Originally posted by allfg
No, both were actually Dark Lords.
No, that's retarded. One was the Dark Lord of the Sith and the other was a Sith Lord and his apprentice.
Here, I'll expand your mind.
Source for the knowledge that there is only one Dark Lord and then a Sith Lord to serve and learn under him.
Excerpts from Darth Bane: Path of Destruction
Page 240 .
"If all are equal, then none is strong..." Translation: There cannot be more than one Dark Lord at a time, there must be one to hold the title of true Sith Master, and the other(A regular Sith Lord)to crave it.
"If the leader grows weak, another must rise to seize the mantle." I.E. The mantle of Dark Lord .
"...In the end however, there could only be one true Sith Master(Dark Lord). And to serve this Master, there could only be one true apprentice. "(Of conventional Sith Lord status).
And now, the final and most compelling source for reason there is only ONE Dark Lord.
From the pages of Darth Bane: Path of Destruction .
Page 236
"There is also the reason there can be only one Dark Lord .
The Sith must be ruled by a single leader: the very embodiment of the strength and power of the Dark side.
If the leader grows weak, another must rise to seize the mantle . The strong rule; the weak are meant to serve. This is the way it must be ."
Revelation?
That was the Rule of Two.
If POD was good for anything, It was to help cement that concept, so there could be no misunderstanding or denying the fact that has been presented before you.
Who mentioned Bane? Looks like someone is jumping to conclusions. Sidious pretty much destroyed most of the sith tradition and built it around himself. Yes, the rule of two was still intact, and yes, there was one master and one apprentice, however by Sidious' rule, both were known as Dark Lords. Why? Maybe Sidious was stroking Maul's ego, who cares? I would provide a source and quite, but I can't be arsed, and it doesn't mean that much to me, just go and ask anyone.
Originally posted by allfg
Who mentioned Bane? Looks like someone is jumping to conclusions. Sidious pretty much destroyed most of the sith tradition and built it around himself. Yes, the rule of two was still intact, and yes, there was one master and one apprentice, however by Sidious' rule, both were known as Dark Lords. Why? Maybe Sidious was stroking Maul's ego, who cares? I would provide a source and quite, but I can't be arsed, and it doesn't mean that much to me, just go and ask anyone.
You can't deny the canonical source I just provided.
Sidious was following the Rule of Two laid down by Darth Bane himself faithfully.
This latest set of evidence is canonical proof there is only one Dark Lord at a time.
Maul was a Sith Lord.
Not a Dark Lord.
And I don't care if you can't be bothered to argue with it.
Your the one who's wrong.
Maul was not a Dark Lord.
Sidious was.
Go ahead, argue with canon. 😄
Here, I'll show you it again...
Source for the knowledge that there is only one Dark Lord and then a Sith Lord to serve and learn under him.
Excerpts from Darth Bane: Path of Destruction
Page 240 .
"If all are equal, then none is strong..." Translation: There cannot be more than one Dark Lord at a time, there must be one to hold the title of true Sith Master, and the other(A regular Sith Lord)to crave it.
"If the leader grows weak, another must rise to seize the mantle." I.E. The mantle of Dark Lord .
"...In the end however, there could only be one true Sith Master (Dark Lord). And to serve this Master, there could only be one true apprentice. " (Of conventional Sith Lord status).
And now, the final and most compelling source for reason there is only ONE Dark Lord.
From the pages of Darth Bane: Path of Destruction .
Page 236
"There is also the reason there can be only one Dark Lord .
The Sith must be ruled by a single leader: the very embodiment of the strength and power of the Dark side.
If the leader grows weak, another must rise to seize the mantle . The strong rule; the weak are meant to serve. This is the way it must be ."
Revelation?
That was the Rule of Two.
If POD was good for anything, It was to help cement that concept, so there could be no misunderstanding or denying the fact that has been presented before you.
From The Dark Side Sourcebook, page 86:
'Anger and hatred welled up in Maul, and he
drew renewed strength from the dark side. Hurling
himself at Darth Sidious, he nearly bested his
master with a flurry of deadly lightsaber blows.
Sidious barely deflected them all. Eventually Maul
spent his fury, and Darth Sidious still stood. Maul
prepared himself for death-but Sidious only laughed.
By giving in to his rage and hatred to kill his own
master-by wanting to kill his own master-Maul had
in fact passed the final test. Now he was a Sith
Lord - Darth Maul, Dark Lord of the Sith.'
From the pages of Darth Bane: Path of Destruction .
Page 236
"There is also the reason there can be only one Dark Lord .
The Sith must be ruled by a single leader: the very embodiment of the strength and power of the Dark side.
If the leader grows weak, another must rise to seize the mantle . The strong rule; the weak are meant to serve. This is the way it must be ."
