Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
  • Announcement

    Welcome to the new forums!


DS: Dark Side Legion Designation Discussion


Recommended Posts

I currently do not have a dog in this hunt, but I have had Lady Lumiya on my list for many years. As a "Dark Lady of the Sith" and the progenitor of Darth Caedus, I would hope that she is not disqualified as a Sith Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Lastly, I want to assure everyone reading that there was no intentional slight by the Legion Command by not communicating their intention to change some of the designations of characters discussed in our detachment in the Legion Database.


The driving force behind the change was to make sense out of a designation system that has steadily been growing outdated and obsolete. It is by coincidence that all of the affected characters happen to be represented on The Flagship Eclipse.


One of our webmasters had advance notice of this discussion and argued against it in the hidden LMO forum. (I do not have access to the LMO forum.) The Legion Web Deputy assumed that all pertinent parties would be notified. LMO Damian Jorgensen had been sharing his reasoning with LMO Kenneth Seymour and the Legion Webteam, then they moved the discussion to the Detachment Leader board. (Only a few Detachment Leaders post to the DL Board with regularity. Some Detachments Leaders have never used the board.)


I feel I should have been notified, but I understand how LMO Jorgensen could have missed this as being of concern to our detachment. I consider the discussion open, and I am still requesting that the DS designation be undone. At least until a holistic review of the entire designation system can be sorted and all of membership be polled for ratification.


This may not come to pass. It is not my decision. But I do know Damian and I feel he is reasonable. Please do not worry yourselves excessively. Your concerns are being noted and will be shared for due consideration.


Good night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good day to all!


I just saw what had happened.


I absolutely don't agree with this decision.

First, I don't understand why the issue wasn't raised in the council? Why it looks like a whim a few people?

Secondly, why wasn't voting?

Thirdly, why nobody warned owners of such chars?


Well, in a quote Damien already have a contradiction:


these are the currently approved characters which are "non"-sith lords...


Lumiya (Dark Lady of the Sith)


That is the Lady - it's not female analogue of Lord? This smacks of discrimination!


Exar Kun also suddenly has no title Darth. He is dark sider but not a Sith Lord? Ludo Kresh, Freedon Nadd.


I currently do not have a dog in this hunt, but I have had Lady Lumiya on my list for many years. As a "Dark Lady of the Sith" and the progenitor of Darth Caedus, I would hope that she is not disqualified as a Sith Lord.


Already did


Sincerely, Alyona

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good morning,


Here and in a private message DAngel has alleged three accusations that I would like to disabuse us all of.


1. The Legion Membership Officers did not do this in secret. Damian posted to both the hidden LMO board and then the Detachment Leader forum. He did fail to secure acknowledgement of the proposition, and may have caused undo grievance by putting his proposition into effect without notice. (see thread summary below.)

2. This change does not make members second class citizens. If you thought having the SL before your title put you above anyone else in the Legion, you are sadly mistaken. If you did not then ¿why would a new designation be seen as anything less?

3. Not equating Lady with Lord and/or not recognizing the significance of the title of Mother in Mother Talzin is not discrimination. It is simply poor Star Wars Expanded Universe scholarship. ¡Hell, I will confess to being confused about it all and EU is what I do! Input should have been sought to help with this, but the decision was most certainly not a deliberate attempt at discrimination.




I have reread the thread in the Detachment Leader board. The following is a link to the same thread. Only Legion Council Members, Legion Command Staff, and Detachment Leaders will be able to view its contents;

Letter Designations... Questions 1,2,3,...4...

Here is my synopsis for those who do not have access;


I missed this thread and though the very first folk to be affected were all from the Detachment I represent, no one thought to send me a heads up. That is OK. That happens. Our Legion Web Deputy’s wife is in The Flagship Eclipse. He expressed his objections to the Dark Side designation in the hidden LMO board but was “outvoted.” He assumed that I had been notified and did not see this thread in the Detachment Leader Board.


LMO Damian advanced the thread to the Detachment Leaders board on 30.Aug.2013. He introduced the concept of reassigning, changing, and adding Legion ID prefixes all across the Legion, not just in SL.


