Darth Nihilus versus Marka Ragnos
Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.
Darth Traya
Who has more sheer power?
Who would be more of a threat to the galaxy?
SS_181st_Snow
More of a threat to the galaxy? I wanna say Nihilus since he can suck the force itself. A feat not accomplished since Hillary Clinton.
Illustrious
Nihilus is the greater universal threat to all -- including himself.
jollyjim311
Originally posted by SS_181st_Snow
More of a threat to the galaxy? I wanna say Nihilus since he can suck the force itself. A feat not accomplished since Hillary Clinton.
I think Monica did a little more sucking then Hillary... sucking the force I mean...well...
IKC
Nihilus, being an anomaly, is more of a threat. I wouldn't say he's necessarily more powerful, but I don't know for certain since Ragnos is an unknown quantity.
calvin44
i voted ragnos because:
even though nihilus can "suck" the force, the jedi council would send a jedi master to assasinate him.
ragnos would have more infuence; enough to create a massive army that would be more of a threat.
Darth_Glentract
Nihilus would be more of a threat because Ragnos didn't want to be a threat to the galaxy.
calvin44
Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
Nihilus would be more of a threat because Ragnos didn't want to be a threat to the galaxy.
that wasnt the question
if they wanted to be a threat, who would be a bigger one?
that is what he meant.
so what is your opinion?
Darth_Glentract
"Who would be more of a threat to the galaxy?"
If it was who could be more of a threat, why wouldn't it say, "Who could be more of a threat to the galaxy?"
If it is by possibility of threat, Ragnos for sure.
calvin44
We"ll have to wit for traya to give us this information.
Great Vengeance
Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
Nihilus would be more of a threat because Ragnos didn't want to be a threat to the galaxy.
Incorrect Glentract, Ragnos wouldnt of hesitated to attack the republic if he felt the sith empire was strong enough to win, however he didnt think they were which was a grave error because the sith never got stronger than during his reign at the peak of the golden age of the sith.
Ianus
Actually, he couldn't wage war with the Republic when people who wanted his ass dead (The entire ruling class) was willing to try and off him.
Great Vengeance
To answer the question though Ragnos is the greater threat because not only is he enormously powerful but he is also smart. Hes still alive isnt he?
Ianus
True, but Nihilus could absorb the Force and life energy of an entire planet (Apparently before they could respond in kind). Since Ragnos has no known feats on par, Nihilus is the bigger threat.
Great Vengeance
Originally posted by Ianus
Actually, he couldn't wage war with the Republic when people who wanted his ass dead (The entire ruling class) was willing to try and off him.
They wanted to but no one had the balls to face him in combat.
calvin44
but the republic knows less of ragnos than nihilus, which could play to his advantage.
Ianus
The Republic knew nothing about Nihilus, actually.
calvin44
i would like to know the background of nihilus.
Great Vengeance
Originally posted by Ianus
True, but Nihilus could absorb the Force and life energy of an entire planet (Apparently before they could respond in kind). Since Ragnos has no known feats on par, Nihilus is the bigger threat.
Yes nihilus is very dangerous, but since he was defeated by the exile it shows he can be killed. The republic would eventually take him out by blowing up his ship or something.
Ianus
Uh, the Republic couldn't blow up his ship, since his Force power kept it together.
And Nihlus weakened himself by trying to drain the exile, but the Exile cannot be drained because he is himself a wound in the Force.
Darth_Glentract
Republic Crusiers can blow the heck out of his ship. He can't hold it together permanetly, and a few thousand turbolaser shots and Nihilus is down. Ragnos on the otherhand should be able to force push enemy ships into stars of if over a planet, push them down into the planet, effectively destroying the ship. Thing is though, he didn't want to attack the Republic. He could have been a larger potential threat, but wasn't one in the end.
Great Vengeance
Originally posted by Ianus
Uh, the Republic couldn't blow up his ship, since his Force power kept it together.
And Nihlus weakened himself by trying to drain the exile, but the Exile cannot be drained because he is himself a wound in the Force.
