Talk: Dark Lord of the Sith/Legends

Back to page |
< Talk:Dark Lord of the Sith
Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "Dark Lord of the Sith/Legends."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for discussing the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit Wookieepedia Discussions. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

Ludo Kressh

Why has Kressh been removed? The ending of Fall of the Sith Empire heavily implies that he rules the Sith Empire after Naga Sadow's exile, hence having the title. QuentinGeorge 06:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, so I re-added him. --Imperialles 07:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tradition of the title

Wow, that's BS considering Kaan made most of the Sith in the Brotherhood Dark Lord's. Guess the Sourcebook is wrong. *Gasp* —Unsigned comment by 69.51.150.91 (talk • contribs)

Locked

Can this be unlocked now? I think it's been long enough. MarcK 04:26, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, it needs to be unlocked, so that Darth Ruin can be added prior to Kaan.

Dubious Entries

A few dubious entries have been added in the last edits. I thought we'd decided that Traya, Sion and Nihilius were never bearers of the title? Additonally, I don't think Carnor Jax or Flint had the title (I can't be sure) because Lumiya seems to have reverted to the pre-Kaan tradition of having only one Dark Lord. Can anyone shed any light on this? QuentinGeorge

  • How can Traya and co. NOT bear the title if they have "Darth?"
    • Bearing the title "Darth" has bugger all to do with being a Dark Lord. Exhibit A: Darth Bandon. QuentinGeorge 09:56, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • As for Flint, he was called "Dark Lord of Belderone" and "Lord Flint" in Marvel Comics, for what it is worth.
    • Dark Lord of Belderone and Lord Flint are quite different to "Dark Lord of the Sith".

QuentinGeorge 09:56, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • And why did Darth Andeddu get taken off the list?
    • We don't know a) That he was ever a Dark Lord of the Sith B) When he lived, so for now, let's leave him off. QuentinGeorge 09:56, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • Why isn't Lumiya included on this list? --User:SFH
      • Andeddu has a tomb in the Valley of the Dark Lords. Doesn't that confirm he once held the title? Lieutenant Gerard 16:03, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to ask again about Flint: Does any canon source call him a DLotS? Since his original comic appearance does not say this. Which puts him in a different position than Carnor Jax, who is indeed named such. Jax' motives for taking the title, or Lumiya's for allowing him to use it, are not relevant in this discussion. Charlii 20:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Post Galactic Empire

  • The Post Galactic Empire bit is needlessly wordy and convuluted. If we are going to say Lumiya isn't Dark Lord of the Sith, then let's take her out. But let's have none of this fudging, rambling introductory paragraphs with "maybes" and "mights" and the reapparance of the dreaded question mark. QuentinGeorge 02:27, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm... What if we aren't sure if she is or if she isn't? "Fudging, rambling introductory paragraphs with "maybes" and "mights" and the reapparance of the dreaded question mark" does the trick. --Master Starkeiller 02:45, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • We know she claimed the title, so we can put her in sans question mark. With just a note saying, "After the Battle of Endor, Lumiya claimed the title "Dark Lady of the Sith"." You don't need anything else. QuentinGeorge 02:51, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • Sounds good. She definitely took the title, even though she might be no Sith Lord. --Master Starkeiller 00:42, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Tulak Hord

Silly_Dan, according to your last edit, "Tulak Hord was well before Revan, so he goes in the first list". But you put him after Kressh. I know there's the lightsaber issue, but we don't know everything about the Sith Empire and lightsabers yet so he belong in "Others". He could have live 25.000 B.B.Y. along with Ajunta Pal as far as we know... --Master Starkeiller 11:40, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Dathka Graush

Why did you put him in the others? It says he lived around 7,000 BBY. Technically, he shouldn't even be on this list, he was never a Dark Lord, merely a high ranking Sith Lord from my understanding.

  • If we include Andeddu because he was buried on Korriban, then we must also include Graussh.
    • Andeddu isn't included because he was buried on Korriban, he is included because he was buried in the Valley of the Dark Lords. Dathka Graush, on the other hand, wasn't buried in the Valley of the Dark Lords; he was buried in the Valley of Golg. However, the RPG (or whatever it was) article that created him clearly states that he was a Dark Lord, so he is included as well.Lieutenant Gerard 21:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Symbol

It is not the symbol of the Sith. Its the symbol thats used for Old Republic Era stories. Is that so difficult to understand? Redemption 20:55, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry. You are incorrect. In-universe, it IS a symbol of the Sith, or more precisely, the Dark Lord of the Sith. Naga Sadow has it branded on his forehead when he ascends to the rank. See for yourself.

Tfotse12

Why can't people read the source they are citing? QuentinGeorge 05:13, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Kressh

Would anyone mind if I put Ludo Kressh in the others section and detail how he proclaimed himself Dark Lord? -- SFH 23:02, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd rather we put him back where he was, since, unlike Andeddu, we know when Ludo lived. He was self-proclaimed, yes, but so was Freedon Nadd, so I don't think this should affect Kressh's placement on the list. QuentinGeorge 05:28, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Ahem...