Aside from bragging rights of having assembled a concept trooper kit, most every member of the Legion Council appeared to ignore this this thread. (The Kevin Weir’s concept armour is a well made kit and I fully appreciate the excitement over it.) To their credit, many other DL’s caught this thread and commented. And for the first three pages I see many of those DL's argued against changing prefixes. Then the discussion becomes sporatic;


16.Nov.2013 Damian makes his first response since introducing this topic. Rather than respond to the critics of the the idea, Damian posted his proposal to reassign characters in the SL. (All of which happen to be covered by TFE.) NO ONE RESPONDS. Instead there was banter about the concept trooper armour for the next page and a half.


30.Nov.2013 Damian posted that his proposal–now without a single response from the DLs–was moving forward, possibly under the name DA for Dark Side Adept. Damian then asked how the forum for ideas on how those affected should be notified. He suggests announcements on the respective detachments. There are no replies to this post.


25.Dec.2013 The only post to follow Damian’s last post is Damian himself stating that the change in designations has been made. FISD and BHG DL’s respond with “Thanks for the heads up” and “Sounds Good to me.”


17.Jan.2013 I make the next three posts to the thread, first stating my confusion, second questioning if we should do this after all, and third requesting a moratorium on these changes.



Gosh, looking back at the thread blow by blow I feel a number of mistakes were made. And mistakes happen but in light of member response and basic failure of communication I have formally requested that the DS designation change be rescinded and that members be restored to their SL designations.


I appreciate the intent behind the change, but I feel the way this was was done does not benefit the 501st Legion as a whole. I do not have the authority to insist upon reverting the SL designation as it was, but I would hope that the Legion Membership Officers review this very thread and perhaps come to a similar conclusion.


Be well,


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daritha

Hi there, long time no see. I warn you, I'm not up to speed with the discussion, so maybe some minor glitches may be encountered in my argumentation. Still, I'd like to chip in on this one (coming out of my self-exile here :)) ):


these are the currently approved characters which are "non"-sith lords...


Lumiya (Dark Lady of the Sith)


That is the Lady - it's not female analogue of Lord? This smacks of discrimination!


Exar Kun also suddenly has no title Darth. He is dark sider but not a Sith Lord? Ludo Kresh, Freedon Nadd.


I currently do not have a dog in this hunt, but I have had Lady Lumiya on my list for many years. As a "Dark Lady of the Sith" and the progenitor of Darth Caedus, I would hope that she is not disqualified as a Sith Lord.


Already did


Sincerely, Alyona

Here it gets very complicated. Lumiya is a Dark Lady of the Sith but never had the proper training and was in the same lineage like Darth Sidious or Vader. I myself would consider her a Sith Lord/Lady but there are even more complicated things out there:


Let's just disregard the Darth honorific for it doesn't tell if you are a Sith Lord or not. It is a purely honorific title. Marka Ragnos, Naga Sadow, Freedon Nadd and even Ajunta Pall were Sith Lords but none bore the title Darth. They would be considered Sith Lords and if possible, would be attributed the SL shortage.


What about Darth Krayt? He was - from the original Sith Lords themselves - denied to be a Sith. A would-be Sith as I recall. Would he be Sith or not? And with Starkiller and the entourage, it's even more complicated since storytelling isn't always that straight to say if one's a Sith Lord or even a Sith.


My 2 cents: SL is already in wide use, just stick with it. It's due to history, so in the end it doesn't matter if you are a Sith, a Nightsister or -brother or even a Shaper of Kro Var or an Ember of Vahl. These are dark side organizations - and of course it would make more sense to DS them, but the SL acronym is in widespread use. It wouldn't change anything to change that denonym now - especially when we all have to fear to be "out-canoned" soon. Then, we would have to make some changes anyway, but why now?


That ugly episode is now behind us and the SLD of today openly welcomes our most popular characters. This is the way it should have always been. One imaginary spaceman is no more and no less “true” than another imaginary spaceman. As a Legion we should celebrate and bond together.




I am olde guard. I am not about to recommend EU characters be reassigned to another detachment on a whim. I will listen to the detachment as a whole and report your will to the LMO, but I stand against hopping ship. I am proud of the work this Detachment has achieved. I hope even our newer members can appreciate the efforts of The Flagship Eclipse and share in that pride.


Be well,


Hear, hear! Couldn't have said it any better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again thank you so much sir for the hard work, time and dedication you have put fourth to this effort. I hope that they can reach a decision on this subject matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is in charge of decisions like this according to our 501st rules? Does it say?