1.No his force power kept the ship from falling apart on its own, but if it was attacked with enough force Nihilus wouldnt be able to protect his ship or himself.
2.I know that.. the point was if you stick a lightsaber through him he can die, meaning the republic would probably be able to set up a trap of some sort to kill him which would also take advantage of his apparent stupidity.
Ianus
When did Ragnos force push anything now?
Darth_Glentract
We know he was more powerful than Sadow, who in another thread I showed had the power behind his force push equivalent to several thousand stars(I don't remember what thread though, but it was recently). A star destroyer produces power equal to a star, so it's engines produce less thrust than that.
Great Vengeance
Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
We know he was more powerful than Sadow, who in another thread I showed had the power behind his force push equivalent to several thousand stars(I don't remember what thread though, but it was recently). A star destroyer produces power equal to a star, so it's engines produce less thrust than that.
That was the Revan vs Kyp thread I think...I cant say you convinced me, you never showed proof that Naga actually moved anything within the star as opposed to blowing it up through means we dont know about. Ragnos probably has a mean force push but I wouldnt go as far as you on this one.
Darth_Glentract
It's actually not impossible. The Kaiburr Crystal could have made people almost that powerful. It was said that if one person had the entire crystal and was at it's point of origin, it would increase there force powers by a thousand fold. Add that to a few Sith Amulets and Coleman Trebor is blowing up galaxies.
IKC
Incorrect. Sadow's ship performed the "star moving/ripping" feat, as I've proven repeatedly. Therefore, it is unlikely that Ragnos can perform feats as you've said, Glentract.
If Sadow could rip the core from a star by himself regardless of his ship, why didn't he do all the things you said Ragnos could do (force pushing ships)?
He didn't. He can't. It was the ship and weapon he designed. Period.
Illustrious
Originally posted by IKC
Incorrect. Sadow's ship performed the "star moving/ripping" feat, as I've proven repeatedly. Therefore, it is unlikely that Ragnos can perform feats as you've said, Glentract.
If Sadow could rip the core from a star by himself regardless of his ship, why didn't he do all the things you said Ragnos could do (force pushing ships)?
He didn't. He can't. It was the ship and weapon he designed. Period.
You do realize that absence of proof is not proof of absence, right?
Darth Traya
Glentract, how could the Republic do anything to harm him? Any Jedi they sent to kill him would be drained and any battlefleet would be drained.
IKC
Originally posted by Illustrious
You do realize that absence of proof is not proof of absence, right?
Gee Illustrious, whenever I state correctly that the shown power of the ancient Sith is not a result of any inherent ability but a product of their ability to create artificial means to use the Force, you seem to get worked up with inventing with rhetorical means to argue against me, rather than presenting any evidence that proves the contrary. May I ask why?
To be fair, Ragnos may have had similar or better devices/amulets/baubles than Sadow. And, of course, Ragnos definitely had more Force power than Sadow. This, however, doesn't mean Ragnos could go out in a normal ship and start pushing capital ships into planets or suns or anything. That's ridiculous.
Darth_Glentract
The point is though that the Sith kept their force enhancing magics with them, keeping them at that power all of the time.
Darth_Glentract
Originally posted by Darth Traya
Glentract, how could the Republic do anything to harm him? Any Jedi they sent to kill him would be drained and any battlefleet would be drained.
Why didn't he do that at the 2nd Battle of Telos?
IKC
Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
The point is though that the Sith kept their force enhancing magics with them, keeping them at that power all of the time.
Yes, but the real point is that they're not inherently (naturally) more powerful than the beings of other ages.
Ianus
Te real point is their inherent powers are unstated since they are always at full power due to their lifestyle. You think Naga Sadow takes off his baubles and struts around? He has living enemies everywhere.
To assume that their normal power is much lower or even that it's comparable with later Force users begs for evidence. And there is none, so I don't see the point really. What, is Sadow gonna fight naked in the next match?