From what I understand, Seviss Vaa, LaTor and Kaox Krul were Sith Lords, but not Dark Lords of the Sith. - Sikon [Talk] 16:33, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but they were in Kaan's inner circle and council. Besides, if I remember correctly, Kaan gave the title Dark Lord to most, if not all of the Sith Lords. --Mr. Perfection 16:45, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Are any of these established to have the title? Bane, Githany, Kopecz and Qordis are all explicitly named as such. QuentinGeorge 20:04, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Simus

I'm pretty sure no source has ever named Simus as a Dark Lord. Lieutenant Gerard 22:24, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Well, if no one disagrees I'm going to remove all references to him as such. Lieutenant Gerard 00:00, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Kyp Durron

Can it be really said that Kyp Durron was a Dark Lord of the Sith? I suppose he was something lesser and doesn't really deserve such title yet.

  • He claimed the title, and none were there to oppose him, so yes. He was Dark Lord of the Sith, even for a little while. Jasca Ducato 15:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

First Dark Lord

  • Abel's new article confirms the title did not exist until 7,000 BBY. In other words, it was only when the Dark Jedi conquered the Sith that the title began - the native Sith didn't use it. QuentinGeorge 06:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Jacen Solo?

Ah, I don't think he's a Dark Lord yet, we don't even know what Sith order Lumiya is truly under, and besides he's only an apprentice. RushinSundaws 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I would agree to that. Charlii 14:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Darth Maul and Tyranus?

These two were never given the title of Dark Lord of the Sith. There was only one at a time, and during their time as Sith Lords, Darth Sidious was always the Dark Lord of the Sith. Dooku even refers to Darth Sidious as the Dark Lord of the Sith when speaking to Obi-Wan in Attack of the Clones. So why are these two listed as Dark Lords when they were never given the title? —Unsigned comment by 69.114.46.189 (talk • contribs)

  • Incorrect. In Bane's order, both members had the title Dark Lord of the Sith - as is explained on this page, if you'd bothered to read it. - QuentinGeorge (at work)
    • No, That guy was correct. There is only ONE Dark Lord at a time. Canonical proof from a canonical source is at the very top of this discussion page. —Unsigned comment by 69.51.150.91 (talk • contribs)
  • Indeed. They were both Dark Lords, as was Sidious. The title that belonged to Sidious alone was "Master." Maul and Tyranus (and Vader), though being apprentices, were still called Dark Lords of the Sith. jSarek 03:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I was under the impression Dark Lord of the Sith was the title for the de facto Sith ruler, since it was a title/position many Sith Lords fought and killed each other over, and that the title was passed from Sidious to Darth Vader once Sidious had his hands full with the title of Emperor.
        • Well, that's not correct, and never has been anything more than fanon. Maul, Tyranus and Vader were Dark Lord all in their own right, and simultaneous to Sidious. - QuentinGeorge (at work).
        • Alright, chill with the attitude. So what about the infighting that occured among Sith Lords over the title/position? I'm referring to the first and fourth paragraphs of Kaan's profile, which I don't believe is fanon at all. It's referred to as the Dark Lord of the Sith rather than a Dark Lord of the Sith, thus supporting my original "incorrect" thought that it was a single title.
          • Nevermind, I realized my mistake. I was right up until the point where Kaan changed the system around so that there'd be more than one. I hadn't seen it printed anywhere though that Maul and Tyranus held the title.
          • Yes, as explained in this article, the title was unique until the reign of Kaan, then held by more than one individual at once. It's all there. QuentinGeorge 05:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Sorry if I came off a bit terse, BTW - was not my intention. QuentinGeorge 05:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)actually siith lord and dark lord are different remember

Vergere

  • Vergere was never a DLOTS. QuentinGeorge 06:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fake Sith

Doesn't any Sith after Vader disrupt the films, and indeed the prophecy? I think that there should be some kind of descriptor that labels Vader as the last of the TRUE Sith, whilst Lumiya et al are just wannabes Thefourdotelipsis 03:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • If you watched the Mortis trilogy of the Clone Wars, it shows you that balance means an equal amount of darkness and light.--Emperordmb 13:26, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

NSW Dark Lord's

  • For the last time - Kaan declared the various Sith warlords as "Dark Lords" long before the Ruusan campaign. Ka'sim is specifically called "Dark Lord" in DB:PoD. There's nothing to indicate this is an error. QuentinGeorge 07:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you provide a quote!?! Jasca Ducato Sith Council (Sith campaign) 07:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Where's your quote to support your idea that he didn't make them Dark Lords until the Ruusan campaign? QuentinGeorge 08:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
        • My quote was the Kaan article, whcih cleary said that he made them all DLOS araound the time of Ruusan. Jasca Ducato Sith Council (Sith campaign) 08:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
          • The Kaan article says nothing of the sort. Again, where is your quote? QuentinGeorge 08:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
            • It is implied in Jedi vs. Sith when Bane says "*Lord* Kaan? [...] Is everybody a Lord now?" But that intention is clearly retconed in PoD as it repeatedly refers to the members of the Brotherhood as Dark Lords. Charlii 14:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Kreia

Was Kreia also a Dark Lord of the Sith before being betrayed by Sion and Nihilus?Darth Shadow3000 18:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • We've generally accepted that she was the leader of the Sith Order, but we have never acctually seen her styled as "Dark Lord of the Sith". -- SFH 18:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Same with Darth Sion? Micah Giett 02:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