Why did this come up? What is going to be better by changing the prefixes?

A clerical review to serve visitors of our homepage? Where there any complaints? What about our members and their views?

Technically it shouldn't be a problem to filter costumes by prefixes or costume names, appearances in movies or comics or games, male, female, aliens,.... or colors of their eyes or noses... if wanted! (Maybe this is what is a little “out of service”?) :wut:


I'm glad Darth Maladi stays SL & Moff Nyna Calixte ID.

For my Mother Talzin I think DS is OK, but so is SL. (By the way: Mother Talzin has quite some pages in “the Book of Sith”.) :werock:

A lot of other costumes I'm not sure about neither nor.



I think, new prefixes should be at least discussed (and voted on) for each and every costume separately by the costume owner(s) and/or the PIC for approvals & detachment leaders involved.

Being surprised by the decision put into practice (without any notice to the members or leaders of detachments or garrisons) doesn't feel right. :wow:


I understand that the old system might be a little obsolete but then I don't think prefixes should be changed once you started using them for a certain type of costume.

At least we should leave the decision up to the costumer or the group of costume owner/detachment leader .... as a kind of interim solution.

For future "new" costume-entries (either general new costume description, or already existing) using new prefixes might be fine. :yup:


I wish I would've known before.

I was really looking forward to picking up my Mother Talzin (SL-3937) trading card from customs this week. Now this is another error-card before I even have them in hands... :(



Thanks for the FB-link & your great effort, Thomas.

….. & I miss Pluto! :boom:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good morning,


Damian has responded. He feels that because the thread in which the change to DS was eventually purposed was up for four and half months, the blame is on me as your Detachment Leader not seeing it and reporting it to you. I will accept that responsibility, but I will counter it is a misstep in protocol to make a change to another group without first securing their acknowledgement and hopefully their consent. In this case, it is the LMO’s decision to go forward with this change if he believes it is the best interest of the Legion. The only recourse would be through the Legion Council.


I am currently protesting the move to break certain characters out of the Sith Lord (SL) designation and reassigning them to Dark Side (DS) because I believe that none of the affected members requested such a change and I know none of the affected members were notified of the change proposal.


Had I seen the thread entitled Letter Designaiton Questions earlier on, I believe we might still be faced with this change, even if under protest. It will not change your membership. Going forward other designations and members of other detachments be affected too.


I do not want to work against our command structure, or against Damian’s good intentions. I do not feel issuing a notice of protest is working against my fellow. My intent is to go on record as expressing my will, which I believe is shared by this community. We could make a poll, but understand it would not be considered binding by Legion Command.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second the notion, not to have a poll though, but instead a petition.


There is nothing in the Legion Charter that we can state as backing, and by the book and system, Damian is in fact correct.


However, Thomas is not alone in his protest of this change, and furthermore, we as a unit should do our best to raise our voice in unison.


Together with our Webmasters, I propose we get a petition page going on our site, somehow members-only access (the public does not need to be involved or know of what is going on, it is our business). Perhaps with comments, but at the very least a page where we might sign our TKIDs to it.


And as a matter of point, I think that anyone affected 'especially' should sign as SL-XXXX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dark Flower

I agree completely with Tom, and a lot of people in my Garrison thought that was a good idea.


Current SL costume's should be grandfathered in, and then the designation should be used for any future costumes and such that would fall under. I have quite a bit of stuff that says SL for me, and its quite upsetting to find this out...


Besides what Light-saber wielding character in the 501st, isn't DARK/DarkSider?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dark Flower
Good morning,


Damian has responded. He feels that because the thread in which the change to DS was eventually purposed was up for four and half months, the blame is on me as your Detachment Leader not seeing it and reporting it to you. I will accept that responsibility, but I will counter it is a misstep in protocol to make a change to another group without first securing their acknowledgement and hopefully their consent. In this case, it is the LMO’s decision to go forward with this change if he believes it is the best interest of the Legion. The only recourse would be through the Legion Council....


Again, another thing to add to my list of Legion disappointments.


THOMAS, You are so amazing. Thank you for keeping us informed on what you knew/found out and passing along our disappointment.


I will always call myself SL Visas Marr, and won't change my signature because of it. I have the proof in the merchandise I purchased and no 'text change' in the website will FORCE me otherwise.


