What is the different between a Dark Jedi and a Sith Lord? What is the difference between a Dragon, Drake, and Wyvern...

What is the different between a Dark Jedi and a Sith Lord? What is the difference between a Dragon, Drake, and Wyvern? Or that between a Knight and a Paladin?

Sith follow a specific code. Dark Jedi are just fallen Jedi.

You're literally asking what the difference between a lord and a knight is.

But they both use the dark side and use lightsabers so i'm confused?

Sith follow a very specific code of conduct, and there's usually only 2 at any given time.
Dark Jedi are just Jedi that use the dark side of the force for their own ambitions.
Like how Doo Doo told Ventress, she was no Sith. And neither was he but I digress.

The Paladin were the 12 most importants knight of Charlemagne. Kinda like Arthur and the Round Table.

Isn't the Sith code just doing whatever you want though?

A Sith Lord is a high-ranking Dark Jedi.
A dragon has four legs.
A wyvern has two legs.
A drake has no legs.
A Paladin follows a religious code.
A Knight follows a code that may or may not be religious.

I imagine the distinction really only matters to the spooky space magician in question. A Dark Jedi would probably be upset with you calling them a Sith Lord, but otherwise fuck if I know.
Dragon and drake are interchangeable, wyvern is usually something less impressive but dragon-like. In RPG terms they just use as many different dragon sounding words as possible so they can make more stat blocks.
Knight is a title given that doesn't even necessarily mean you fight shit, while paladin refers to a member of Charlemagne's court. In RPG terms knight is all over the place while paladin pretty much always means they have holy powers

To find the answers to these questions and many more, read a fucking book!

Whoops wrong thread. Well either way, here's the Sith Code to show how they're different from the jedi.

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.

>A knight is a mounted warrior and often of low nobility.
That's basically what a cataphract is.

>Chronicled by many historians from the earliest days of Antiquity up until the High Middle Ages, they are believed to have influenced the later European knights, via contact with the Byzantine Empire.

If use a knife, does that make me a master chef? No? Of course not you stupid retard

Depends on setting.

>Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
>Through passion, I gain strength.
>Through strength, I gain power.
>Through power, I gain victory.
>Through victory, my chains are broken.
>The Force shall free me.

FUCK THIS REVISIONIST FUCKING BULLSHIT

WHY THE FUCK DID THE PREQUELS GET ALL "oh light jedi are limp dick faggots who don't get excited or rustle jimies"

FUCK THIS FUCKING GARBAGE

>Dragon is two terms, one referring to all of the taxonomic class Draconia, or to "true" dragons which are magically powerful sapient dragons with two batlike wings and four limbs, tied to a specific element or metal. A drake is any type of dog to horse sized nonsapient dragon. A wyvern is a specific type of dragon which has batlike wings for arms, two legs, and a often a stinger on its tail.

Booooring.

Dragon, drake, wyvern, and wurm are all the above used interchangeably depending on which area of the world you are in.

Agreed. Prequels and EU ruined the jedi forever.

What's the deal with the prequels? I kinda liked them. Especially the Revenge. Admittedly, i was pretty young back then.

EU is shit, though.

Dragons have two wings and four legs
Wyverns have two wings and four legs
Wurms/wyrms are the largest, oldest, and most powerful dragons
Drakes are every other kind of draconoid
Paladins are magic, knights aren't

>Dragon, drake, wyvern, and wurm are all the above used interchangeably depending on which area of the world you are in.
Now that is boring, as if all the terms made up in Europe are used in areas which are not European in flavor. At least my way I can use a fuckton of various dragons of all shapes sizes and abilities, having them all exist in a pseudoscientific taxonomy which can be exploited by adventurers and people of the various realms.

I always thought of wurms/wyrms/worms/werms/warms as more primitive than most other dragons if that makes sense. Usually on the larger side and with less legs than usual.

That said, and are right, specific terms for dragons mean whatever you want (unless you're talking about like medieval heraldry or something where a wyvern is something specific)

Changing established shit

Depends on a the canon. A Sith Lord. Depends on the setting (X3). Depends on the setting (X2),

Elaborate? Which edition D&D? Actual question. I always thought D&D paladins were literally Fighter + Cleric + flavoring mashed together into one class.

Fuck off Disney.

>Agreed. Prequels and EU ruined the jedi forever.
Nah.
The Jedi are the Jedi are the Jedi.

Never exposed to too much of the eu, but I've heard terrible things.
A question to you and Where does
>"oh light jedi are limp dick faggots who don't get excited or rustle jimies"
Follow from the prequels or
>Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
?