    • Yes. Jasca Ducato Sith Council Sith Campaign 09:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Kreia and Sion are both Dark Lords of the Sith along with Nihilus. It is clearly explained in the game and I have argued the point to no end and do not care so do do again. Please, people, play the game again and pay better attention. ALL THREE are Dark Lords.--Master Dakari 19:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"She is one of the Lords of the Sith."
―Atris speaking to the Jedi Exile about Kreia.
"He is one of the Dark Lords..."
―Kreia speaking to the Jedi Exile about Nihilus.
  • I would also like to point out the fact that it makes no sense at all to say Nihilus is a Dark Lord of the Sith, but the very person who was his master and was head of the Trayus Academy is denied the title by the fans, who have no real say in the matter to begin with. She is recognized as a Dark Lord in the game, and so is Sion. It's canon, sorry.--Master Dakari 19:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • 1) "Sith Lord" And "Dark Lord of the Sith" is two different things. 2) While it makes no sense that Nihilius was a DLotS if Traya wasn't, that would be conjecture and we only follow canon. This has been debated extensively before, and as long as no new information surfaces the page will remain the way it is. Charlii 22:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Read the quotes again. Yes, I understand perfectly well that Dark Lord of the Sith and Sith Lord are two completely different titles. I even have to force others to understand this at times. Atris says one of THE Lords of the Sith, and the Kreia says one of THE Dark Lords. Both of those titles listed have "THE" infront of them, clearly emphasizing that it is a distinct designation. Further emphasis is placed on the fact that in Atris's quote, "lord" is capitalized. This means that they weren't "a" lord of the Sith (merely a Sith Lord), but that they held a position of authority and autonomy from the rest of the body. Kreia's quote give even further backing in that she explicitely states DARK LORDS. I don't know about you, but I have never heard of your average Sith Lord being called by "Dark Lord". And we have just made clear that the two titles are clearly different and distinct from one another. Not to mention that the "s" at the end of Kreia's phrase lends a significant weight to the fact of there being a PLURALITY of Dark Lords (three, in fact) at that moment in time. Regardless of personal feelings on the matter, all three (Traya, Sion and Nihilus) are Dark Lords of the Sith. And if the Wookieepedian majority decides to say otherwise, it DOES NOT change the fact that the Wookieepedian majority is wrong. What has already been established in the game is what is considered canon, not what Wookieepedians decide to say is canon. I am the one who keeps adding Traya and Sion to the list of Dark Lords, and I will continue to do so unless it gets locked. Why? Because they belong there! Prohibiting and denying their addition to the list is to go against what has been clearly established as canon within a canon source. And I, for one, don't like that idea very well.--Master Dakari 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Before you start moaning, I didn' even bother reading most of your last comment. Because it's wrong. Sion and Kreia were not Dark lords. The NEGC clearly establishes Nihilus as the sole Dark Lord. And if you continue to add Sion and Traya to the list, you will be banned. Canon dictates that Nihilus was Dark Lord at the time, the last Dark lord before Nihilus was Malak. Jasca Ducato Sith Council Sith Campaign 09:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I would state that it is entirely possible for Nihilus to be DLOTS even if Traya was not. It is conceivable that an apprentice would ascend to a higher rank than his master, especially considering that he and Sion stripped Traya of her power. However, for a definitive answer, I recommend this question be taken to a higher authority. Micah Giett 15:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
"I've already told you what the source is, it's up to you to check it yourself."
―Jasca Ducato
"My mistake, I was told it was the NEC by someone else."
―Jasca Ducato

Hahaha. No offense, but that's just great! *roflmao* --Master Dakari 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't see why. All i said was that it's up to you to check it yourself, I never said that i had read it. I'm going on other peoples words. Jasca Ducato Sith Council Sith Campaign 18:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't forget, there were no other Dark Lords while the Sith Triumvirate was ruling. Also, look at this quote:
"To be united by hatred is a fragile alliance at best."
―Kreia[src]

This could mean that Kreia looked upon the group as a single entity, bound by hatred, so the title "Dark Lord of the Sith" could not necessarily mean only one person. They then broke and became nothings. I think while they ruled together they were DLOTS's. Darth AnxorRevanchist SithSith Order 22:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Xendor

Xendor as possibly the Dark Underlord is not fanon. Abel Pena tossed the idea out there in his history of the Sith article. Thanos6 19:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is only one Dark Lord at a time

Source for the knowlege 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 appentice." (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. —Unsigned comment by 69.51.150.91 (talk • contribs)

  • Yeah, that would work if it weren't for multiple inconsistencies that POD has already produced. Then there is the fact that your inserting your own interpretations in. -- SFH 00:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Those interpretations were for idiots like you, so I could help you understand the sentences without having to use your small brain. Anyway, there is only one Dark Lord at a time, and for the genius in the post down below, I'll remind you that Kaan made most of the Sith in the Brotherhood Dark Lords, so it didn't end with him, for stupidly obvious reasons. There is only one Dark Lord at a time. If you can't understand this obvious fact, I suggest you completely re-learn your knowledge of the Sith, and quit posting here since your screwing this article up. —Unsigned comment by 69.51.150.91 (talk • contribs)

  • Heh, the fact that you're being so hostile about this is all the funnier because you're wrong. Dark Side Sourcebook states Maul is a Dark Lord of the Sith. Canon > your flawed interpretations. - Lord Hydronium 00:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • And about every source pre-99 claims that Vader is a Dark Lord as well. .... 00:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you sound even funnier than me then, because your wrong. And Im not being hostile, If I was, you wouldn't be gabbling at me like a dumb nerd. The Dark Side sourcebook states that Darth Maul is somehow a Dark Lord, even though he was defeated by a Padawan out of luck. But Darth Bane: Path Of Destruction, which is ALSO a CANON source states there is only one at a time, which means Maul isn't one. So Canon> Your flawed intelligence.