Treating members like this is a horrible thing to do. IMO. I feel sometimes they do things like this to dissuade members from staying on as members, so that there is less competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good afternoon,


This is not a dead topic, rather it is work in progress.


There have been a few revisions to Legion Designations in past. The protocol that these followed were common sense courtesies. The massive break-up of the Clone Trooper designation was called for by the detachment members themselves at a tyme that the Legion’s Database could not support the same member having two costumes with the same designation. The proposed prefixes came from the detachment, were discussed with Legion Council, and put to vote by garrison across the Legion.


That courtesy was not implemented here. I do not believe it was an intentional slight. Rather a missed step in the massive attempt to overhaul the Legion ID system. It is still an important step.


I have asked Damian for a formal statement about the misstep, and to restore all DS to SL. For the tyme being.


The truth is, if you look at it, BH (Bounty Hunters), DZ (Denizens), and SL (Sith Lords) have become catch all designations. It would make more sense for some of these designations to be divided. And for other designations to become consolidated.


I have recommended that we start the conversation over. I have asked that all intended revision to the Legion Designation system be mapped out and agreed upon by Detachment as represented in the DL forum on the 501st. That once we establish a unified proposal, then we present the Detachment specific changes to the Detachments for ratification.


This may not come to pass, but it is the best that I can think to suggest at this moment.


Be well,


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas you are a gem, I'm a late comer into reading this thread (just read it quickly)and was quite taken back, all of this hassle could of been avoided if those (or one person)looking at redesigning the system, used an email and all concerned should of had a vote. I'm not one for a person to start accepting changes because one persons idea has come to fruition when hundreds of members are concerned. We where never asked or hinted for any of the detachments to be tinkered with. I belong to at least 3 of those. A change is to be a good thing......from what I'm reading here it is not.


These sort of changers make people leave and ones become less interested in the costume.


Thomas you are not to blame, people here have real life's and to add we troop then add to that read lines and lines of threads. Your the DL you should of got a personal message regarding your detachment. I commend you spending your precious time having read, chase up, when it could of been avoided.


Thank you Thomas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey everybody,


Please let me first clear up one issue.

This is/ was not the decision of "One person".

Not one decision over the past year, no matter where it originates or what the circumstance, has been carried out without the support of many. That should be (and hopefully is) understood from the start.


Another important aspect to realize, and it has been stated even here in the thread, is that

many, many times, over several years, there has been a call to re-evaluate and better organize

how characters are designated. This call has only grown stronger with the perception that the new films will once again bring and explosion of new characters (I believe nearly 150 individual characters were added due to the last series of movies and its surrounding storyline)... and that we should do what we can, right now, to prepare for this.


The trouble seems to have been that the safest and "least frighting" course of action has been to

ignore these valid requests and do nothing. (likely to avoid any negative feedback due to change)

When our team accepted these positions, we made it a top priority to remove the words inaction and non-effort from our dictionaries.


Because I am the one who stepped forward to volunteer to take on this issue, by researching every single character listed within the entire 501st Legion, I was also by default the person to bring it directly to the DL's, which I / we absolutely felt was the proper course... and did just that.


After a several month long discussion, within he DL forum, and another within the LMO forum... combined with the many years of requests to take these actions, a large majority of the ideas expressed were to move forward with a re-evaluation and a better designation system that more accurately represents the classification of characters. And, that this should include not only additions but several subtractions.


The letters "DS" came from within the Detachment Leader Forum, and was not derived or decided upon by any one individual. The designation, as well as the move itself, was again enacted after many months of discussion. It was also not determined on a detachment by detachment basis, but rather character by character.


This designation is the first to be altered due in part to the long standing observation that Asajj is not a Sith Lord and should not have been placed in that category.

* Other examples of this type of situation revolves around the Mandalorians / Bounty Hunters/ Death Watch, and is currently the next up for review.

** An even more recent example for possible change is the call for a Concept/ McQuarrie designation and to move the concept Stormtrooper from its current spot as TK.


While research was to be conducted in regard to Asajj, it only made sense that the other characters which conflicted with the idea of "SL - Sith Lord" also be included and acted upon accordingly.


That is the abbreviated and simplified basis and idea for the change, and like I mentioned, has been found to be supported by the majority.

