Why Snoke is a Sith

Ventress is referred to as an acolyte of the dark side, and she never becomes a Sith. Sidious did know about her, as he was the one who approved of her recruitment and ordered her execution.

Can you not comprehend the concept of a prequel? A prequel adds backstory and inevitably retcons earlier material. It doesn't matter what Lucas thought at the time of the originals, all that matters is what he settled on in the long run. The rule of two exists and the Sith are extinct: that is 100% canon!

The religion line refers to Vader being the only remaining remnant of the Jedi order, it does not refer to the Sith.

 

The way I see it, Snoke isn't a Sith but the KOR emulate them. Also, Snoke has a very specific hatred of Luke and not the jedi as a whole as far as we know. Also The Sith are confirmed to be extinct so why would we be blatantly lied to our faces
?

 

1. Pretty much any "point" you've made in this thread, you've been willing to remove from context to strengthen a flimsy argument. The reasons you offer, as have been pointed out numerous times could be used to prove any number of unrelated and equally unlikely arguments. You are a poor debater who has made a weak argument. You'll use the EU to "back up" your claim, but when others place it within context, you claim "we aren't talking about the eu." you use a clip from the PT to emphasise your argument, but when others site a wealth of information from the PT that refutes you, or point to your misuse of the clip, you move the goal posts and say "we aren't talking about the PT." you can't have it both ways. You would be laughed out of a debate class.

2. Clouded is a neutral rating and it is a charitable way to describe your handling of the discussion. You also made remarks about another poster's mother. That is trolling to a t. For my part, I've rated you clouded not because i disagree with you, but because your reasoning and logic are just that- clouded.

3. You're right no one is forcing anyone to discuss this subject, but since you posted it on a discussion forum, it was assumed you'd want to discuss it. Discussion is made healthier by dissenting opinions. Rather than have a logical discourse, you've changed "rules of engagement" to suit you, and repeated debunked illogical arguments.

4. Regarding points of substance, i don't think i should have to point out the irony of you making this statement.

While i appreciate that your point of view differs from many here, i don't feel that you're willing to have a constructive dialogue on the topic and that's unfortunate.

 

In Season 6 of TCW, Bane elaborated that the Sith's initial defeat at the hands of the Jedi had a lot to do with the fact that Sith philosophy does a great job of promoting a social Darwinian society in which members are constantly competing with and trying to get the upper hand over each other... but this leaves them divided and less than willing to trust each other. Bane survived the fall of the Sith Order and reorganized it so that there was only two "true" Sith at a time, recognized by the title of Darth.

Ventress was not a Sith; She was never referred to as Darth. Dooku acquired her as a agent and, yes, an apprentice. She was not a Sith Lord, but it's likely to assume that if Dooku had ever made a move to kill Sidious, he would have recognized her as a Sith Lord and given her the title/name of Darth, along with a new moniker.

Precisely where Maul falls into this is a little unclear. Everybody assumed he died, so Sidious replaced him, but Maul considered himself and his brother/apprentice Savage to be Sith as well. I think if Maul had killed Dooku, Sidious may have accepted him once more, but the situation seems to echo the condition of the old Sith. I think it's safe to say that Maul no longer considers himself a Sith by the time of Rebels, just as Asohka considers herself to no longer be a Jedi.

 

That's not the one I'm referring to. I'm referring to Tarkin's conversation with Vader about Obi-Wan.

The Jedi never met the Sith, or any that discovered them were eliminated before they could report their discovery.

 

I'm not sure I understand the question. He was a Sith Lord in TPM, then got replaced by Darth Tyrannus. He tried to establish himself as a rival Sith Lord, but Sidious wasn't having any of that and smacked him down real quick. At this point, I think Maul kind of abandoned the Sith and set off on his own agenda of vengeance. He's obviously still a Dark Side user ("Dark Jedi," if that term still sticks in canon), but he certainly sees himself in opposition to the Sith.

 

No. It's quite simple. Maul was a Sith. He was presumed dead and replaced.

The existing Sith no longer acknowledged him as Sith when he returned during the clone wars. He attempted to usurp the Sith order and failed.

By the time of rebels, he no longer self identifies as Sith ( he felt betrayed etc), nor is he recognized as a Sith by the existing Sith.

He is a free agent acting of his own volition with an extensive Sith background, but no longer considers himself a Sith.

 

Originally, George had Maul die. But so many fans were disappointed with this turn of events that writers started coming up with ways to include Maul in stories set after TPM: Force ghost, holocron simulacrum, what have you. Then, there was a one-shot non-canon comic that depicted Maul as having survived getting cut in half and the fall down the reactor shaft, and had a pair of robotic legs. He tracked Obi-wan to Tatooine and dueled him after RotS, only to get shot and finally killed by Owen with a blaster. The image became very iconic in the fandom.

I guess George liked the design so much that he asked the creators of TCW to include Maul in the show, basically saying that he survived. This is treated as an in-universe surprise; Obi-wan is initially skeptical when Maul reveals himself to the Jedi once again, but accepts it when Maul mentions killing Qui-gon. The creators of TCW came up with the explanation that Maul's absolute hatred for Obi-wan was so great that it allowed him to use the Dark Side to preserve his life, but his sanity took a hit because of it, and he spent over a decade on a garbage planet wishing for revenge and built himself some robotic legs.

Long story short, Maul was dead, but then George realized what a bad move it had been to kill him off, and made him alive again.

 

Yeah he is the last jedi UNTIL he trains more and taht is why there is a specific hatred towards him from Snoke and not the entire academy who are used as pawns...the sith were thought to be extinct but were officially extinct when the rule of two died.

 

Are you aware... of what a "Retcon" is?

When the original trilogy... was first made, there was no Rule of Two concieved by George Lucas.

But when he backwrote the prequels, he retroactively changed the continuity (ret-con)

Canonically in-universe the Rule of Two existed an was being enforced during the original trilogy, George Lucas hadnt thought of it at the time though and was a hastily cobbled-together rationalization for why there werent more dark force users during the original trilogy.

in-universe the rule of two was in effect.

(Edited by @jmjawors)

 

1. yes... palpatine and Vader are sith.

2. yes the jedi didnt know about them, they believed the Sith were exinct... they knew the sith existed before their presumed extinction though

3. correct, george lucas wrote the prequels.

4. No events happened in the E.U. with the Jedi Facing the sith in that intervening time period except for them learning that Darth Bane survived and established the rule of two.

5. This is not a paradox... the Sith existed in hiding.

This is established in The Phantom Menace.

And elaborated upon in Star Wars: The Clone Wars, which is not part of the original expanded universe... it is part of the new canon universe.

AS this clip shows... Yoda knew about the Rule of Two before this scene. And it explains why he created the rule of two, because infighting ultimately destroyed the sith.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 5, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 5, 2016 ---

There is a master, and an apprentice, the apprentice is supposed to grow in power until he kills his master and then take on his own apprentice... passing out the teachings from one sith too thte next over the generations.

It is a lineage of ideology passed on from one too the next.... the rule of two states ther can be only two living sith, not "only two sith ever"

What did you think the rule of two was???

 

BTW shut the hell up about the Expanded Universe, it was a continuity that was ended and rebranded as "legends".

Now all material post april 2014 is considered canon unless otherwise stated by Lucasfilm, as is approved of and edited by the lucasfilm story group. And there was no conflicts beetween sith or jedi in canon OR legends regarding the intervening 1000 years that you keep discussing.

Just because the Sith existed during this time does not mean there was conflcit, the SITH WERE SPECIFICALLY TRYING TO KEEP THE JEDI FROM LEARNING ABOUT THEM