let me clarify. The reason why the Sith are stronger is because the sith are dark jedi.
Dark Jedi are influenced by fear, greed (everything you consider bad). As a result, they not only seek to destroy the good Jedi but seek to destroy other jedi like themselves.
The good jedi are peacekeepers of the republic. They live in peace with one another.
Thus, there can only be 2 sith lords. Apprentice and master, that is the only loyalty that can exist (sometimes they kill each other too!). If one kills another, the survivor can always get another apprentice, and thus becomes the master.
Also, that is why qui gon was right when he said anakin would bring balance to the force. Anakin in a sense took himself out when taking his master, emperor palpatine out.
anyways, back to the main point, the sith are considered more dangerous due to their two. WHy? cause they are the cream of the crop. Most jedi do not have enough to compete with them.
However, the top jedi are on equal terms with the two sith lords. For example, yoda and mace can prolly match wits with dooku and palp. However, a lower level jedi like Nsync will most likely get killed (hehehehe) or even obi wan. Ob1 cannot hang with the top ones.
youre taking the comment "always two there are, a master and apprentice" a bit out of context, i beleive. If EU serves me well, there was a time when there were thousands of sith. There was also a long time after that when there were no sith. Light is shed on the matter, if you remember what yoda said to qui-gon when he wanted to take anakin as his padawan learner: "an apprentice you already have, impossible to take another." At the funeral, Yoda was not saying that there could only be two sith. He was merely stating an extension of the master/apprentice relationship. Whether Jedi or Sith, there are always two. By defination, a master has an apprentice. and also by defination, an apprentice has a master. there are always two. Yoda was merely stating that Maul was either a Master or apprentice. If he was the master, he would have an apprentice to follow in his steps. If he was an apprentice, obviously he must have had a master to train him. That's all the comment means.
I would also like to clarify that officially, there is no such thing as a dark jedi. that is an EU term. Officially, there are Jedi and there are Sith. Jedi use the light side of the force. Sith use the dark side. There is no such thing as a "dark jedi," and more than there is such a thing as a "light sith."
Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, UK
Co-Admin
Yes, but the concept that a Fallen, non-Sith Jedi would be called a 'Dark Jedi' is hardly objectionable.
Meanwhile, the two sides of the Force are of EQUAL strength, of course.
I agree that the two Sith would both be elite, though not necessarily better than the bet of the Jedi. It appears that in this storyline that the Sith proved the more clever, though.
BTW, bigsef, Yoda's comment DOES mean that there are only two Sith, full stop. That much has been made clear. But according to the EU there was a time when trhis was not so, which seems fair enough. I would also assume that such a rule was no longer necessary once the Jedi were destroyed as Sidious seemed perfectly happy to have Luke as a third memeber.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Ush, sometimes I think you just like to be disagreeable. While a fallen Jedi COULD be called a dark jedi, by the same token, a fallen sith could be called a light sith. Either way, the point is irrelevant. In the movies so far, we have no dark jedi. We have Jedi, and we have Sith. As you are so fond to point out, if its not in the movies, its not cannon, and only speculation. End of discussion.
Aside from that, the assertation that there can only be two sith is a widely mis-interpreted statement. how could yoda say "ALWAYS two there are, a master and an apprentice" if the Sith had been non-existant for millenia and before they were wiped out, there were lots of them? Yoda's statement would be meaningless. Sith are just Jedi who use the dark side of the force instead of the light. They are evil, but we have no reason to beleive that the same "rules" dont apply to both of them. There can be more than 2 sith. there can be less. Yoda was merely emphasizing the master/apprentice relationship.
Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, UK
Co-Admin
First of all, that is NOT the end of the discussion. Not by a long chalk. A jedi who falls to the Dark Side does not immediately become a Sith. Therefore calling him a 'Dark' Jedi is hardly a crime against canon. It is just a term of convenience.
Secondly, AGAIN, the meaning of the 'only two' statement has already been explained, many times over. And Yoda saying 'always' does not mean it was forever so, that is a very loose interpretation. He says always two there ARE. That's easilyt applicable to a modern-day situation without it having to cover all of history.
