Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Who/whatever Kylo Ren is, he certainly seems to be a part of either the Empire or this 'First Order', rather than just one guy on his own; in the brief shots of him in the last trailer, he's leading Stormtroopers in to battle. To me, that suggests something more formal in role than just a solo Force User using the Dark Side (although oddly enough, the first trailer did have him alone, limping along and with the seemingly cobbled together lightsabre).

Could he perhaps hold a position similar to Assaj Ventris/Savage Oppress/The Inquisitor, being a Sith-trained operative employed as an assassin/taskforce leader, but not a Sith himself by any stretch? Perhaps the new incarnation of The Empire, post-Sidious, felt they needed someone who could inspire the same fear and hold the same position as Vader did to The Emperor, their Right Hand and Executioner while the (presumably non-Sith) leaders of the Empire command from on high?

 Hordini wrote:
Would you consider non-Sith Dark Jedi to be Sith wannabes, or their own thing? (I realize I might be splitting hairs here).

"Jedi" and "Sith" refer to organizational affiliations. A dark Jedi is a someone who was/is a part of the Jedi Order but turned to the dark side. Asajj Ventress is a dark Jedi but not a Sith -- at least to my knowledge she was never inducted into the Sith. What I mean by Sith-wannabe is somebody, regardless of what kind of training they do or don't have, who thinks of himself as Sith and wants to be thought of as Sith by others but who has never been inducted. I'd say, at various points in her life, Asajj Ventress qualified as a Sith-wannabe.

 Sturmtruppen wrote:
Well remember that in the original trilogy, the word "Sith" isn't even used, and only Darth Vader has the title of "Darth". Until the prequels, the word Sith only appeared on a trading card referring to Darth Vader as "The Dark Lord of the Sith". Due to the lack of context on the meaning behind this, Timothy Zahn originally planned to have the Noghri be called the Sith. It wasn't until the prequel trilogy that Sith and Darth were used as the dark-side equivalent of Jedi - which means either Kylo Ren ain't a Sith because he ain't a Darth, or Disney are so determined to break connections with the prequels that they've ditched the whole concept of Sith and Darth as titles.

If they take SWTOR as a piece of "Canon" then we could see a bit of a return to using Sith to more specifically describe the presumed extinct race of Dark Side Force users known as the Sith.

What we do know of the "Sith" from the Original trilogy is that a person/being who uses the Dark Side of the Force will "give up" their given name, and assume a new identity. We know this at least from Empire, due to what is said in ANH as well as Empire... IE. Luke knows his father's name was Anakin, who was "killed" by Darth Vader, but with the revelation that Vader IS Skywalker Sr. we can make the logical conclusion that at some point he ditched his given name and assumed the name of Vader. We can also see this in the prequels with Sidious and Palpatine (though I do wish that could have been handled better).

That "give up your name" thing does certainly seem to be the case.

For example there's also the bit in Jedi where Luke meets Vader on Endor and Luke says to him "I accept that you were once the Jedi Anakin Skywalker, my father" (or something like that) to which Vader replies "That name no longer has any meaning to me" (or something like that, again).

I think the title Dark Lord of the Sith first showed up in the novelization of ANH. And there was no explanation of it until Dark Horse decided the Sith were a race of people whose leaders used the dark side of the force. It wasn't until Episode I that "Darth" turned out to be a title. That's when all this Rule of Two BS became a thing. It was also the first time there was any clue that Palpatine might be Sith, IIRC.

 Manchu wrote:
I think the title Dark Lord of the Sith first showed up in the novelization of ANH. And there was no explanation of it until Dark Horse decided the Sith were a race of people whose leaders used the dark side of the force. It wasn't until Episode I that "Darth" turned out to be a title. That's when all this Rule of Two BS became a thing. It was also the first time there was any clue that Palpatine might be Sith, IIRC.

Lol, I get that there are some people who dislike the "Rule of Two", but I think it really makes the most sense to oppose the ideals of the Jedi.

How so?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I think the title Dark Lord of the Sith first showed up in the novelization of ANH. And there was no explanation of it until Dark Horse decided the Sith were a race of people whose leaders used the dark side of the force. It wasn't until Episode I that "Darth" turned out to be a title. That's when all this Rule of Two BS became a thing. It was also the first time there was any clue that Palpatine might be Sith, IIRC.

Lol, I get that there are some people who dislike the "Rule of Two", but I think it really makes the most sense to oppose the ideals of the Jedi.

I think the rule of two is a ridiculous concept and makes the Jedi as an organization look incredibly incompetent.

 Manchu wrote:
How so?