Illustrious
Originally posted by IKC
Gee Illustrious, whenever I state correctly that the shown power of the ancient Sith is not a result of any inherent ability but a product of their ability to create artificial means to use the Force, you seem to get worked up with inventing with rhetorical means to argue against me, rather than presenting any evidence that proves the contrary. May I ask why?
To be fair, Ragnos may have had similar or better devices/amulets/baubles than Sadow. And, of course, Ragnos definitely had more Force power than Sadow. This, however, doesn't mean Ragnos could go out in a normal ship and start pushing capital ships into planets or suns or anything. That's ridiculous.
I type one sentence. You give me two paragraphs of bullshit. Who's worked up now? Maybe it's because I don't like it when people bullshit facts and unsupported theories that contradict stated narration? That might be it.
The fact of the matter is that you don't have any clue what the actual raw power of the Ancient Sith are. However, we do know that it is "immense" by book definition, and clearly with the equipment they are godlike. Now Naga Sadow, Ludo Kressh, Lord Simus, and Marka Ragnos are the most powerful 4, what should that tell you? Basic inference.
Honestly, I don't know why I bother with people who can't put 2 and 2 together, and instead hope to try to argue something to an unstated in order to prove a nonexistent point to begin with. Just what are you compensating for?
Thank you. At least someone has some basic logical reasoning.
Actually, for that matter. You haven't offered any proof that the Ancient Sith aren't godlike like the narrator describes them. Showing another individual that replicated one or two feats with their magic or their equipment doesn't do anything except prop the Ancient Sith up for coming up with the shit to begin with.
The fact of the matter is if you are trying to contradict offical narration (such as arguing that Yoda is blue instead of the stated green), you have to offer definitive proof. You haven't, you can't, yet you still bullshit. Like I said already, show me the money or shut the f*ck up. With the way you're debating now, you don't want me to even take a step towards my comics, trust me, save of course if you're masochistic.
IKC
Why is it my stated narration is not quite up to your standards, then? I forget, did you or did you not accept that it was Sadow's ship, not his force power, that was capable of ripping the cores from stars?
Here it is:
Emphasis mine.
There are other examples where the narrator emphasizes the power of people who are not ancient Sith, for example calling Kun "the darkest power in the galaxy." Is the narrator's word the only thing that matters?
We can estimate fairly well, however, using feats. However, those estimations diminish when we find out that those feats were accomplished through artificial means.
The problem is, Illustrious, these are the only two feats (illusions and stars) that the Ancient Sith have going for them, and have been used in the past to greatly overestimate their power. Frankly, I would rather use hard evidence from the comic rather than the word of the narrator, because the narrator's word is extremely subjective.
Yes. I. Do. I've been asking you for the greater part of this week to prove up and give me a better example of the power of the Ancient Sith than the narrator's word. I've already given them, specifically Sadow, credit for inventing these artificial means of controlling, focusing, and enhancing the Dark Side. But when people from later times perform the same and sometimes greater feats with less equipment than the Ancients themselves had, I question whether they're really as naturally powerful as we think.
My entire point is that we need to rethink whether or not the Ancients would curbstomp everyone that came after them. I don't think they could. They have a damned good chance of winning in most cases, but it's not guaranteed.
Darth_Glentract
Originally posted by Ianus
Te real point is their inherent powers are unstated since they are always at full power due to their lifestyle. You think Naga Sadow takes off his baubles and struts around? He has living enemies everywhere.
To assume that their normal power is much lower or even that it's comparable with later Force users begs for evidence. And there is none, so I don't see the point really. What, is Sadow gonna fight naked in the next match?
IKC, Janus' argument turns yours to dust. If Sadow fought Exar naked, he would lose, but he always has his armor and crystals with him, making his vastly more powerful.
IKC
Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
IKC, Janus' argument turns yours to dust. If Sadow fought Exar naked, he would lose, but he always has his armor and crystals with him, making his vastly more powerful.
And Exar Kun didn't have one of Naga's amulets? He wore the most prominent one, anyway, and one I speculate may be his best. As well, Freedon Nadd was able to create his own amulet. He wasn't an ancient Sith. DE Sidious as well had another of Naga's amulets, as well as a Kaiburr crystal. Is it not rather hard to judge, then, which of these could be more powerful than the other?