Vader May have been a Dark Lord during the Empire era because Sidious had tossed out his status as a Sith in favor of just being an Emperor, but who knows. Not you guys though, thats for sure. Learn your stuff. —Unsigned comment by 69.51.150.91 (talk • contribs)

  • Try and remain civil, furious anon. --ATATatarismall.png 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I said this on your talk page, and I'll say it here: Telling people they are idiots for following canon and rejecting your original research is a sure fire way to get banned. -- SFH 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. Thank you for your patience. Remember, Im following Canon too though. —Unsigned comment by 69.51.150.91 (talk • contribs)

  • Vader May have been a Dark Lord during the Empire era because Sidious had tossed out his status as a Sith in favor of just being an Emperor, but who knows. Oh, yeah, I totally buy that. "Hmm. I think I'm in the mood for some Sith practice today." Uhuh. 60.230.44.199 02:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "Im following Canon too though." No, you aren't. As explained on Talk:Darth Maul, when your quotes are put in context they say the opposite of what you claim. And that's beside the point, as even if it were in context, what you claim those quotes say is only your interpretation of them. Canon is unambiguously clear that Maul was a Dark Lord at the same time as Sidious. Unambiguous canon beats iffy interpretation every day. - Lord Hydronium 02:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

~ So its not static... The sith do what they feel like doing. Just because someone (like Bane) decides there should be only two sith (one a "Dark Lord") doesnt mean that sith later or preceeding are going to listen. It's not like they get some magical aura that distinguishes them as such... they SAY that they are a Lord and who is anyone else to argue... it seems like a fairly ridiculous argument when talking about creatures that make their own rules and change the rules as they see fit... not that my view matters this late in the game -- Tzachariah Krosz 4/23/2009

I do not understand

Hallo, why traya and sion are not here. In their own articles, there is written, that they were amd also in the game it is said, that they both wer DLoTS. thanks for explanation and sorry about my english. —Unsigned comment by ScorpiO (talk • contribs)

  • Sion and Traya were not DLOS. Never were, never will be. If their articles say they are, they're wrong and will likely be reverted within minutes. Jasca Ducato Sith Council Sith Campaign 17:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

but it is not logic. 1) i do not know what exactly triumvirat means in english, but in czech it means the union of three independent leaders with same athorities and more important, with same ranks (for example the first triumvirat was sometime around 60 BC in rome, the union of cessar pompeius and crassus) 2) i do not see any reason, why the dark lord would listen only sith lords. Logically he should command there. And the title DLOTS is the title for the leader of the sith order and the leaders were all of them, werent they? I dont know, may be i am wrong but i thing it is all right.--ScorpiO 06:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    • Hmm. Despite the fact that ScorpiO will sting you with his dreams of power and wealth, he sounds about correct. .... 06:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok, it's a little complicated. So i'll explain clearly, as it may not make sense in the first place.
In English, Triumvirate is "a government of three officers or magistrates functioning jointly". This doesn't mean the have to be of the same rank, although it is usually the case.
The New Essential Guide to Characters clearly states that Nihilus, and only Nihilus was a Dark Lord of the Sith, and so that it was we must say. It may be stupid, and it may be unrealistic, but it's canon.
The Sith Triumvirate, while the dominate Sith power at the time, was not the Sith Order. It could quite easily be run by a normal Sith Lord (Darth Traya), and then, when she was betrayed by Nihilus, he took over, claiming the title of Dark Lord.
So while I agree with you that Kreia and Sion should be named DLOS, they were infact, not. The most likely scenario was that after Nihilus and Sion betrayed Traya, Nihilus claimed the title. Jasca Ducato Sith Council Sith Campaign 08:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • All right, i´ve got it. thanks for explanation. --ScorpiO 09:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I very much doubt the New Essential Guide to Characters says anything of the sort, since it does not include any characters from the KOTOR games - not surprising, since it was published three years before the game's release. QuentinGeorge 10:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It's from "Evil Never Dies" (this is the second time I'm correcting Jasca Ducato on this :P ) Charlii 10:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And what about Dathka Graush? in his own article, there is nothing about dark lord, and if he was sith ruler slained by Pall and the other Dark Jedi, he couldnt be dark lord either. and of course, in his article is mentioned in behind scene, that Pall was most likely the first dark lord. sorry that i still ask something but i want to know everything about sith --ScorpiO 13:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Graush is not fully explored. In the only source about him he is described as a "Sith Dark Lord" which could mean "Dark Lord of the Sith", but not necessarily. Charlii 10:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sirak

  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Sirak dead by the time Kaan "graduates" the trainees from the academy to the rank of Dark Lord? QuentinGeorge 06:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Tahiri

Ok, this discussion concerns several articles, so maybe it should be brought up somewhere else, but anyway: Should Tahiri be considered a Dark Lord of the Sith? I say no, since Caedus wasn't until he made his sacrifice. The Rule of Two idea that both the master and the apprentice are "equal" Dark Lords seem to have been removed by Lumiya, so until she is called DL in some source I say we remove every notion of her being one from this page, her page, Jacen's page and the succession boxes on Darth Krayt and Lumiya. Thoughts? Charlii 23:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Darth Maul and Darth Tyranus?

