The SWTOR notion that "Lord" is a lesser and distinct title from "Darth" comes more or less from the Kaan/Bane thing; there's no other source in the EU for such a distinction, and there certainly isn't anything in the movies. It's more than a little weird for the setting of a game to be dictated by the setting of stories among an unrelated society two and a half thousand years in the future, but let that go. More realistically, "Lord" being distinct from "Darth" has gameplay advantages: it serves as an intermediate reward for players as they progress through their class story.

But with the Sith Empire using the Darth title this statement from Kas'im makes a whole lot more sense:

The Darth title was more than just a symbol of power; it was a claim of supremacy. It was used by those Dark Lords who have sought to enforce their will on the other Masters. It was a challenge — a warning to bow down or be destroyed.

Anyway, concerning this whole debate, I think we should consider how Sith Hierachy works. To become a Lord you have to be taken under the wing of a Darth and have the title bestowed upon you, but to become a Darth you have to usurp your master e.g. when Lord Zash became Darth Zash after defeating her superior, Darth Skotia.

So, technically, by defeating Darth Baras, the Wrath would take his title. Remembering that the Sith Emperor's personal powerbase operates exclusively of the Sith powerbase so titles like Lord and Darth are irrelevant when becoming a Wrath. Which explains why Lord Scourge remained Lord Scourge, because he never usurped a Darth.

EDIT: Also Lord has a dual meaning, on one hand it can mean an actual Lord, but on the other hand its a formal term applied to all Sith. For example even as an acolyte you are referred to as "my lord" despite lacking a title.

The way the titles are supposed to be distinct ranks is not something that makes any sense in any era before or after this one. A "Darth" was always still a Sith Lord.

Darth > Lord. Makes sense. Never been retconned once. And we shouldn't mix official and unofficial titles. "Lord" is both a formality and a title, which I expect is the source of your confusion.

That's definitely not true. Even without taking into account that the two titles were never used to mean different things before TOR. It certainly wasn't a distinct title in any of the 6 movies.

Darth just used to be Vader's name. Then it was a title that all Sith Lords used originating from Darth Bane. Then suddenly Revan used it before Bane. Then there certain were Sith in the Sith Empire that used it before the Great Hyperspace War, then suddenly it became the highest echelons of Sith in that same Empire, even though it's current AND previous leaders never actually adopted the title themselves.

That's definitely not true. Even without taking into account that the two titles were never used to mean different things before TOR. It certainly wasn't a distinct title in any of the 6 movies.

 

Darth just used to be Vader's name. Then it was a title that all Sith Lords used originating from Darth Bane. Then suddenly Revan used it before Bane. Then there certain were Sith in the Sith Empire that used it before the Great Hyperspace War, then suddenly it became the highest echelons of Sith in that same Empire, even though it's current AND previous leaders never actually adopted the title themselves.

That said the Bane trilogy actually established the Darth and Lord titles as originating from the Ancient Sith, Bane did not start the tradition he adopted it. Which leaves room for previous Sith Lords using the title.

But again Darth > Lord, that has never been changed. Aside from when it was first 'invented'. Noting that the Banite line did away with the Lord title altogether, which is why it has no meaning in the movies.

You said it was never retconed, but then said you didn't count retroactive continuity? I don't understand.

Name a single example before SWTOR when Darth and Lord were ever explicitly established to be separate titles. They absolutely were not in the movies. With Maul, Vader and Sidious, they was used synonymously.

"This is my apprentice Darth Maul, he will find your lost ship."

"Lord Maul, be mindful. Let them make the first move."

Darth Bane and the lore surrounding him existed before the Bane trilogy. It was written after Darth Revan was created. Those books contradicted more than one thing about previous versions of his story.

You said it was never retconed, but then said you didn't count retroactive continuity? I don't understand.

 

Name a single example before SWTOR when Darth and Lord were ever explicitly established to be separate titles. They absolutely were not in the movies. With Maul, Vader and Sidious, they was used synonymously.

 

"This is my apprentice Darth Maul, he will find your lost ship."

"Lord Maul, be mindful. Let them make the first move."

 

Darth Bane and the lore surrounding him existed before the Bane trilogy. It was written after Darth Revan was created. Those books contradicted more than one thing about previous versions of his story.

And the Bane Trilogy (I believe) was the first to make the distinction between Lord and Darth. Though honestly it was probably before, the Bane Trilogy all to effortlessly seemed to make that distinction as if it were already canon.

And yes, here we are mixing up the official title with a formal address. Sith Lords, regardless of rank, are referred to as "Lord" when talking to then in person. And they are referred to as Darth when not. You'll never here Darth Sidious talking about Maul as "Lord Maul" - but you will often, if not always see him talking to Maul as "Lord Maul."