This is my thinking: The Ancient Sith and those I've mentioned, as well as others, may well be close to equal in power. The Ancient Sith have an advantage inasmuch as they created many artificial means to increase their power. However, this advantage is partly nullified because many of the beings that came later either came across these creations or found objects that had a similar effect.
Darth_Glentract
Do you have any proof that Exar had Naga's best Amulet? Notice that Nadd was trained BY Sadow. Nadd may very well have been given his by Sadow, which makes sense as nearly all Sith from that time gave their apprentice's Amulets. Again, with DE Sidious, prove that the Amulet was a particularly powerful one and that he had a large enough piece of the Kaiburr Crystal to have much effect(Luke had a piece too, but the farther he got from the place it had bound itself to, the weaker it got.). You need to offer proof.
Also, what did Nadd do that surpasses, or even equals Naga's achivements? What did DE Sidious do that is greater than Naga's feats? In what way did Exar demonstrate power equal with Naga?
The people who followed in the wake of the Ancient Sith found small pieces of what the Ancient Sith really had. They in no way found all or even near all of what the Ancient Sith had.
calvin44
Originally posted by IKC
And Exar Kun didn't have one of Naga's amulets? He wore the most prominent one, anyway, and one I speculate may be his best. As well, Freedon Nadd was able to create his own amulet. He wasn't an ancient Sith. DE Sidious as well had another of Naga's amulets, as well as a Kaiburr crystal. Is it not rather hard to judge, then, which of these could be more powerful than the other?
This is my thinking: The Ancient Sith and those I've mentioned, as well as others, may well be close to equal in power. The Ancient Sith have an advantage inasmuch as they created many artificial means to increase their power. However, this advantage is partly nullified because many of the beings that came later either came across these creations or found objects that had a similar effect.
i would like to know how sids got one of naga's amulets.
Darth_Glentract
He went to Korriban and got it.
BTW, it would be better if you didn't quote an entire post that is more than a few sentences for one small question.
calvin44
strange how this isnt mentioned in the movies.
Darth_Glentract
Notice it's DE Sidious.
Ianus
Why is it my stated narration is not quite up to your standards, then? I forget, did you or did you not accept that it was Sadow's ship, not his force power, that was capable of ripping the cores from stars?
Where do you think the ship got its vaunted powers from? Was Naga Sadow someone who could make ships better than the Empire 4,000 years later? Or would it be that the powers were originally from him? Ludo Kressh didn't have a star blowing ship. No one else did either. It came from Sadow. Consider the source; his knowledge and mastery over the force WAS considerable. He was able to make those illusions... he made up 90% of his own forces which are, as noted in narration, thousands upon thousands in ships, troops, and mounts. He did this via meditation. Also, the red jeweled gauntlets Kun wears? Sadow wore them in the Golden Age of the Sith comics. In Fall of the Sith Empire, he sports newer blue ones. Tell me Kun wasn't boosted again?
Here it is:
Emphasis mine.
There are other examples where the narrator emphasizes the power of people who are not ancient Sith, for example calling Kun "the darkest power in the galaxy." Is the narrator's word the only thing that matters?
Again, consider the source. Sadow is the ONLY Sith Lord in the series to have such "toys". He is the originator of such knowledge and power. How can you argue he's somehow vastly weaker without them? You most certainly don't have any "hard evidence" of such, since he's never shown without them in the series. Really, you're assuming that he's weaker or that he's really close to say, Person A's level without proving it.
And the narration may call Exar Kun the darkest power in the galaxy. Certainly, he was waging a war of sorts against the jedi order and was the greatest living threat of his time.
We can estimate fairly well, however, using feats. However, those estimations diminish when we find out that those feats were accomplished through artificial means.
Not really. You're using a -sample- of Sadow's feats, not everything he is capable of. Sadow's creations endow Force users with the ability to do something that is truly godlike. Kun could do it, Aleema could do it, Sadow could do it. By your reasoning, they are all on the same level.
