A Sith Poll

Started by Nephthys7 pages

Thats why I chose him actually. I guess it depends on what you think the ideal Sith is. I chose Sidious because he is the ultimate selfish dickhole who cares only for power for its own sake.

Bane in comparison created an order founded on the principle that he'd train someone to kill him.

Yea, is it about being in it for yourself, or some sith philosophy? Is it about being the most focused on advancing the goals of the Sith even beyond one's self? And so on.

Originally posted by Q99
My view is, there really isn't one 'Sith Ideal,' so it's a pretty tricky question.

I'd say most Sith Masters view themselves as the Sith Ideal.

I'd say whichever Sith best adheres to the Sith Code. So obviously Bandon.

The Sith Code is too nebulous and hard to judge for that imo.

Originally posted by Nephthys
The Sith Code is too nebulous and hard to judge for that imo.

Yea, it's rather vague. Both Bane and Krayt believed strongly in the code, and they aren't fans of each other.

Now, one could go into who follows the beliefs of the Rule of Two or Rule of One best.

Who in the RoT never sought immortality, got more than one apprentice, or so on?

Nothing wrong with seeking immortality in RoT. If your apprentice can't destroy the Sith Master because the Master discovered the secrets of immortality than the apprentice is not worthy of replacing the master.

Regardless, I'd argue blindly following either Rule isn't the Sith way. Does not the Code speak about breaking "chains" and what are rules if not chains?

Anyway, I think Sidious is the clear winner in this poll. He is the only Sith to attain victory by conquering the galaxy and destroying the Jedi Order. Bane is also a worthy candidate as he revolutionized the Sith Order and set them on the road to victory.

On a different not, I never viewed Kaan as a bad Sith, in fact I find him to be one of the greatest. Yes, his "views" of equality is perhaps heretical for the Sith but it's rather clear that he was the real ruler of the Brotherhood of Darkness. He simply was manipulating the other Lords and making them think they were his equals while simultaneously preventing any Sith from becoming as powerful as him. It was deftly done and actually quite "Sithy".

Originally posted by ares834
Regardless, I'd argue blindly following either Rule isn't the Sith way. Does not the Code speak about breaking "chains" and what are rules if not chains?
I think an inherently selfish and fearful being with adequate wisdom, who coveted power, would be willing to accept certain limitations if it ensured their survival and prosperity. Accept stealth and small numbers, and gain knowledge and power. Worthwhile trade off.

I'd agree. Which is why I said "blindly". If said Sith Lord felt the RoT was the most efficient system then I'd certainly say that is the Sith way. But if they were following it because of tradition or because some old Sith said it was a rule then I'd claim they aren't a "good" Sith.

Which was Maul's problem. He was just looking for a daddy figure.

Poor Maul. All it takes is a mean Jedi to cut Maul in half and "daddy" throws him aside for an old man with greasy hair.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I pick Sidious.

I mean, power-wise he may not even stand up against Kun or maybe even Malak.


profiled
(in the spirit of fair play, there exists a thread where one of my posts can be construed as anti-N. Find it if you can.)

I miss being younger.

The way most sith that pursue immortality has struck me as fairly un-sithy- most of the time it doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the apprentice per se, but more the master getting cold feat or the like.

Pre-death Krayt got distracted from his greater goals by it (which Wyyrlok called him on). Sidious resurrected left himself vulnerable in pursuit of a stronger host. Bane sought it even knowing Zannah was very strong. Andeddu was so focused on it he retreated into hiding only to miss millennia and then be killed by Wyyrlok.

Regardless, I'd argue blindly following either Rule isn't the Sith way. Does not the Code speak about breaking "chains" and what are rules if not chains?

Yes, but both the Sith rules involve advancement through power within their tenants, just that doing so must serve the goals of the sith. With strength, more and more chains are broken until one sits at the top.

I'd have to say Sidious or Bane.

Sidious followed the tenets of the Sith to the point of being able to almost crush the Jedi order out of existence, and beforehand managed to use them in his own schemes. His real weakness as pointed out by other, even Caedus' whiny butt, was his quest for power for the sake of power. He also sought immortality not to further the Sith, but simply because he wanted to live forever.

As to Bane, while he too sought the ability to live on, he actively instilled in Zannah the importance of facing him in combat to the death, making it clear to her that if she couldn't destroy him he would crush her and take another which he was preparing to do. He saw the Sith as a whole as more important than himself and accepted that his death would eventually be a necessary part of the continuance of the order.

He saw how weak the Sith had become from their endless in-fighting so he manipulated those he considered unworthy into destroying themselves and a large number of powerful Jedi.

Both Sidious and Bane displayed everything from great brute force to a mastery of cunning and patience in the end goal.

but Sidious ignored one of the most basic of Sith rules. He killed his master while his master was asleep. he didnt prove he was superior and thus deserving of the mantle of "Lord of the Sith"

Bane completely accepted these rules and did not seek to prolong his life forever but just long enough to find a worthy successor since he believed Zannah wasn't up to the challenge.

Bane 100%

Sith that could be killed in a sleep didn't deserve the mantle of "Lord of the Sith".

point taken. but Plagues also killed his master in a underhanded tactic. both were undeserving imo

How did Plagueis kill his master?

My vote goes to person who works to destroy the Jedi, to gain power over the entire Galaxy and further the cause of the Sith, but also who values himself before the order and ultimately works to gain power and for himself to rule.

Who better than Sidious really?

Originally posted by ares834
On a different not, I never viewed Kaan as a bad Sith, in fact I find him to be one of the greatest. Yes, his "views" of equality is perhaps heretical for the Sith but it's rather clear that he was the real ruler of the Brotherhood of Darkness. He simply was manipulating the other Lords and making them think they were his equals while simultaneously preventing any Sith from becoming as powerful as him. It was deftly done and actually quite "Sithy".

This is very good point.