If the long standing support for changes had not been there, it simply would not have happened.

( I see there is some support even right here in this thread)

Even more so, nearly everyone has supported the overall idea of re-evaluation and re-organization.

Even those who are not happy with this particular circumstance.


It is hard to find, on the main message board, the phrase "New Movies" without it being attached to the request to prepare for an influx of new characters.

We have members in position, right now, who are more than willing to put forth the days, weeks and months of effort to accomplish these long overdue tasks, and feel that it is improper to continue passing the growing burden onto those in the future.


With that, we are absolutely interested in hearing the thoughts of each and every legion member.

As with any decision, no matter how big or small, there will be some who disagree.

Unfortunately, those of us on the LMO team have found that in nearly every instance, either by taking action, or not taking action on any given issue, there will be negative feedback.

Of course this has has been true since the very beginning and something that we fully expected when entering.


Let me once again list the characters that are currently categorized within this new designation, and please

share your thoughts on which should, or should not, be listed as Non- Sith Lords.

(Hopefully with a bit of supporting documentation)


And, as always if there are any questions, please shout out.

I will be right here.


The characters :

(with some small notes as to what appears to establish them as non-sith Lords)


Asajj Ventress (Dark Jedi / Dark Acolyte)

Brakiss (Dark Jedi)

Lumiya (Dark Lady of the Sith)

Mara Jade (Emperor's Hand/ Force User)

Maris Brood (Dark Force user)

Starkiller (Sith apprentice)

Visas Marr (Dark Force user)

Savage Opress (Night Brother / Sith apprentice)


- Night Sisters -

Asajj Ventress

Dark Force Witch


Mother Talzin

Sith Witch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is one of the few that I am intently re-studying.

She was added under the realization that although she was given the name

"Dark Lady of the Sith" by Vader, she had never actually completed her training to become a Sith Lord.


There is a a blub on Wookieepedia that mentions that at one time (although it no longer exists), there was a

small, "online only" supplement to the SW Miniatures game, posted on the WotC site, which suggested that she completed the training at a later date.


As mentioned, it no longer exists on the site, so I am trying to track down a copy.

The statement mentioned that it was there in 2008.

If anyone has this in their reference files please let me know.


I would also need to establish if a no longer in existence, web only game supplement, falls within the canon storyline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest EmenyZero

Starkiller (Sith apprentice)


How is this any different then Maul at this point then? I believe Starkiller should fall under Sith Lord because he had extensive training, and sith resources. There are alot of similarities between Maul and Galen. If not more of a sith linage for Starkiller during his storyline. Galen was trained by Vader in secret, used to hunt and end Jedi, and then was attempted to be used by the Emperor. As well as the whole plot to be by Vaders side for the overthrow of the Emperor. Spending over 2 decades training as a sith.


When engaging Vader in a sparring match in 3 BBY, Starkiller expected it to be business as usual afterward. However at the end of it, Vader ordered Starkiller to kneel before him. Darth Vader formally "knighted" Starkiller, officially recognizing him for the first time as his apprentice, something that Starkiller always believed himself to be. He declared Starkiller's training complete, and dispatched him on his first test; the surviving Jedi Master Rahm Kota was attacking an Imperial shipyard above Nar Shaddaa.


And by that, if his training is marked to be complete, along with skills and abilities, then he should follow under sith lord. I could go deeper if even needed.


I believe this, any many other characters have been overlooked. Who better to know them, then the people who have researched and spent an amazing amout of time learning them and becoming them when in costume. I know I have myself, spent alot of time playing the game, reading the book, and observing all the forms of media Starkiller turns up in. To me, this was a major disrespect to the members who do these costumes without getting their inputs, thoughts, and knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I found the WotC supplement on archive.org.

But unfortunately it is of no help.


Here is the entire Lumiya reference :


Behind the Threat: The Sith, Part 1


Although the Rule of Two prevented Vader from taking on a true apprentice, he did pass his teachings to pupils, notably the Dark Lady of the Sith, Lumiya. She trained several apprentices during this era, but they are not truly Sith because Lumiya herself does not become full-fledged Sith until her training by Vergere in the Legacy era.


In The New Jedi Order era, the Sith are all but extinct. It is only through the training of Vergere that Lumiya becomes a true Dark Lady of the Sith. Dark Jedi characters would be more appropriate.