Jedi respecting peace has always made sense.
The whole idea of being "free of passion" if you're a Jedi always seemed like a misperception.
Like how love is fine, but attachment is discouraged.
It just makes sense.
A calm and peaceful Jedi is one in control, not passionless.
Giving in to whatever volatile passions you have at the moment was always spelled out as a path to the Dark Side.

In short, what are y'all on about?

Also, I seem to remember Master Jedi Mace Windu of the Jedi Council getting his jimmies rustled.

He's making shit up. The stagnation of the Jedi Order happens over thousands of years by the time they hit their cocky nadir in the Rise of the Empire Era/PT period. The Jedi originally were fine with things like marriage and children and possessing spouses. Its only after major schisms like the Force Wars, the exile of the Dark Jedi after the final one to Korriban to form the Sith and especially by Revan's time were things like marriage and emotions really demanded to be dialed down to be a good Jedi.

The Jedi regressed.

EU didn't pussify them, it showed them as how they were and how they ended up by the time of the modern era with Luke and Vader's own legacies.

Religion.
Nothing.
One is a hobbit and the other is a noble.

Sith are actually part of the Sith Order and follow it's code and rules. If we're talking post-Bane, there's only two Sith at a time (with some exceptions, according to Plageuis).

Dark Jedi are tricky to define. They range anywhere from Jedi that dabble in the dark side and have begun to fall, or former Jedi that fell because of their use of the dark side and now are part of no organization.

Dark Jedi is also used loosely in-universe as a term for any darksider who isn't Sith.

>Religion.
t. Karen Traviss

>KT
Is there nothing this women hasn't ruined?
>turns Mandalorians into the literal equivalent of Klingons in Star Wars/EU
>obsessed with the Fetts
>calls people who rightfully point out her hypocrisy, double-standards, and terrible writing as "talifans"
>shitted up Halo, especially Dr. Halsey's character
>shitted up Gears of War too

>literally what the use of the force is referred to in ANH by that imperial officer towards Anakin

>literally what an ignorant Tagge CLAIMS about the Jedi and Sith arrogantly

Yeah but that's wrong because Tarkin's toadie is talking out of his ass. The Jedi could be equated SOMEWHAT with being an order of quasi note QUASI religious space wizard psychic monks because of how they follow the Force.

The Sith? No.
The Sith seek to CONTROL the Force.
Not have the Force control them.

That's one of the major defining differences between the Jedi and Sith. The Jedi will do what they think the Force directs them toward keeping balance and order, the Sith will impose themselves on the Force to get what they want.

Came in this thread to post this. Absolutely correct.

Dark Jedi, are jedi who have turned to use of the dark side.

Sith is a praxis in which the adherent learns to subjugate the force to bend to their will. That is why they are capable of sorcery and alchemy. Just using the dark side is not going to give you that amount of control over matter and energy.

Jedi culture was added into it, since it originally sprouted from dark jedi and sith(race) kind of making their own clan/temple

OK what does t. mean?

At that, what do """triple quotes""" imply?

>He's making shit up.
That's what it looked like, but I dunno.

>The Jedi regressed.
>EU didn't pussify them, it showed them as how they were and how they ended up
My view was, no matter what they used to be, the only indication that the Jedi are anything other than badass Good Guys is fan misinterpretation and stuff from the Sith perspective, easily dismissed as propaganda.

Seeing as how we saw the Jedi literally try to genocide the Sith, they are hardly absolute good guys.

Dragon is 4 limbs + wings
Wyvern 2 limbs +wings
Drake is 4 limbs no wings

*in tales of the Jedi

In that source, was there any other realistic method of resolving the threat of the Sith?

Also, all forms of conflict resolution involve the deliberate eradicateion of your enemies, either by ensuring they no longer exist or ensuring they no longer exist "as your enemy".
Convert or die are literally the only options for peace.
(Allowing superficial conversion)

What are you on about? The point was the Jedi didn't simply want to "defeat" the Sith but entirely wipe out an entire fucking civilization to the literal point of genocide. There is no moral high ground here.

>FUCK THIS REVISIONIST FUCKING BULLSHIT
When you consider that the vast majority of Sith start their lives as slaves, it makes sense to have a code built around gaining freedom.

>OK what does t. mean?

It's another way of citation, essentially when he said "t. Karen Traviss", he is implying that the person he's replying to is Karen Traviss because he's espousing similar views.

>At that, what do """triple quotes""" imply?

Heavy sarcasm, because this site doesn't allow italicized text afaik.

>because this site doesn't allow italicized text afaik.
It doesn't. Veeky Forums has pushed for it for years because it makes quoting literature better for viewing than greentext, but nothing has happened.