Darth Sidious was the only Dark Lord during Maul's time.
I guess whoever wrote that Maul was a Dark Lord defied common canon because he didn't know what a Dark Lord was.
This latest work set all that straight.
Besides, If Maul had been a real Dark Lord, he would have batted Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan aside without even breaking a sweat.
But, he was not a Dark Lord, his Master was.
He was just a Sith Lord.
Both Nebaris and Darth Sexy are correct; after Bane, both Sith Lords are referred to as "Dark Lords of the Sith". The only titular difference between Sidious and Maul, Sidious and Dooku, and Sidious and Vader is "Sith master" and "Sith apprentice". But both are, indeed, Dark Lords of the Sith and Sith Lords.
I thought about what to say to this, but to be honest, I guess there isn't much to say.
I feel bad that some of the people I debate with don't seem to know everything about their subject.
And I think Its sad that you refuse to see the truth. Even when a Canon source shows it.
There is only one Dark Lord at a time. If anyone else said Maul was a Dark Lord, it was obviously a comic book writer that didn't know what a Dark Lord really was and thought it would be cool to call Maul one.
Dark Lord is as much a title of power and skill as it is of actual rank.
All true Dark Lords(Not knockoffs) have had the ability to kill at least a handful of averagely skilled Jedi Masters.
No Dark Lord would ever be beaten by a Padawan, regardless of how much natural talent he possessed or how lucky he got.
A Sith Lord would though.
Also, If both Sith were Dark Lords then there would be no mantle for Maul, Vader or Dooku to seek to claim, since they already possessed it.
Simply put, there is only one Dark Lord.
I've known this for years, even before Path of Destruction came out.
Since it has though, It finally created a Canon source for this factual knowledge.
If you still haven't come to grips with this knowledge yet, don't worry, you eventually will.
I normally know things that 99% of other SW fans won't know about or figure out until at least a few years later.
A good example is how Form I Shii-Cho was taught to all Initiates first, and how Makashi users use it to defend against blaster-bolts since Makashi can't.
There was initially argument and disbelief and confusion and people said I was wrong. Then a few years pass and they find out I was right all along.
You guys will see the truth soon, don't worry. 😊
Funny, I was always under the impression that the Sith Master was the Dark Lord of the Sith and all the other Sith below them were simply referred to as Sith Lord's...Oh well, I'm not really concerned with it all that much.
Battlemaster, though I agree with you (but not with all the points your making). Self praise doesn't make you seem cool, just to let you know. It kinda makes you seem like you are just dumb as opposed to actually knowing what your talking about. Anyways, just saying.
Actually, Battlemaster, you're quite wrong. You have a single canon source dictating that there is "only one Dark Lord", but let's put things into perspective: that single source is Path of Destruction, and the passage you cited makes reference to Darth Bane's plans and intent for the Rule of Two. It doesn't have any bearing on what Sidious or Maul called themselves, as Bane was long dead before either of them were born.
On the other hand, Darth Sexy and Nebaris have also given you canon sources dictating that even the Sith apprentices were called "Dark Lord of the Sith". In fact, if you'd like to get technical, the dozens of novels that span the OT area always refer to Darth Vader as "the Dark Lord of the Sith" by the omniscient narrator - and yet Vader was still the Emperor's apprentice at the time.
So, we have dozens of sources and a sourcebook dictating that both the apprentice and master were called "Dark Lords" as opposed to your single source.
The evidence is vastly in our favor, and you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Period.
Originally posted by Gideon
Actually, Battlemaster, you're quite wrong. You have a single canon source dictating that there is "only one Dark Lord", but let's put things into perspective: that single source is Path of Destruction, and the passage you cited makes reference to Darth Bane's plans and intent for the Rule of Two. It doesn't have any bearing on what Sidious or Maul called themselves, as Bane was long dead before either of them were born.On the other hand, Darth Sexy and Nebaris have also given you canon sources dictating that even the Sith apprentices were called "Dark Lord of the Sith". In fact, if you'd like to get technical, the dozens of novels that span the OT area always refer to Darth Vader as "the Dark Lord of the Sith" by the omniscient narrator - and yet Vader was still the Emperor's apprentice at the time.
So, we have dozens of sources and a sourcebook dictating that both the apprentice and master were called "Dark Lords" as opposed to your single source.
The evidence is vastly in our favor, and you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Period.
Its funny, now that I think about it your right I can recall a few times with the Sith apprentice being called a DLOTS but I never took it as the same. Even around here when we refer to the DLOTS we usually mean it to refer to the DLOTS, meaning the top guy. Normally though most Sith are just referred to in passing as "Sith Lord's" so its really hard to compile anything. Personally I only ever use the term "DLOTS" to refer to the Dark Lord, and all other Sith I just call Sith Lords. But it is true Vader is often called a DLOTS.