I do not think Darth Maul and Darth Tyranus are Dark Lords, although they are called Lord Maul and Lord Tyranus by Sids.Tom,SoresuMaster88 23:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Regardless of what you think, canon (the Dark Side Sourcebook and the official Star Wars Databank, among many, many other sources) has established that they are both Dark Lords, so discussing it is pointless. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Easy now... We really can't say that is allright... After all there are TONS of books which speak AGAINST eachother, even in Star Wars... (pluss I REALLY hope stuoide Maul wassent a Dark Lord) --Thrawn Du Gard 00:28, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

Darth Phobos?

Is there any source saying she actually was a *Dark Lord* and not a "regular" Sith Lord? If she's in, what about her apprentice, Darth Desolous? Gorthuar 16:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm removing her until a source is provided. Gorthuar 12:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Qel-Droma?

I see he's supposed to be named Dark Lord in the Essential Guide to the Force. Would someone provide a page reference please? I'd like to check it myself. Gorthuar 11:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Secondary title?

I know its not really brought up much in any of the canon sources as many DLOTS didn't always do this, but should it be mentioned that some Sith did take on a secondary title along with their Dark Lord title? Like Sion was the Lord of Pain, and Nihilus the Lord of Hunger? Darth Scath 07:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • It was not secondary title. Titles as lord of pain were special titles in Triumvirat. And by the way, Sion was not DLotS. Only Nihilus was but only after abandoning the triumvirat.--ScorpiO 08:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Darth Bandon

One dark lord 'Darth Bandon' is missing from the list. He was apprentice to Darth Malak.—Unsigned comment by JM2008 (talk • contribs)

  • Indeed he was Malak's apprentice. However the rule that a Dark Lord's apprentice would also bear the title of Dark Lord was introduced only 3,000 years after Darth Malak by Darth Bane. Therefore Darth Bandon is not egligible. Gorthuar 16:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Darth Ramage

What should be done about Ramage. He worked with bota which was discovered in 220 BBY during the time of Bane's Sith Order. Shouldn't he be moved from yet-to-be-known era to Bane's Sith Order on the list below Veticus?

Dathka Graush

Dathka Graush ruled *before* 7,000 BBY, and it is clearly stated that the title "Jen'ari" was created when the Dark Jedi subjugated the Sith species around 6,900 BBY, at least 100 years later. Graush could not have been a Dark Lord of the Sith; there is only one reference that could make him out to be one, but then again, he is called a "pure-blooded Sith Dark Lord," not actually a Dark Lord of the Sith. It could just mean he was a Sith Lord who was a darksider, and did not actually bear the title "Jen'ari." Indeed he is said to be a Sith King, not Dark Lord, in Shadows of Mindor, and he ruled before the Dark Jedi arrived. He cannot be a Dark Lord.

For those who say, it only said "around 7,000 BBY," and that it his reign was stated in-universe, wrong. It is also said he ruled "over 7,000 years" BBY, which means he reigned before 7,000 BBY. And his reign is stated out-of-universe. These are cold, hard facts. He also wasn't buried in the Valley of the Dark Lords, and he was a pure-blooded Sith, so he was NOT Dark Lord of the Sith. He should be removed from the list. --81.99.217.150 17:59, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • I think I agree with you....

"Dathka Graush was a pureblooded Sith Dark Lord, a conqueror whose forces won one of Korriban's cyclical civil wars over seven millennia before the Battle of Yavin. Though assassins eventually ended the Graush dynasty after fifty years of bloodshed, the Sith Lord by then controlled two-thirds of the planet." From Here: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sw20031016korriban3

Therefore, Dathka Graush started his reign of 2/3 of the planet before 7,000 BBY and ruled for 50 years, meaning his reign ended before 6,950 BBY. The problem is that he was called a "pureblooded Sith Dark Lord" and that he lived before the Jen'ari arrived on Korriban. So far I'm just repeating what you have said. Luke Skywalker and the Shadows of Mindor says that he was a Sith King as we expect him to be and was released on December 30th 2008, Korriban: Planet of Lost Souls, Part 3: The Dark Lord's Heart However was relased on October 16th 2003, which may mean that Shadows of Mindor has retconned the Wizards article which would mean Dathka is to be removed from the list of Dark Lords of the Sith. The term "Dark Lord" may just have been used to express that he was Dark hearted, evil type of person (having no heart), like using the term "Dark" and "Lord" seperately. I think it also may have been possible that the Sith were experimenting with the title of "Dark Lord" at that time, sort of an intimediate point between only Sith Kings and only Dark Lords. But we don'y know, which is why it says "Status disputed" beside his name, but if it was a retcon, then he should be removed from the list of Dark lords of the Sith. —Obi-wan Jacobi Jedi Symbol Dark Chrome 21:46, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

XoXaan

What about this girl?? She was entombed in the Valley of the Dark Lords and created her own Holocron so she must have been Dark Lord/Lady because as far as we know, only the Dark Lords were entombed there. What do you think?--ScorpiO 08:41, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Darth Malgus

Darth Malgus needs to be added as a Dark Lord of the Sith. Check the TOR article on him. --Darth Dreadwar 17:30, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

A Council divided between Ludo Kressh and Naga Sadow

[Based on recent edits]

OK, so there are 10 Sith Lords on the Sith Council around 5,000 BBY—excluding the Dark Lord of the Sith Marka Ragnos.