Technically he's right from a certain point of view- the Sith spun out of the Jedi in both Legends and in canon.

And what were the Sith doing?
Perhaps actively working to harm the Jedi, the Force, and cuddly kittens?
Clearly something.
I suspect that the Sith were, by dint of being Sith, an enemy of the Jedi.
So, the only way to stop being an enemy of the Jedi would be to either stop being a Sith or die and thereby stop being a Sith.

Like how Law Enforcement is trying to commit genocide on Active Criminals.
Either by stopping them from being Active Criminals and instead becoming Convicts, Former Criminals, and the Exonerated, or by killing them.
Those are the only two options.

Considering the Sith are the ones who started the conflict and literally every time they come back they start YET ANOTHER galactic scale war, then the Jedi stopping the Sith through absolute total destruction is definitely the moral high ground. The Jedi aren't wanton murderers, the Sith ARE. The Jedi don't support slavery, the Sith DO.

And every time they come back to prominence, untold numbers of civilians die until the Jedi stop the Sith and beat them back into nothing.

Dark Jedi are bad guy Jedi.

Sith are "We need to make a villain in this prequel and everyone liked Darth Vader. So now let's make every villain wear black and use a red lightsaber and call him Darth ok cool."

user, the term Sith predates the original movie - it's in the novelization for it, in fact, as well as in deleted scenes.

Darth Vader has been the Dark Lord of the Sith since 1976. We just didn't know what a Sith actually was (barring Zahn's "the Noghri are actually the Sith" BS) until the prequels.

You're right but my point stands. the 'Sith' weren't actually anything until they were defined in the prequels.

Being a sith is to follow a specific ideology. The dark side is not sith specific.

At least, that's what it's supposed to be, but Star Wars is trash so they are basically the same thing.

Which I suspect was another directive of George's, alongside no writers making material about the time leading up to the OT films.

We've seen other dark side traditions in canon and in Legends, and most of them are not like the Sith at all.

>And what were the Sith doing?
Conquest, not genocide.

>Jedi aren't wanton murders
>want to wipe an entire civilization; which doesn't exclude its civilian population/non-combatants
>bombard their planets surfaces into irritated glassed deserts
That doesn't again give them moral high ground to wipe out an entire species.

The Mandalorians are the only civilization outside of the Sith whom the Jedi have glassed, and the Sith do not have civilians - they have Sith, and they have slaves. The Mandalorians at the time that the Republic (not the Jedi, the Republic) glassed their planet were the same way. There were no noncombatants. It was literally a last-ditch effort to stop an on-going war.

>Conquest, not genocide.
Conquest is also "Convert or die".

"Submit to our rule or be killed." is worse than "Stop 'trying to get everyone to submit to your rule or be killed' or be killed."
Pretending otherwise is simply contrarian "dindu nuthin" nonsense.

>Sith do not have civilians
Thank you.

>the Sith do not have civilians - they have Sith, and they have slaves.

The Sith Empire was a literal empire, you're telling me it had 0 civilians?

>Pretending otherwise is simply contrarian "dindu nuthin" nonsense.
The issue is more that genocide is objectively wrong no matter what the other side has done. Because it means even killing those that haven't even done wrong yet, on the basis of coming from that group.

The criminal parallel doesn't work because by definiton every criminal has already committed a crime.

Yes. Either you were a Sith, and thus an evil space wizard and a combatant, or you were a slave to the Sith.

Someone didn't play the games where you could actively be in the empire. Bounty Hunters are neither, they're hired out to the empire.

The Mandos are different because they didn't really WANT anything aside from a glorious war. You can't really negotiate with people who don't want anything other than more fighting, the Sith just want power and control.

>Bounty Hunters are neither, they're hired out to the empire.
If we're talking about TOR it wasn't even that, it's just that the Great Hunt was taking place in Empire space so it required having the correct paperwork.

>Sith do not have civilians
t. Jedi Master Wedidonuffinwrong

>Because it means even killing those that haven't even done wrong yet, on the basis of coming from that group.
>The criminal parallel doesn't work because by definiton every criminal has already committed a crime
And by definition, every Sith has already done wrong, according to the Jedi.

What the user who brought it up really did was refer to one side of a war seeking to eliminate all of their enemy by using the polarizing term "genocide".
That's it.

The Jedi were not sneaking into Sith Nurseries and Sith Cribs to kill Sith Babies.
There are no Sith Babies.

>>Sith do not have civilians
They don't.

>t. Jedi Master Wedidonuffinwrong
Jedi have done wrong, but they aren't genocidal madmen picking on pure, innocent Sith children playing in meadows.

