TBH there's clearly a sense in which 'Sith' simply means 'anything that is at face value a Sith' (which generally boils down to being called a Sith in all serious cases); that is what I believe the word means when it is used in all SW marketing and it's also what I believe the word usually means in guidebooks and RPG sourcebooks.
Originally posted by SunRazer
I'm clarifying the definition. What you said makes no sense whatsoever. Perhaps you could point to some similar examples in history of quotes like that where if the object is described as XY, that means he's a Y as a result of doing X?
Originally posted by SunRazer
1. That was Temp's argument. Regardless, being unburdened by archaic Sith teachings can be said of Nihilus as well, yet he is still a Lord of the Sith.2. Actually, Traya mentions that the Sith is a belief way back in the mid game, yet she still calls Nihilus a Lord of the Sith.
Nihilus' interest was not in reforming the Sith either, or frankly, even leading them. He enslaved a group and had them serve under him for his own ends, nothing more; he would've consumed them in time if Kreia's narrative is accurate.
3. Right, so if it's referring to Valkorion in the present tense, it doesn't refer to "Sith" in the context of a Pureblood, but rather an adherent of the Order. So Valkorion remains an entity of the Sith Order. Note that the term "Ancient Sith" refers to an Order also, not a species.
1. Nihilus was using the Sith as a means to an end, so it makes sense he'd be considered a Sith Lord while he did it. The same isn't remotely true for Valkorion.
2. Yeah, but the difference between Nihilus and Valkorion was that Nihilus actively supported and led the Sith on places like Onderon, Telos, and Malachor. His motives are irrelevant; the fact of the matter is that he led the Sith, while Valkorion wanted to utterly annihilate them from the beginning - and raise nothing from the ashes.
3. Except the quote refers to the Sith ambiguously at first, and then again as an organization. It then goes on to say that Valkorion cared nothing for everything the organization stood for, so it's fair to say that the 'Sith' part was in reference to the species.
Originally posted by SunRazer
It calls him an "ancient Sith entity", which means he's an entity derived from (and still being) the ancient Sith — which is an Order, not a species, by the way.
Originally posted by SunRazer
Well, having not yet actually destroyed the Sith, he couldn't. Bane made no attempts at reform until he had destroyed the Sith.I agree that Valk's rhetoric certainly doesn't make him sound like a Sith, but we know his word to be unreliable and the codex states that he is a Sith. The only "support" from the codex is the claim that he is "unburdened by ancient Sith teachings", something applicable to Bane or Nihilus also. And the criteria being set out by users here also applies to either Bane or Nihilus (or both), both of whom we know to be Sith.
Darth Bane destroyed the brotherhood faction because he felt that it had deviated from the original teachings of Sith. Taking teachings of ancient Sith at heart, he decided to reboot the Sith Order. You to revisit Darth Bane: Path of Destruction.
Why we cannot take Valkorion's rhetoric at face value? His actions lend credibility to his rhetoric.
In-fact:
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
When evaluating a research work, do we care about initial proposal and/or concentrate on iterative processes of theory building effort? No. We consider final draft for evaluation.Tenebrae's story developed in a similar way.
Doesn't matters if Tenebrae was referred to as an ancient Sith entity in a codex entry. This is the final description:
Over the millennia, Valkorion wore many faces and names: Lord Vitiate; Emperor of the Sith; Eternal Emperor of Zakuul. For centuries upon centuries, he shaped and manipulated galactic events, bending the arc of history to his will during his obsessive quest for immortality. A being of unfathomable power and insatiable appetite, he transcended death multiple times, shedding his physical shells as they were discovered, defeated, and destroyed... only to return in another form.
From (Star Wars: The Old Republic: Knights of the Eternal Throne: Codex Entry titled "The Fall of Valkorion."😉
---
"Valkorion. Tenebrae. Vitiate. Emperor of the Sith. My low-born son has worn many masks." - Lord Dramath
---
Same cannot be said for Darth(s) Nihilus and Traya; they might be far from being ideal adherents to Sith philosophy but they did not establish a new identity and officially renounce their allegiance to Sith.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
What a load of crap.Darth Bane destroyed the [B]brotherhood faction
because he felt that it had deviated from the original teachings of Sith. Taking teachings of ancient Sith at heart, he decided to reboot the Sith Order. You to revisit Darth Bane: Path of Destruction. [/B]
So are you implying that the Brotherhood, which had abandoned these so-called original Sith teachings, wasn't a Sith organization?