So, this is our Sith Council (in no specific order):

  • Simus
  • Dor Gal-ram
  • Ludo Kressh
  • Horak-mul
  • Naga Sadow
  • Unidentified Sith Council Member No. 1 (Has a golden band around his head, a translucent moustache, and a beard)
  • Unidentified Sith Council Member No. 2 (Has a blue head-piece and a ring through his nose)
  • Unidentified Sith Council Member No. 3 (Has a pony-tail with an orange and golden head-piece. Also has no eyebrow-arches, and has a bearded elongated chin with a bone pierced through it)
  • Unidentified Sith Council Member No. 4 (Has a blue head-piece and a ring pierced through his left eyebrow-arch)
  • Unidentified Sith Council Member No. 5 (Has an orange head-piece and is balding. He also has a small beard)

Then Naga Sadow kills Simus, leaving 9 members in total. Meaning we have:

  • Dor Gal-ram
  • Ludo Kressh
  • Horak-mul
  • Naga Sadow
  • Unidentified Sith Council Member No. 1
  • Unidentified Sith Council Member No. 2
  • Unidentified Sith Council Member No. 3
  • Unidentified Sith Council Member No. 4
  • Unidentified Sith Council Member No. 5

So, these are the members that can vote for the new Dark Lord of the Sith. So Sadow tricks everyone that the Republic is attacking and that they killed Simus, when he really did. Next he uses their beliefs and says, "Marka Ragnos is dead and we must choose a new Dark Lord. And it must be me.". The other Lords then begin having their say on the matter. No. 1 says, "We need a leader—and our choice is clear at last.", what he says does not specifically refer to any Sith Lord, but it is clear that he agrees that a leader is necessary to vote. No. 2 says, "Yes, we must have a new Dark Lord.", he too is agreeing that a leader is needed. No. 3 says, "We have been too long without a Dark lord of the Sith...", he is also agreeing that a new leader is necessary. Now we see the first actual specific votes when No. 4 says "The strongest of the Sith Lords! The bloodline is strong in Naga Sadow.". Obviously No. 4 is voting for Sadow as the next Dark Lord. No. 5 agrees with No. 4, saying "It must be Naga Sadow.". Dor Gal-ram is silent, not putting forward his opinions. Ludo Kressh says, "No! You must not do this! Naga Sadow will bring the Sith Empire to ruins with his actions!". Horak-mul watches Kressh as he speaks but otherwise Horak-mul does not voice his opinions.

So, we have three definite votes for Naga Sadow so far (including Sadow himself), and one definite vote against Sadow. All the other members have not voiced specifically who they want to be the Dark Lord—some we could assume are voting for Sadow, and others we could assume are voting for Kressh, but it is debatable and so cannot be called definite votes for specific people.

Next Kressh has an outburst as he is clearly outnumbered, and he smashes his sword on the table—obviously some sort of gesture of significance. He begins to leave saying, "I'll take my supporters—we will never join you in your folly! I will be the true Dark Lord!". We see him leave with Gal-ram and Horak-mul. Here we clearly see that Kressh is voting for himself as Dark Lord, and his supporters—Dor Gal-ram and Horak-mul at least—are also voting for him. Sadow then says, "We do not need Ludo Kressh and his factions. Let them go shiver in fear—while we conquer the galaxy!". Sadow is acknowledging that the Sith Council is divided between him and Kressh, and Kressh has the minority. He is also claiming that he and his followers will go on without them, with some insults thrown in for good measure. As Sadow is saying this, No. 3 and No. 2 are bowing down to Sadow on his right, and No. 4 and No. 5 are bowing down to him on his left. We don't see No. 1 at all, and so we cannot say whether he is voting for either Kressh or Sadow.

So at the end of this Sith Council meeting, we have:

  • Sadow: 5 votes
  • Kressh: 3 votes
  • One who does not make a clear vote.

To reinforce that the Council was divided we also see more of Kressh's supporters in the next issue. Kressh discovers how Sadow has tricked the Sith and calls for his supporters, and only Dor Gal-ram and Horak-mul show up—not that we know of any other Kressh supporters, but the way Horak-mul and Dor Gal-ram describe the cautions they had to take to get to Kressh makes it seem like there could have been others that didn't make it, but that is not known for sure. In the presence of Kressh, Gal-ram says, "We are taking a great risk to be seen here. The new Dark Lord knows you have spoken out against his policies.". Horak-mul says, "We have been careful to hide our own doubts about Sadow's foolish dreams of conquest.". Here it is made very clear that they are supporters of Kressh and went to great lengths to come to him on his private world of Rhelg. They also note that even though they did not agree with Sadow being the new Dark Lord, by law they had to obey him, which makes sense with what was said in a previous issue: Naga Sadow says "Marka Ragnos was the Dark Lord and I obeyed him while he lived... ... As everyone else must obey the new Dark Lord of the Sith.". Ludo Kressh, Dor Gal-ram, and Horak-mul then gather their forces and rebel against Naga Sadow after learning of his trickery.