Stop being an ass.

>There are no Sith Babies.
If you ignore that the Sith are also a race.

>but they aren't genocidal madmen picking on pure, innocent Sith children playing in meadows.

user not every Sith is the equivalent of how /pol/ sees the Jews. The reality is the Sith kill each other more than anyone else, because when you have a system of succession based on backstabbing, you're going to get a lot of backstabbing.

>If you ignore that the Sith are also a race.
Citation Needed

>And by definition, every Sith has already done wrong, according to the Jedi.
Yes, always trust the Jedi. They are right and the Sith are wrong.

It's not that the very existence of the force creates people that always want to kill each other, no it's the users at fault.

Sith Pureblood, the species that the name is taken from. The Lord of the Sith originally referred to the force-using leader of their race.

>user not every Sith is that bad, they're just backstabbing backstabbers who backstab
Not sure if you're doing the best job of making your point.
Yes, when you have a society that encourages evil, people in that society will tend to be more evil.

You can always trust a backstabber to backstab. It's the loyal people you need to be wary of.

Dragons are magic and/or sapient, wyverns are not

What's the difference between a Catholic and a Protestant.

Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal?

>It's not that the very existence of the force creates people that always want to kill each other
How's that then?

>Sith Pureblood, the species that the name is taken from.
Are these the same Sith the Jedi wanted to wipe out, or are you being a cretin?

Settle down and enjoy your rum.

>How's that then?
Because the Force only creates problems. Imagine how much better the galaxy would be if they had a way to be rid of the Force forever. Every, and I mean EVERY problem in the greater universe is caused by people who use the Force.

>Are these the same Sith the Jedi wanted to wipe out, or are you being a cretin?
They're the reason the Sith have a code and all because before that it was just a bunch of renegade force users. Then the Sith were found and enslaved by human dark jedi, and the modern idea of the Sith was created.

All this about how all Sith must be destroyed ignores that Vader, 1 of 2 Sith responsible for wiping out 99% of the Jedi, was able to redeem himself through the power of love for his son.

On the note of the light and dark side, SW has a lot to say to the generations that watch it. When ANH was released in 1977, society was desperate for a film with clear-cut good vs. evil storylines. Much of what Hollywood was producing leading up to ANH lacked such a moral division, and America was beginning to become disillusioned with itself. People flocked to Star Wars because it offered a fairytale where corrupt and oppressive leaders were met with justice by the hands of an idealistic farmer. America needed to hear that even the smallest person could have a huge and positive impact on their world. In the OT, the Jedi and the Sith represented the two paths we could all take: using your potential for good or evil purposes. The message was simple: One could become very powerful by being evil but at the cost of losing your humanity. Now that we live in a world where economics and religion cause our wars and not idealistic (good or bad) governments, Star Wars changed. Lucas was attempting to update Star Wars with the prequels by having the Separatists represent the corrupt business/politics of our world. The Jedi and the Sith were presented much differently than in the OT, which your post addresses. Both parties were way too eager and willing to resort to war. Yoda in the OT realizes this, but he and Obi-Wan were even blinded to the notion that Vader could be redeemed. Luke may have had too much faith in the Jedi way, too, maybe leading him to repeat the failure of the Jedi before him.

meant to quote someone but I can't find the post now.

>only a sith deals in absolutes
>Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil! The Sith are evil. The Dark Side of the Force is an evil presence.

And that is an extreme outlier that might not have happened to anyone else

It's also the other outcome that other anons have been showing here - dead, or no longer Sith.

Though in Vader's case, he basically hit both of those.

>Because the Force only creates problems. Imagine how much better the galaxy would be if they had a way to be rid of the Force forever. Every, and I mean EVERY problem in the greater universe is caused by people who use the Force.
Well, this certainly sounds like a completely unbiased and balanced perspective and not at all like the musings of a video game final antagonist.
Definitely.

>They're the reason the Sith have a code and all because before that it was just a bunch of renegade force users. Then the Sith were found and enslaved by human dark jedi, and the modern idea of the Sith was created.
So I take it this means:
1. No, the Jedi weren't trying to wipe out a species
2. You missed what I did there with the word "cretin"

Thanks for answering my questions though.

This is why I added the "convert" to my "convert or die" point

>Well, this certainly sounds like a completely unbiased and balanced perspective and not at all like the musings of a video game final antagonist.

It doesn't matter if Kreia said it, it's still true. Jedi and Sith only cause problems for normal people.

How do Jedi, by themselves, cause a problem for normal people?

They /solve/ problems for normal people, more than anything.

Good use of the word praxis, user.