The EU sources you quote clearly make this out to be the case.
I am not just trying to be disagreeable- stop being so touchy just because I don't believe the same thing as you. You are, again, arguing from a very weak basis.
If you need proof, here is a GL quote about it:
"The Sith were started by a fallen Jedi Knight. The Sith trained throughout the centuries in the dark side of the force keeping themselves hidden underground. Now, in episode one, they are making themselves known in an attempt to take over the galaxy.
One of the themes throughout the films is that the Sith lords, when they started out thousands of years ago, embraced the dark side. They were greedy and self-centered and they all wanted to take over, so they killed each other. Eventually, there was only one left, and that one took on an apprentice. And for thousands of years, the master would teach the apprentice, the master would die, the apprentice would then teach another apprentice, become the master, and so on. But there could never be any more than two of them, because if there were, they would try to get rid of the leader, which is exactly what Vader was trying to do, and that's exactly what the Emperor was trying to do. The Emperor was trying to get rid of Vader, and Vader was trying to get rid of the Emperor. And that is the antithesis of a symbiotic relationship, in which if you do that, you become cancer, and you eventually kill the host, and everything dies."
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
from my perspective, it is you that is arguing from a weak basis. and im not touchy. i just dont respond well to arrogance. When I disagree with another forum member, I try to be as respectful of their opinion/interpretation as possible. unless theyre saying something completely rediculous, such as that they love nsync. that is entirely unacceptable. moving on....
if people want to use the term dark jedi, thats fine. it just must be understood that it is not an official term, and that there are no dark jedi in the movies wed seen. there are only sith. vader and maul are not dark jedi. they are sith. granted its just a term, but it is the official one.
Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, UK
Co-Admin
You must have read my half-complete post.
It's not arrogance, I have the FACTS on my side, and you do not! GL's quote directly contradicts what you say.
And Sith is a term for people in the Sith order, of course. But there is still nothing wrong with someone using the term Dark Jedi for a fallen one who is not one of the two Sith!
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
> TO bigsef: Kind of taking it out of order. If i am correct i believe after the formation of the jeci council and taking young children with high counts prevent many people from being sith. But also the present order of sith, for their own survival, limit themselves to master and apprentice. THis is done for lesser infighting of course and also to maintain a sense of anonmyity because jedi definately outnumber sith and can destroy them. I think Ush explained it as well.
> TO ush: Actually Sidious was replacing Vader/Anakin with luke in ROTJ. After defeating vader, luke has the potential to be the "next vader". However, Yoda prepares him in ESB with the cave thing where he kills vader-esque thing and he sees himself. Sidious also tempts luke and uses his good will against him, however, luke unlike the first time in ESB didn't fall for it. It showed maturity on his part. THus, he chose not to follow in his father's footsteps and be manipulated by sidious by using their good nature/fear of loss of a loved one against themselves to make them go to the dark side.
LIke maul in TPM, there was just a new apprentice. Also, I sense (IMHO), that Vader himself wanted to use Luke to conquer Sidious in ESB. THus making vader the master and luke. But this is all theoretical. But i think its a pretty standard conclusion that with the present sith order, there can only be 2, master and apprentice.
> TO BOTH: As for the dark jedi. I think you two make points. Dark jedi for my point was not proper for the trilogy at hand however i dont think its a big point. However, i think i still got the general point across. However, from what i've read, dark jedi are jedi that follow the dark side. SO in a sense, sith is a specific order/type of dark jedi. But I'm an not quite sure of this.
As for as the two sith, sith only have master n apprentice. Thats their code for survival. Dark side leads to their destruction...they can only have two for survival.
btw, based on my understanding, "dark jedi" is a contradiction in terms. and if we use dark jedi, its only right to use "light sith," so from now on, I will refer to Vader as a light sith, because in the end, he returned to the lightside and forsook the sith way ;-)
is it a truly official statement that there can be only two sith?????? (yodaŽs quote can be interpreted many many ways, its not a specific quote) where did you get it from or heard it from?
dark jedi, where did this term came from? i think one should go to the source read it well and see then what it means. it may mean both things all you are arguing.
and what was vader thinking of when bringing luke to the emperor? he knew if he brought him, the emperor could take luke to the dark side , convince him to kill vader. well, weŽll never know for sure, all we can do is make hypothesis, only George Lucas can answer that. Or has he already? is there anywhere we can find an official statement in that matter????
i think we should all be very informed to be able to argue about stuff with weak basis as all you say.