Later, after Sadow left to try and conquer the Republic, Kressh would gain more support and be declared Dark Lord of the Sith in Sadow's absence. That is not a directly related subject.

Anyway, the conclusions are that the Sith Council was very clearly divided on who should be Dark Lord, some thinking Kressh should be Dark Lord, while others thinking Sadow should.—Obi–wan Jacobi Jedi Symbol Dark Chrome (Talk) 01:29, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Dark Lord(s) of the Sith in the resurgent Sith Empire

Say, what's with the usage of the title of Dark Lord in the resurgent Sith Empire? Somehow it seems to me that the "one-at-a-time" policy of Dark Lords of Sith was not quite observed in this time period. The Dark Council supposedly consisted of twelve Dark Lords of the Sith, with Teneb Kel, for example, actually demanding to be titled thus. However, this contradicts the previous sources establishing that there was only one Dark Lord at a time. Can anyone explain this? Imperators II 22:19, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Knight Errant era Sith

Would any of the Sith Lords in the Knight Errant series constitute "Dark Lords of the Sith"? If I recall, I seem to remember someone referring to Arkadia by that title. And these Sith aren't rulers of provinces of a larger Sith Empire, they each rule their own completely independent domains. They seem to be Dark Lords of the Sith, as they best understand it. What do you guys think? Should they (Odion, Daiman, Bactra, Arkadia, etc.) be on the list? Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 18:46, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

  • Daiman, not Arkadia. Though I really doubt that they were anything else but just Sith Lords, and I think Kaan kind of broke the tradition by proclaiming himself a Dark Lord during this era. Imperators II 19:41, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

dark council

In fatal alliance it states that the members of the dark council are dark lords.And also Teneb Kel demands to be granted the title of dark lord when the sith emperor was the dark lord.

Dark Lords from the reformated Sith Empire

I believe we should make some changes to this page. We know now, that the usage of the title of Dark Lord is different here. In this Empire, all the members of the Dark Council have the title and I think, it should be mantioned here on this page. It is similiar to Brotherhood of Darkness, where every "Dark Lord" is mentioned. So what is Your oppinion?--ScorpiO 09:34, December 25, 2011 (UTC)

Since there was no responce, I took liberty to edit the page myself. Now, there is a section for "Reformed Sith Empire" with all the Dark Lords from the Dark Council and I also added all the Darths from The Rule of Two, known from the novel of Darth Plagueis.--ScorpiO 09:42, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Darth Andeddu

Darth Andeddu was not a member of the old sith empire, and he was a Dark Lord of the Sith after it was destroyed. He have to be removed from where it is. Probably he existed some time before Freedon Nadd, but sure that after Ludo Kressh and Naga Sadow. Read the article.

Appearances

The "appearances" section lists episodes IV, V, & VI. The "Dark Lord of the Sith" concept didn't appear in those movies. I don't think they ever mentioned "Sith." What's that about? - Starfield 19:50, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Dark Lord of the Sith appears in the original trilogy, simply because Palpatine and Darth Vader are Dark Lords of the Sith, and I think the novelizations mention Sith. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 21:29, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Darth Freaking Nihl!

Darth Nihl is stated in his article as dark lord of the sith after Krayt. WTF --Emperordmb 13:30, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

And you chose to comment on that on this article's talk page instead of that one because....? – DigiFluid 13:36, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing problems

The Star Wars Encyclopedia, the source supposedly placing Darth Andeddu in the ancient Sith Empire was published in 1998, well before Andeddu's first actual appearence in Republic 63: Striking from the Shadows published in 2004! It is therefore impossible for it to actually be considered a source in this matter.

Likewise, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic supposedly naming Darth Sion a Dark Lord of the Sith, does not actually feature this character. His first actuall appearence was in it's sequel Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords, which does not call him a Dark Lord.

Unless accurate sources are provided within, let's say a week, I will be forced to remove Sion from the list and move Andeddu to an "unspecified period".79.191.20.100 12:10, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

