less so. Simply reading the works of a previous ruler doesn't make you an heir to his legacy. Even limited tuteledge doesn't make one part of another's line. It may be a more reasonable assumption if Sith lords were consistant in their methods, teachings, and structure. But they clearly aren't. In fact, the only things that link Sith together are they they are fundamentally opposed to the Jedi, love power, and are ultimately self-destructing. You could attribute these same general virtues to Mandalorians, really. That doesn't make the latter part of any Sith line. Granted, if you came up with a few more unifying factors Mandalorians don't fit the bill, but you get the point.

Later Sith take the title and history and make a campaign out of it, similar to modern day despots who bring up such things to support or justify their own agendas. There's absolutely nothing tying Kun and Nadd to the ancient Sith save for the need to conquer and acquire power. Neither of those rogue Jedi shed a tear for fallen Korriban, nor did they ever seek to rebuild the Sith Empire except in their own image. Same with Revan and Malak and the others. The word "Sith" went from a people and their way of life to person opposed to the Jedi way of using the Force, in all its individualistic forms.

Thus, Sith are only loosely affiliated with each other and shouldn't be confused as an actual line so much as a long laundry list of polar opposites of Jedi, merely taking the same name.

To be fair, the other thing that links all of the sith together is the ancient sith. After the Golden Age up until Legacy, at some point during their lifetime, the sith get tutelage, knowledge, or even help from the ancient sith spirits. Everything started with them and they were part of virtually every facet of the dark side up through legacy.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
You are right about Ajunta Pall. I believe I mistakenly slipped him in there because I had just been reading his bio because I was wondering if they updated it at all. I'm not typically that off when it comes to in-universe history. And I neglected to put in Ruin, as he did start the New Sith Empire and thus caused another Schism.
Ruin, I think, has a lot of potential as an interesting character as a whole. Interestingly enough, apparently: Dooku is confirmed as more powerful than Ruin, too.

However, being confirmed to be the heir by the actual spirits of your forebears would probably be enough to put you in.

I think there's a bit more than that: Many Sith have taken the Ancients' teachings and devised new twists on it. A problem, however is, that aside from Palpatine himself, we have very little idea how the Sith actually train their apprentices. Most of the Sith we actually see are at the pinnacle of their evil career....certainly, Ulic received no training from Exar and it's doubtful Malak received much from Revan.


Pretty much, yeah.

Well, Nadd's master was an Ancient Sith. Exar was described as having mastered Nadd's teachings and was confirmed as the Dark Lord by the one described as the greatest of the Ancients.

In fairness, this isn't really different than from what most Sith Lords tried to do.

Well, rather than a usurpation of the title, it could be simply that the Sith and the Dark Side with them, evolved into new faces. Like how the Byzantine Empire evolved from the Roman empire, the New Sith Empire is less just a name and more of the new form of the Sith.

Granted. Though a line is there in that the progression of Dark Lords can be catalogued

Ruin's supposed to be pretty impressive, considering he gathered his own movement. It'd be really nice if someone with talent sat down and fleshed out the pre-movie timelines more. I thought PoD was a nice start. Doesn't surprise me that it came from someone involved in the KotOR project, though.



Yes, it has to count for something. But the last confirmed heir we have was perhaps Kun, unless I'm missing someone here. The right of ascension has a lot less to do with the ancients' blessing than it does from simply taking what you can when your master's not looking.



Sidious' teachings were likely very different from some of the others, considering he said that the Sith's greatest ally was stealth. Sith like Bandon, Malak, Kun, etc. are all very aggressive and open Sith, eager to do what they need to do. Really, no Sith before Bane had the ability to mold an apprentice from youth, so it's doubtful how much "training" really occurs. The Rule of Two gives the Sith a lot of room to concentrate on one apprentice as opposed to a whole muck of an empire.



Who also notes that he's using Exar and Ulic as his revenge against the Jedi for despoiling his empire. Ragnos' concern appears to have been the strong empire he spent his life maintaining, whereas Exar Kun simply wants to curbstomp everyone who doesn't join his club. It's worth noting that while Sith Empire traits may trickle into latter Sith Empires, none are copies of the original in intent or deed. It's sort of like Julius Caesar naming Octavius his heir and then Octavius inherits a couple of Julius' textbooks on military strategy as opposed to inheriting his empire. Then Octavius goes out and makes his own little fiefdom in the Urals.

Maybe that's just my take on it.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Ruin's supposed to be pretty impressive, considering he gathered his own movement. It'd be really nice if someone with talent sat down and fleshed out the pre-movie timelines more. I thought PoD was a nice start. Doesn't surprise me that it came from someone involved in the KotOR project, though.
Abel G. Pena did a damn fine job of defining a lot from 2000 ABY on, actually. He's one of my favorite article writers in SW.


Palpatine should be a fair contender as well, given that he was known to and respected by the Ancients....Bane as well, given his apparent camaraderie in spirit-hood with Andeddu.
But being heir to the Sith should indeed be: Kill the last guy.
Or, failing that, "win by treachery."


In fairness, Palpatine seemed to have been improving on the whole ideals there, given how the idea of brute strength had met with failure after failure...and it's likely Sith in the Ancient Empire were molded from youth on. And if Naga Sadow was any indication, there was apparently some one on one teaching going on-him being Simus's master.



Exar's dream was also the rebirth of a Golden Age of the Sith.
While none but Ruin created an Empire after the Ancients'-and Ruin's was much, much larger than the Ancient Sith Empire- til 2000 ABY, most often, they didn't have 2000 years to flourish like Ragnos's people. Often, the resurfacing consisted of sudden reappearance followed by war and that was it.
And I'd liken it more to Diocletian reforming the Empire to improve it and fix the problems it'd been having. Same flavor, different packaging.

And Palpatine's empire spanned pretty much the entire galaxy, consisting of the territories of the Ancient Sith Empire, to all of Ruin's and then some.

You forget that Revan created a new sith empire as well.