So, the Wookieepedia reference pulls from the WoTC, which as or right now pulls from ... nothing.


If anyone knows the source that WotC (at one time) was referring to, that which explains Vergere made Lumiya a Sith Lord, I would absolutely love to see it. Knowing where and what that is, I believe, would in fact establish the character as a "Lord".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galen Marek / Starkiller:


Here are several quotes from the same Galen Marek page referenced above and a big part of why he was included in the list :


Galen Marek, codenamed Starkiller, was a male Human apprentice of the Sith Lord Darth Vader.
Vader nonetheless trained Marek as a secret apprentice during his own apprenticeship to Darth Sidious, the Sith Lord who ruled the galaxy as Emperor Palpatine.


With his childhood memories suppressed and his original identity forgotten, Marek only knew himself as the Dark Lord's apprentice; a Sith assassin who operated under the codename "Starkiller".


In addition to the assassination of numerous targets that included Vader's many rivals, the apprentice trained for years in preparation for the day when he would be ready to aid his Master in a confrontation with Darth Sidious.


This singular goal became Starkiller's obsession as he longed to become a true Sith Lord. The pinnacle of Starkiller's training saw him deployed against Jedi targets for the first time in his life in 3 BBY...


Elated at the prospect of finally fulfilling his sole purpose in life, Starkiller rendezvoused with Vader on the Executor only to be betrayed and severely wounded by his Master who claimed that Sidious's spies had discovered the existence of the secret apprentice.


Pressured by the Emperor, Vader demonstrated his loyalty by seemingly killing Starkiller. In truth, the betrayal was a ruse that allowed Vader to save his apprentice's life.


Upon Starkiller's full recovery in 2 BBY, Vader revealed his contingency plan: the creation of a full-scale rebellion against the Galactic Empire. The apprentice was instructed by his Master to assemble an army of rebels and dissidents.


Darth Sidious with Starkiller's aid, the former apprentice journeyed to the incomplete Death Star and intended to rescue his new-found allies from execution. Abandoning the persona of Starkiller, he re-embraced his Jedi heritage as Galen Marek through the partial recovery of his suppressed memories.


* "Former apprentice" meaning he was no longer Vader's apprentice, not that he had advanced.

**Before becoming a Sith Lord, he returned to the light side.


Sidious hoped to claim Marek as his new apprentice and goaded him to kill Vader. Instead, Marek attacked the Emperor in a move to provide the senators with enough time to escape the Death Star. His plan succeeded, but ultimately cost the apprentice his life.


*** Marek is now dead without advancing past apprentice.


Darth Vader preserved his former apprentice's corpse as a genetic template for the creation of a more powerful and obedient version of the original Starkiller.



Returning to the quote mentioned above...


However at the end of it, Vader ordered Starkiller to kneel before him. Believing that his time had come to an end, Starkiller obeyed and waited for death. Instead, Darth Vader formally "knighted" Starkiller, officially recognizing him for the first time as his apprentice, something that Starkiller always believed himself to be. He declared Starkiller's training complete, and dispatched him on his first test...


I believe this 1/2 sentence is a poorly written edit... by whomever wrote it... when the passage is intended to express that Vader formally recognized Starkiller as his fully competent and complete apprentice.

Confirming what Starkiller had already believed he was.

( I do not believe Sith Lords give other Sith Lords tests. But they do give their apprentice's tests)


Here is the photo which corresponds to that very passage:


"Starkiller is given the title of apprentice."



It was already clearly stated that Starkiller

A: Abandoned the Dark Side while still an apprentice.

B: Was killed while still an a apprentice.


If those earlier passages are incorrect and conflict with a legitimate source that states Starkiller was a full Sith Lord, again present them here....please.


The intent is not to categorize characters just "because we feel like it".

If there are definable reference sources that state one thing or another (beyond a wiki article that can be edited by nearly anybody) bring them forth.

I absolutely encourage it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is something else that we should probably clarify, and do shout out is you disagree with this...



Sith Overlord: Highest ranking and the most superior Sith title posible.


Dark Lord: Recognized leader/leaders of the Order of the Sith Lords.


Sith Lord: Title that is bestowed on members of various Sith Orders who have achieved great knowledge and strength in the dark side.