  • Umm... no. Sion is most definitely a Dark Lord of the Sith - that's inherent in the title of Darth. While not all Dark Lords of the Sith are Darths, all Darths are Dark Lords. And as for Andeddu, it's been established that he lived sometime during the original Sith Empire. You aren't "forced" to do anything, since neither of them are incorrect—I changed the correct source for Sion to KOTOR II. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 15:17, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
    • You are sadly mistaken concerning the meaning of the Darth title. Unless you care to provide a source to back your claims up? And Andeddu is still improperly sourced, meaning I will be forced to move him to a different section of the list after all.79.191.20.100 20:45, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
      • It really doesn't matter whether I'm right or wrong about the title of Darth. Regardless, you are not forced to do anything. Just because Andeddu didn't appear until that comic doesn't been the source doesn't count. Why don't you actually read Andeddu's article—it should clear up some of your confusion. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 20:58, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
I don't even understand what you're talking about.
Sion, Darth Sion, is a Dark Lord. This is fact. He was a member of the Sith Triumvirate alongside Darths Nihilus and Trayus. Whether he was subservient to one or both of them is immaterial, he was still a Dark Lord of the Sith (in the same way, for instance, that Darth Vader was 'Dark Lord of the Sith' even though he never rose above being Darth Sidious' apprentice).
As far as Andeddu, please clarify what you're even talking about before you–a new member who hasn't even taken the 5 minutes to register–take it upon yourself to disrupt seven years of work by dozens of users.
And be aware that unexplained removals of or alterations to existing article material is wont to be reverted immediately and the offending party questioned for vandalism. — DigiFluid 21:14, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
My point exactly, Digimon. Just didn't know how to say it. :) Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit
    • Darth does not equal Dark Lord of the Sith, as this very article clearly states. As does the article on Darth. Therefore the mere fact of Sion being a Darth does not make him a Dark Lord. A proper source is required, or I shall be forced to remove him from the list.

Now, regarding Andeddu: nowhere is it mentioned that he's a member of the ancient Sith Empire (that spanning form Ajunta Pall to Naga Sadow). Not in his article here on Wookieepedia, and not in the source given in this article. A proper source is required, or I shall be forced to move him to a different section of the list.79.191.32.181 17:59, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

  • It seems to me that the general consensus seems to be against your claims. DigiFluid has made very good valid points, and I don't see anything particular pointing towards him being wrong. Maybe you should back up your claims with some good proof. 1358 (Talk) 18:26, May 7, 2012 (UTC)
  • You are not forced to do anything. As Digi said, your edits will likely just be reverted, since they are not beneficial and the editors have worked hard to create this list. Notice that the section title is "From the Hundred-Year Darkness to the Great Hyperspace War", not "Dark Lords of the Sith Empire". We are going off what time he lived in, not what he was affiliated with. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 18:31, May 7, 2012 (UTC)
    • You see nothing pointing toward DigiFluid being wrong, eh? Well, read the article we're discussing. And then read the Darth article. Both provide plenty of information pointing toward him being wrong. And concerning Darth Andeddu, there is nothing in the source given in this article that would place him between the Hundred-Year Darkness and the Great Hyperspace War either. His article also lacks such information. As do all his appearences in Star Wars media. The general consensus might be against my claims, but that does not change the fact that I am right and you are wrong. Why won't you read the articles I'm asking you to is beyond me. So, unless proper sources to the claims made in the list are provided, I will be forced to edit it.79.191.32.181 19:07, May 7, 2012 (UTC)
"Darth" is synonymous with Dark Lord. This is an established fact of the SW universe, from the films right down the minutiae of reference guides; and as a dark side practitioner and co-leader of the Sith Triumvirate, this makes Darth Sion a DLotS. I don't know what else to tell you, other than flat out: deal with it, this is factual information. Likewise, if you'd bothered to read the very articles you're carrying on about, you'd have found that Andeddu's status as a member of the Old Sith Empire is stated and cited, from the Complete Encyclopedia, Dynasty of Evil, and Legacy 27.
As this is an open encyclopedia, you are welcome to make edits. But ensure that they are factual and sourced. Rewriting existing, cited material to suit your own misguided, belligerent crusade will be reverted for vandalism and you will be treated as such. — DigiFluid 20:15, May 7, 2012 (UTC)
    • Darth is not synonymous with Dark Lord. Many "regular" Sith Lords held the title. The Lords of the One Sith as well as the Lords of Vitiate's Empire. Darth Malak before he, to quote him, "stole the mantle of Dark Lord" from Darth Revan. Malak's apprentice Darth Bandon. And so on. And regarding Darth Andeddu, Legacy 27 never states he lived between the Hundred-Years Darkness and the Great Hyperspace War. I just paged through the issue. I will check the Complete Encyclopedia and Dynasty of Evil as soon as I borrow the Insider and the book from a friend. Congratulations, you have bought yourself some time in Andeddu's case. However, do note that while his article says he lived after the Hundred-Years Darkness, it does not state he lived before the Great Hyperspace War. So no source from his article backs that claim up. 79.191.32.181 20:55, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

We're Missing a Few

It is clearly stated that Darth Zannah succeed Bane, and she by Darth Cognus. Later on we have Darth Gravid followed by Darth Gean. All of them were identified as dark lord. Period. Not debatable. Yet none of them are listed here. —Unsigned comment by Greyconsular (talk • contribs)

One More Thing

I agree that Traya, Nihilus and Sion were never dark lord. At this time, Vitiate was dark lord. But this brings up another problem. How are triumvirate people different from Revan and Malak? True, it was more clear who was in charge when between them, but if that's what you're leaning, sorry, it's beside the point. Vitiate proclaimed himself emperor and dark lord long before all five of them, was dark lord during all of their reigns, and was dark lord long after all of them. I know, Revan was one of the true greats, but that alone doesn't make him dark lord. We need to be consistent; if Traya, Nihilus, and Sion, don't count, Revan and Malak shouldn't either. —Unsigned comment by Greyconsular (talk • contribs)