This is the same for pretty much everything. Almost always when referring to a Sith Lord, the person will call them either "Lord X" or just X, rarely if ever Darth X. And they'll never call them "Lord" when referring to them, always Darth, unless their title is Lord of course. Its simply a formality, nothing more. Its got nothing to do with the Lord title.

Just like you wouldn't address the Queen as Queen Elizabeth, but "your Majesty."

Admittedly yes in the movies the Lord title just didn't exist, but it was a formality all the same. Basically its been added but its never been changed, but I expect that is in part what you were getting at.

To my recollection, the "Darth" title for Sith Warriors was shoehorned in shortly before the game went live. Originally, Warriors would officially be recognized as the "Emperor's Wrath" by the Dark Council upon you dealing with Baras and that would have been your title instead of Darth. But apparently, there were both people who were whining about being spoiled by the title and those who wanted to also be a Darth.

 

Hence, the "Emperor's Wrath" title was removed and Warriors got the "Darth" instead.

You are absolutely right, I was one of the beta testers when this was an issue during the later beta stage but it wasn't Nuked till shortly after Launch, do to the people complaining. As you stated.

I was one against the change, i thought we the Sith Warriors, should had both options to choose from but not both titles at same time. Hell i am for bring back the Emperor's Wrath title and let us, choose which one we wish to be recognized as.

To be quite honest, I'm confused why they got rid of the Emperor's Wrath title...

Because people threw a fit over it. But no matter how much we ask for it, Bounty Hunter players still haven't gotten a "The Mandalorian" title.

Because people threw a fit over it. But no matter how much we ask for it, Bounty Hunter players still haven't gotten a "The Mandalorian" title.

I would say Wrath is above the Council, there is only one Wrath... plenty of Darths. Inquisitor fan boys will probably say no but it is what it is, he could kill a Dark Council member without question the council members cant just do that.

This isn't accurate. Marr explicitly says the Wrath may act with impunity -if his actions are in line with the Dark Council.-

It's a tenuous relationship which is illustrated well on Makeb.

Concerning the titles, Zash says that only a Darth may raise an apprentice to the status of Lord in the SI story on DK. There is a finite hierarchy for the titles within the Empire at this time.

Kaan removed this, as envious lords would seek a Darth's power to create their own powerbase of lords, destroying the best sith and leaving the sith vulnerable. He made everyone a "Sith Lord" to catalyze an emergent sense of unity within the order.

Bane rejects this, as we know. He claims that there are no "Darths" because no one is worthy to defend and own the title. To the Bane sith, "Lord" and "Darth" are the same, as any lord of the sith worthy of the rule of two is a "Darth." The two terms become interchangeable as one necessarily begets the other in the confined space of the Rule of Two.

The Wrath and the Dark Council are in kind of a nebulous position in the power structure. Both of them answer only to the Emperor, neither are in charge of the other. The Wrath has sort of a more unique position than the others so in a sense he has more power and freedom than the other 12, but his job is executing people. Their job is ruling the Empire, so in another way they have more influence than him.

The way I interpret it is that in theory the Wrath is higher than the Council (as the title I think outranks Darth), but in practice they're equals.

This is how I think the Sith Hierarchy is (in terms of rank)

Emperor

Wrath/Hand/Darth on the Dark Council

Darth not on the Dark Council

Lord

Apprentice

Acolyte

 

The idea behind the word Darth has probably been the most often retconed idea in Star Wars.

This exactly. And it's all because of the prequels. Before they came out, it seems like most of the Sith Lords in the EU were not Darths. They had names like Naga Sadow, Exar Kun, Ulic-Qel Droma, Marka Ragnos, Tulak Hord, and Freedon Nadd. Then Lucas came out with Darth Sidious and Darth Maul and suddenly the idea that Darth was a title and not Vader's first name became prevalent throughout Star Wars canon.

BioWare greatly added to this with KOTOR. And the lore hasn't been the same since. I've always maintained that the title Darth should only be reserved for the leader of the Sith Order, such as the Emperor and his Wrath. Everyone else would be Lords.

By having so many Darths running around it completely dilutes the effect of seeing one. A Darth is the face of darkness in Star Wars and the main evil - The Enemy so to speak. But now it's just a title that basically just means "General".

This exactly. And it's all because of the prequels. Before they came out, it seems like most of the Sith Lords in the EU were not Darths. They had names like Naga Sadow, Exar Kun, Ulic-Qel Droma, Marka Ragnos, Tulak Hord, and Freedon Nadd. Then Lucas came out with Darth Sidious and Darth Maul and suddenly the idea that Darth was a title and not Vader's first name became prevalent throughout Star Wars canon.