As I said earlier (or maybe it was the other SW thread, lol)... The Light Side thrives on harmony and cooperation, it's power seems to be boosted and magnified the larger and more cohesive in purpose the group of "Jedi" are. If there is an eternal balance in the Force, then the Dark side, MUST thrive on the opposite of harmony and cooperation.... It rewards and thrives off of passion and ambition, cunning and some would say "backstabbing" or scheming. As such, IMO, the Dark Side would be more powerful if concentrated in fewer beings. As it stands in our existing lore and the EU, the Dark Side seems to always fall because it could never unite, the Sith Empires always fell apart from within just as much as from without.... If there's only Two "Sith" in the galaxy (One to have the power, one to crave it) then the Dark Side is about as concentrated as it gets, yet it still is working in it's designed and balanced manner in opposition to the Light Side.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
How so?

As I said earlier (or maybe it was the other SW thread, lol)... The Light Side thrives on harmony and cooperation, it's power seems to be boosted and magnified the larger and more cohesive in purpose the group of "Jedi" are. If there is an eternal balance in the Force, then the Dark side, MUST thrive on the opposite of harmony and cooperation.... It rewards and thrives off of passion and ambition, cunning and some would say "backstabbing" or scheming. As such, IMO, the Dark Side would be more powerful if concentrated in fewer beings. As it stands in our existing lore and the EU, the Dark Side seems to always fall because it could never unite, the Sith Empires always fell apart from within just as much as from without.... If there's only Two "Sith" in the galaxy (One to have the power, one to crave it) then the Dark Side is about as concentrated as it gets, yet it still is working in it's designed and balanced manner in opposition to the Light Side.

If the dark side thrives off of passion, ambition, cunning, backstabbing, and generally not cooperating, why would you expect that they would all cooperate and agree to follow the rule of two?

I don't think the light side and dark side themselves strengthen or weaken. What seems to happen is, a being's ability to connect with the Force can be strong or weak. A bunch of Jedi working together do not necessarily have a strong connection to the Force. In the PT, 99% of Jedi seem to be on the same page but their connection to the Force was so weak that they could not figure out Palpatine was a Sith Lord.

 Hordini wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I think the title Dark Lord of the Sith first showed up in the novelization of ANH. And there was no explanation of it until Dark Horse decided the Sith were a race of people whose leaders used the dark side of the force. It wasn't until Episode I that "Darth" turned out to be a title. That's when all this Rule of Two BS became a thing. It was also the first time there was any clue that Palpatine might be Sith, IIRC.

Lol, I get that there are some people who dislike the "Rule of Two", but I think it really makes the most sense to oppose the ideals of the Jedi.

I think the rule of two is a ridiculous concept and makes the Jedi as an organization look incredibly incompetent.

I never considered Yoda's line about "always two there are..." as a rule. I saw it as a wise proverb that basically says "this bad dude wasn't acting alone." The question he was asking being: was Maul in charge, or was he following someone else?

Well the Inquisitor demonstrates that it is still canon for non-Sith dark side users to exist.

Sith is just a title. An important one to be sure. The Rule of Two ensures that only two can ever claim the title Dark Lord of the Sith, at least without the other claimants putting a giant bulls-eye on your back.

You can be a dark side user and as long as you don't claim to be Sith you aren't going to get hunted down by the others(at least necessarily)

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I never considered Yoda's line about "always two there are..." as a rule.

Yep it is a literal rule.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rule_of_Two/Canon

 Hordini wrote:

If the dark side thrives off of passion, ambition, cunning, backstabbing, and generally not cooperating, why would you expect that they would all cooperate and agree to follow the rule of two?

Most of the time, they don't. Secret Apprentices were de rigure among Sith lords.

However, the Rule of Two was only followed (in theory) by the followers of Darth Bane. Everyone else pretty much did whatever it was they wanted. On occasion there were several organizations and political entities all claiming the 'Sith' mantel at the same time, including two separate Sith Empires at one point.

If we're bringing EU concepts into the discussion, Palpatine was not a follower of the rule of two anyway.He was trained to be by Plaguis, but had personally never bought into the concept.

To wit, his intention was to live forever and always be the DlotS. Vader, Luke, Dooku and all the other apprentices and hands he trained were just tools.

Bane and the Rule of Two are canon thanks to the the Prequel trilogy and the Clone Wars cartoon

 BlaxicanX wrote:
If we're bringing EU concepts into the discussion, Palpatine was not a follower of the rule of two anyway.He was trained to be by Plaguis, but had personally never bought into the concept.

To wit, his intention was to live forever and always be the DlotS. Vader, Luke, Dooku and all the other apprentices and hands he trained were just tools.

Lets be fair here, every Sith lord intends to keep his throne forever. Palpatine just happened to have the requisite immortality, but that doesn't mean that every Sith Lord is just going to roll over when his Apprentice comes to overthrow him.

