At 12/27/08 05:14 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:
Hey, I was thinking about this, Darth Sidious is a Sith Lord, so is Darth Vader
but as Maul and Tyrannus never were Masters, they cannot be Sith Lords right?
The title of "Sith Lord" isn't exactly all that defined our explicit, but...yes, I guess you could say that.
It didn't used to be necessary for a Sith to be the leader of the entire order, to obtain the title of "Sith Lord"...but then the Rule of Two came around, and things changed.
Tyrannus was certainly well past the level of Sith Adept or Sith Warrior, but not quite a Sith Lord. Perhaps, if he had lived in the pre-Bane era, he would have been the equivalent of a Lord, but he couldn't technically be one in his own time because of the Rule of Two.
So TECHNICALLY, Vader isn't a Sith Lord either. But it's hard to imagine a more striking symbol of the Sith Lords.
I guess it's up to you.
Maul sure as hell wasn't a "Lord", though. I mean, I'm a huge fan of the guy and everything, since he's a Sith because he honestly believes that the Jedi are corrupt and deserve to be purged from the Galaxy (instead of being just a common dick who wants to rule for the sake of power, like Sidious). Plus, he's got mad lightsaber skills and teras-kasi techniques.
But the sheer amount of control over the Force that he had was not enough to classify him as a Lord. He would have never prevailed against Sidious, had the time come for him to take on his Master.