JEDI:

• Anakin Skywalker:BlueJadedSkies
• Obi-Wan Kenobi:

• Ahsoka Tano:
• Yoda:
• Mace Windu:
• Plo Koon:
• Ki-Adi-Mundi:
• Aayla Secura: WildlyEmotional
• Kit Fisto:
• Shaak Ti:
• Luminara Unduli:
• Quinlan Vos:

SITH/SEPARATISTS/DARK ACOLYTES:

• Sheev Palpatine/Darth Sidious:
• Count Dooku/Darth Tyranus:
• Asajj Ventress:
• Savage Oppress:
• Darth Maul:
• General Grievous:
• Sora Bulq-Galactatech

CLONE TROOPERS:

• Commander Cody:
• Captain Rex: Lone Ranger1994

SENATORS/MISC:

• Padmé Amidala:
• Bail Organa:
• Mon Mothma:
• C-3PO:
• R2-D2:
• Jar-Jar Binks: Lone Ranger1994

Sora Bulq please.

also Savage Oppress and Maul wouldn't be under dark Acolytes or Separatists, or even sith. they were false sith.

Dark acolytes...are people that use the dark side in general aren't they?

and Savage and Maul do XD

sorry if I sound rude or anything

you got him

the dark acolytes were darksiders under the command of dooku, usually fallen jedi.

I'm sure Dark side is not just limited to Dooku.

it's not, but the term your looking for isn't Dark Acolyte, it's Dark Jedi.

Does it really matter?

Acolyte literally means "Follower"

and aren't Maul and Savage followers of the dark side?

and Terminology doesn't really matter...they are still the same characters

Yes it does. The Dark Acolytes were Darksiders affliated with the cis, just like the imperial inquisitorious and hands of the emperor served the empire.

It's not gonna mess up the fourm...I think people get the general idea if they watch the series...just let it drop okay?

And star wars.com(A very Canon sorece) says this about Darth Maul:

A deadly, agile Sith Lord trained by the evil Darth Sidious....

So according to canon Maul is a SITH

Yes, but he's no longer a part of the rule of two sith.

But fine if you prefer the inferior disney maul.

The rule of two is broken all the time...even in legends...so...

Can we just stop arguing about this and move on?

In the Star wars databank, Darth Maul is listed as a Sith Lord, even if he maybe held the title for only a certain time (I'm a fan, not an expert), and Savage Oppress is also actually listed as a Dark Acolyte (Note the capitalization of the group's name.). It's canon. And while there was most certainly a group called the Dark Acolytes, simply calling them dark acolytes is correct. There is no, "But they can't be dark acolytes (followers of the dark ways) because there's a group called Dark Acolytes. Which were a group that did this for that reason/person." That's like saying that you can't call snarky assassins snarky assassins because a group of sharp-humoured killers-for-hire have claimed the rights to the company title 'Snarky Assassins'.

Dark Acolytes all fall under the category of dark acolytes, but not all dark acolytes are Dark Acolytes. Some dark acolytes may be, as you've named, fallen jedi or false sith. (I've already typed D/dark A/acolytes too many times.)

Your opinion has been noted, but it's not imperative to the survival of the forum and the way BelovedOphelia has organized her own forum is still perfectly valid.

So, in hopes of politely and respectively correcting you on the subject of the terminology mattering:

No, it doesn't.

Now, please, carry on without lashing out at others. There are better things to do than trying to chip at the lip of a perfectly good glass cup with a screwdriver because you think it's uneven.

Look, I'm sorry for getting mad. I just miss the classical Expanded Universe that Disney and Lucas destroyed.

• Forums are not to be used to post stories.
• All forum posts must be suitable for teens.
• The owner and moderators of this forum are solely responsible for the content posted within this area.
• All forum abuse must be reported to the moderators.