Yeah I thought that was part of the point of the rule. You only get to be Dark Lord if you earn it ... by murder.

Few Sith Lords intend to keep the throne forever, they just try to, which isn't exactly the same thing. Sith Lords train their apprentices to become as powerful as possible with the understanding that eventually there will be a showdown between them, and either they'll win and find a new apprentice who's "worthy", or they'll die and the apprentice will become the new Sith Lord.

Palpatine was unique in that he went out of his way to rig the game from the start, sabotaging his apprentices and stunting their growth so that they could never challenge him. That's the part that directly contradicts the Rule of Two.

Its more that most of them accept in the back of their minds they're gonna die eventually, its just they all intend on saying "Not today!" each and every day. Including the day their apprentice murders them.

 Manchu wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I never considered Yoda's line about "always two there are..." as a rule.

Yep it is a literal rule.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rule_of_Two/Canon

But didnt Vader and Palpatine still have their own separate apprentices on the side as well?

The Empire had dark side force users who were beholden to the Emperor/Vader, but none of them were Sith.

Vader was the only one who took on an actual apprentice.

But he did not induct him into the Sith.

 Paradigm wrote:
Who/whatever Kylo Ren is, he certainly seems to be a part of either the Empire or this 'First Order', rather than just one guy on his own; in the brief shots of him in the last trailer, he's leading Stormtroopers in to battle.

Is he though? I mean we see a half second flash of him swinging a lightsaber, and another of some stormies turning around as he does some kind of force push/pull thing. Who's to say he isn't a lone operative, those stormies had secured an artifact he wanted, and he had just force-jumped off a ledge above, landed, and started throwing punks around/hacking them up. I'd prefer him not to be associated to be honest, I'd rather a third party who can be a spanner in the works of either side, with their own goals, as opposed to just two sides lining up, each with their own force users, and having at it.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Vader was the only one who took on an actual apprentice.

If you follow the EU book, "Darth Plagueis" as being canon (it isn't really), then Palpatine took an apprentice while still an apprentice himself.... At the point in PM where Maul is revealed, Darth Plagueis for whatever reason, believes that Maul is merely Palpatine's force trained "attack dog" and not actually an apprentice.

But as far as we know, Palpatine didn't take another apprentice while Emperor and while having Vader around. Really, it seems that both Sidious and Vader weren't above bending the Rule of Two in the aims of becoming the Dark Lord himself (as the Force Unleashed games, Vader, IIRC tells you that together you'll take out Palpatine, then in Empire, and RotJ he talks to Luke about destroying the big E together and ruling as father and son)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Vader was the only one who took on an actual apprentice.

If you follow the EU book, "Darth Plagueis" as being canon (it isn't really), then Palpatine took an apprentice while still an apprentice himself.... At the point in PM where Maul is revealed, Darth Plagueis for whatever reason, believes that Maul is merely Palpatine's force trained "attack dog" and not actually an apprentice.

But as far as we know, Palpatine didn't take another apprentice while Emperor and while having Vader around. Really, it seems that both Sidious and Vader weren't above bending the Rule of Two in the aims of becoming the Dark Lord himself (as the Force Unleashed games, Vader, IIRC tells you that together you'll take out Palpatine, then in Empire, and RotJ he talks to Luke about destroying the big E together and ruling as father and son)

I did mean while he was Emperor.

It seems that the normal progression is the Apprentice takes on an Apprentice of his own when he is seeking to overthrow his master.

Seems like the Sith like to keep other Sith around by simply hand waving them away as "not really being Sith, maybe I'll Darth-Something them later but until then they are totally non-Sith, promise". Of course that kind of scheming is what led to the Rule of Two in the first place.

I think it still led to less internal conflict, so it did have the desired effect.

I don't think he was under the impression it would eliminate the conflict, just reduce it.

 BlaxicanX wrote:


Palpatine was unique in that he went out of his way to rig the game from the start, sabotaging his apprentices and stunting their growth so that they could never challenge him. That's the part that directly contradicts the Rule of Two.

Palpatine never really took on proper apprentices besides Maul and Vader, his force trained operatives like the Hands (Mara Jade, et al) were never trained to the levels of full Jedi or Sith, they were given the tools they needed to carry out their missions, usually focused around espionage and some things to enhance their combat potential, and little else in the way of development or training, which would then be purposefully stifled by Palpatine. Again, ex: Mara Jade, who became an extremely capable Jedi Knight and later Master but was developmentally stunted, most likely artificially, while serving as a Hand.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its more that most of them accept in the back of their minds they're gonna die eventually, its just they all intend on saying "Not today!" each and every day. Including the day their apprentice murders them.

I'd kinda guess that's how the apprentices feel about their masters too. "Good night Anakin, I'll likely kill you in the morning"