 

BioWare greatly added to this with KOTOR. And the lore hasn't been the same since. I've always maintained that the title Darth should only be reserved for the leader of the Sith Order, such as the Emperor and his Wrath. Everyone else would be Lords.

 

By having so many Darths running around it completely dilutes the effect of seeing one. A Darth is the face of darkness in Star Wars and the main evil - The Enemy so to speak. But now it's just a title that basically just means "General".

That is ironic in a way, since the Emperor was never actually a Darth but rather given the title of Lord by Marka Ragnos. After the end of the Great Hyperspace War, he just appointed himself as the Emperor, following his ritual on Nathema.

Also, it should be pointed out that former Dark Lords, such as Naga Sadow or Marka Ragnos, didn't exactly agreed on that, so much that Gnost-Dural mentions it in one of his diaries...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVqXt2Vj3J0#t=04m49s

Shame it's never actually further explored and / or expanded in the actual game.

This exactly. And it's all because of the prequels. Before they came out, it seems like most of the Sith Lords in the EU were not Darths. They had names like Naga Sadow, Exar Kun, Ulic-Qel Droma, Marka Ragnos, Tulak Hord, and Freedon Nadd. Then Lucas came out with Darth Sidious and Darth Maul and suddenly the idea that Darth was a title and not Vader's first name became prevalent throughout Star Wars canon.

 

BioWare greatly added to this with KOTOR. And the lore hasn't been the same since. I've always maintained that the title Darth should only be reserved for the leader of the Sith Order, such as the Emperor and his Wrath. Everyone else would be Lords.

 

By having so many Darths running around it completely dilutes the effect of seeing one. A Darth is the face of darkness in Star Wars and the main evil - The Enemy so to speak. But now it's just a title that basically just means "General".

The meaning of the title Darth really hasn't changed fundamentally since it was first conceived. It is and always has been a Sith title used by certain Sith Lords that precedes their Sith name. And it always has been a symbol of power and supremacy over others and over fellow Sith. All the EU has done is explained how the usage of the title has changed and evolved over millennia, always fundamentally being the same thing, but used in different contexts.

And that seems pretty swell to me, history is not static, you can't expect everything to always be the same. For example this idea that the Darth title has been "diluted" is exactly what Bane believed and what started the Rule of Two.

Because people threw a fit over it. But no matter how much we ask for it, Bounty Hunter players still haven't gotten a "The Mandalorian" title.

im not happy they removed it, neither am i happy they removed jedi general i would play a dark jedi just for general i much prefer it.

they really need to add these in hell they would make us pay a little i bet they never considered that

In this era, the Cold War era, Darth is a preceding title literally meaning Dark Lord of the Sith. In the Sith heirarchy, a Darth's political clout and power exceeds that of a Lord, and it seems due to empirical evidence that Darth titles are bestowed upon those who have bested a former Darth (i.e. nullified the power of their direct superior). Compared to the Jedi Order a Darth=Master.

Lord is a title under Darth and also is a naming convention. I.e. "My lord" when referring to apprentices and up.

In the era of the 6 movies, a Darth is a title bestowed amongst any Sith, while lord is just a naming convention. Lord is not a title, it is like Sir when one is referring to a knight or His/Her Majesty when one is referring to the monarch of Britain. What people seem to forget is that during the later era of Bane and the era of the movies, the Sith in question ascribed to the Rule of Two. That again, there are only ever two Sith (Maul's time being an exception), both Sith were referred to as Darth. Being bestowed Darth meant that you were officially an apprentice.

Comparing the movies uses of Darth to SWTOR use of it is apples and oranges. The title was differently, as, unlike the Jedi, the Sith have constantly been shifting the terms of their existence. There have been groups like the Cold War era Sith, big and diverse, to the Rule of Two, master and apprentice, to the Rule of One (whose power structure I know nothing about).

Now about the actual topic, despite what happened in Beta, the SW is a Darth. He usurped a former Darth and also, unlike Lord Scourge, is very formally recognised by the Council. For that to happen, he would be named a Darth so the Councillors wouldn't lose face inviting them to their tea parties.

Now about the actual topic, despite what happened in Beta, the SW is a Darth. He usurped a former Darth and also, unlike Lord Scourge, is very formally recognised by the Council. For that to happen, he would be named a Darth so the Councillors wouldn't lose face inviting them to their tea parties.

Well actually I've recently noticed that your Sith Warrior is addressed as "Lord" in those chapter cards/intros of whatever you call them. So I think its possible he/she may be a Lord, but can easily be RPed as a Darth.

Considering you get the "Darth" title for your efforts, I think the Warrior would be a Darth, if he wasn't the Emperor's Wrath. As Baras' former apprentice and his killer/usurper, I'd say he could have been on the Council if he wasn't already something greater .

And later he's addressed only as "Wrath", maybe once or twice as "My lord Wrath".