Darth: Title given to someone by their master, after being acknowledged as part of the Sith order.


Dark Jedi: Jedi that either rejected light-side teachings in favor of the dark side or Jedi that were taught by Dark Jedi and thus became dark themselves.



* Like already expressed, if there are sources which show that any of these characters had bestowed upon them the title of Sith Lord, please show it as it will clarify that they should be designated as such.



Dialog from a video game, quote from a comic book, passage from a novel... anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Original Game Codex Text

The Sith Order bestows a number of titles upon its followers, as befits their rank and power. These are the most common: Acolyte: A Sith acolyte has not yet completed his or her trials in the Sith Academy, and may well die before becoming truly “Sith.” Sith: An acolyte who completes the trials and is accepted as the apprentice of a Sith Lord is considered Sith–no more, no less. Any non-Sith, however, is expected to refer to a Sith as “my lord” out of respect. Overseer: An instructor at the Sith Academy is called an overseer. Overseers are often Sith Lords, but that rank is not a requirement; they may simply be Sith with a talent for instruction. Sith Lord: A Sith who advances in the order’s hierarchy will eventually be elevated to Sith Lord. His or her name is preceded by “Lord” in formal address. In the modern Empire, “Dark Lord” is synonymous with this term. Darth: The strongest Sith Lords ascend to the position of Darth. Many take a new name at this point, symbolically embracing their transformation into something greater. Emperor: There has been only one Sith Emperor since the Great Hyperspace War over 1,300 years ago. He is supreme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am trying hard to find a reference for Galen Marek: Starkiller being a Sith Lord, but it keeps coming back to him never passing apprentice...


Two passages Reportedly from the The Force Unleashed novel:


Marek's initial attitude towards Darth Sidious was very detached. On one hand he revered him as the Sith Lord who destroyed the Jedi Order. On the other hand, he was completely devoted to the goal of one day standing at Vader's side as a true Sith Lord. To that end, he trained for years in the hopes of eventually helping Darth Vader in assassinating Sidious so that they could rule the galaxy together as master and apprentice. However, this changed when Sidious "discovered" Marek and ordered his execution, taking sadistic delight in his suffering.


Marek learned how Sidious had ordered the death of his father and his own abduction, and how he had in fact been Marek's true Master, using Vader only as a proxy. The revelation proved to be the final straw for the apprentice. Attacking Sidious, he drew heavily on his anger to subdue the Sith Lord, almost falling to the dark side all over again. However, he repented in the end, rejecting his hatred and turning away from the Sith.




This is as close as it appears to come:



The Force Unleashed: Ultimate Sith Edition:



"Starkiller in the non-canonical dark side ending" (...Of The Force Unleashed video game)


The storyline of the non-canon dark side alternate ending is continued in two downloadable content missions, which act as alternate versions of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back.


In the alternate ending of The Force Unleashed video game, Marek choses to finish off Vader, avenging the murder of his father and the two betrayals on himself.
He bore six lightsabers on his belt—his original lightsaber, Darth Vader's lightsaber, Rahm Kota's lightsaber, half of Darth Maul's lightsaber, his new Sith lightsaber and the severed end of Kazdan Paratus's long-handled lightsaber.


The Tatooine mission features Galen Marek, now referred to as "Lord Starkiller", hunting down C-3PO and R2-D2 after an alternate version of the destruction of Tantive IV.



* These state that the entire character "Lord Starkiller" is non-canon.


** However... Although Non-canon, the "Sith stalker Armor" is an accepted costume within the legion and is referred to as "Lord" within this alternate ending, so I would support that it falls under "SL" and will be happy to take this info back to the rest of the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Damian, explaining the issue


At this stage the changers do not effect my Character in this Detachment, I'm requesting for those that are effected have a vote.


If you are looking at 3 more detachments before placing a work load onto those members (which we are very grateful) ask those detachments members of their views. I belong to quite a few detachments and haven't heard or seen a thread regarding this issue.


I read previously in this thread the mentioning of members with personal cards and tattoos and just two letters can change their persona.


I appreciate the thought of Changers may result in future characters from films to be made (TV shows) giving them a more outlined prefix this would widen the family tree as so to speak. sadly we didn't use the force to for see this before members started using their given TKID's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Existing user? Sign In
  • Create New...