*****i tried never to be disrespectful to any point of view and I tried not to show any arrogance....sorry if I did******
no, GL hasnt said anything official, although, certain other people who shall remain nameless, equate their own opinions with either those of GL or god...
well bigsef, thats your opinion. Although i don't talk to anyone about my star wars fanaticism, i do tend to refer to things more like ush. But thats your opinion. But in the essential chronology, jedi that follow the dark side are called dark jedi and the jedi of the jedi council (or the light side) are simply called jedi. Sith seem to be a specific order within the dark jedi. But light sith sounds interesting. Maybe we can just call him a Closet Light Sith . He doesn't "come out" till later.
TO Fernando:
most of the terms and stuff are discussed in lucas books. Like one of the ones i have is called the essential chronology. I always look at this stuff and read it in book stores and memorize it. However, one day my girlfriend just bought all these offical George lucas endorsed books. So i was like...cool.
and yes, in all the books i have seen, all refer to the fact that the sith orrder have 2 lords...a master and apprentice for the aforementioned reasons.
As for luke being brought to the emperor, i think the emperor asked him to be brought. i think he ordered vader to bring him. I'm not sure..i havent' seen ROTJ in 3-4 years but i used to watch it a decent amount as a kid.
I think the emperor brings luke b4 him to watch the destruction of his friends....trying to tempt luke into the dark side. Luke almost does as he tries to strike sidious, but vader blocks. luke defeats vader and sidious offers him the option of being killed or becoming his apprentice.
If you compare it to Christian spirituality it makes more sense. The dark side may seem more powerful but it achieves all this at a cost of oppression, injustice, suffering, and no compassion. It is inherently a twisted parody of the light side of the force. Just as Christianity points out that on the earth evil does prevail but it has it's limits and despite appearances is not more powerful; but the knowledge to understand why this is so is hidden. It is far above our heads and is not known until after death just as the jedi do not fully become part of the force after death.
Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, UK
Co-Admin
bigsef, are you blind or something? gave a clear quote from George Lucas himself that says you are wrong. Here it is AGAIN, thpugh why I have to print it twice I don't know:
"The Sith were started by a fallen Jedi Knight. The Sith trained throughout the centuries in the dark side of the force keeping themselves hidden underground. Now, in episode one, they are making themselves known in an attempt to take over the galaxy.
One of the themes throughout the films is that the Sith lords, when they started out thousands of years ago, embraced the dark side. They were greedy and self-centered and they all wanted to take over, so they killed each other. Eventually, there was only one left, and that one took on an apprentice. And for thousands of years, the master would teach the apprentice, the master would die, the apprentice would then teach another apprentice, become the master, and so on. But there could never be any more than two of them, because if there were, they would try to get rid of the leader, which is exactly what Vader was trying to do, and that's exactly what the Emperor was trying to do. The Emperor was trying to get rid of Vader, and Vader was trying to get rid of the Emperor. And that is the antithesis of a symbiotic relationship, in which if you do that, you become cancer, and you eventually kill the host, and everything dies."
Happy now? GL HAS said something official. You have had this all wrong. Do me the courtesy of reading my posts properly in future and stop coming across as so damn arrogant. Do not make cheap insults about people 'equating' themselves again.
And for those who are interested, here is a link with large portions of this interview, done for Time Magazine in mid '99:
Meanwhile, Phanekim, I was talkling about ESB, where Palpatine clearly asks Vader to recruit Luke onto their side without any talk of replacement. Only in ROTJ does he reveal he wants Luke to replace Vader, which is fair enough, but the point is that the POSSIBILITY existed of Luke being a third, or Palpy would never have mentioned it to Vader, of course! That would be like saying "I'm going to have you killed and replaced." Unlikely!
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Jan 30th, 2002 11:01 PM
. He doesn't "come out" till later.