Also, no one else has duplicated the feat of Naga's force illusions. You said yourself, they fight like real enemies, and he says "I imagine them in my mind's eye and they become a reality"... He's spawning all of these creations from his mind via the Force. This is CONSIDERABLE, and certainly makes even Kun's freezing of the Senate pale in comparison.
And again, absence of proof is not proof of absence. You are trying to tell us he's weaker or boosted and all this other stuff but you can't substantiate your claims with any real evidence, just assumptions and nitpicking.
The problem is, Illustrious, these are the only two feats (illusions and stars) that the Ancient Sith have going for them, and have been used in the past to greatly overestimate their power. Frankly, I would rather use hard evidence from the comic rather than the word of the narrator, because the narrator's word is extremely subjective.
So you're being selective of your evidence? There's other feats you neglect to mention:
- Simus keeps himself alive as a head.
- Ludo Kressh, upon the council of the Sith making Sadow DLotS, took out his blade and broke it. Sith blades are made of heavy cortosis and are reinforced via Sith magic. Ludo Kressh is also near Sadow's own level in power, since he was unanimously elected DLotS in Sadow's absence.
- Every single thing that Nadd, Kun, Revan, Kreia, Sion, etc. ever practiced as Sith originated from the Sith Empire. It was -their- knowledge. To argue that people alien to Sith culture have better understanding and mastery of Sith magics is folly.
Yes. I. Do. I've been asking you for the greater part of this week to prove up and give me a better example of the power of the Ancient Sith than the narrator's word. I've already given them, specifically Sadow, credit for inventing these artificial means of controlling, focusing, and enhancing the Dark Side. But when people from later times perform the same and sometimes greater feats with less equipment than the Ancients themselves had, I question whether they're really as naturally powerful as we think.
Same or lesser feats? Such as what? Specify.
My entire point is that we need to rethink whether or not the Ancients would curbstomp everyone that came after them. I don't think they could. They have a damned good chance of winning in most cases, but it's not guaranteed.
Nothing is guaranteed. Versus forums operate under the "Who would win best 2 out of 3" mode. If I say Kun curbstomps Yoda, it doesn't neccessarily mean he'd win EVERY fight. But the ancient Sith are described as godlike. Their mastery of the Force was the foundation for advanced power for millenia after their decline, and considering they are the source for the very magics you credit people like Sidious and Kun with, I don't see at all how you could imply they are weaker than such, and I most certainly haven't seen you prove it.
IKC
Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
Do you have any proof that Exar had Naga's best Amulet? Notice that Nadd was trained BY Sadow. Nadd may very well have been given his by Sadow, which makes sense as nearly all Sith from that time gave their apprentice's Amulets. Again, with DE Sidious, prove that the Amulet was a particularly powerful one and that he had a large enough piece of the Kaiburr Crystal to have much effect(Luke had a piece too, but the farther he got from the place it had bound itself to, the weaker it got.). You need to offer proof.
Also, what did Nadd do that surpasses, or even equals Naga's achivements? What did DE Sidious do that is greater than Naga's feats? In what way did Exar demonstrate power equal with Naga?
The people who followed in the wake of the Ancient Sith found small pieces of what the Ancient Sith really had. They in no way found all or even near all of what the Ancient Sith had.
I'll answer in order.
Read what I wrote. "He wore the most prominent one, anyway, and one I speculate may be his best." Key word is speculate. Nadd was not given his by Sadow, however, Glentract. He made it himself. That's not up for debate. And with DE Sidious, do you really think that Sidious himself is powerful enough to conjure force storms and teleport people across the galaxy without those two objects? DE Sidious is a massive improvement from ROTS Sidious. Other than being in a younger body, how else would he have suddenly gotten more powerful?
Nadd did take over a planet and establish dark side rule, as well as continue to rule from beyond the grave through his puppet descendents. DE Sidious, as I've already said, conjured Force Storms that ripped apart capital ships and teleported people across the galaxy. As for Kun, one of his lackeys mirrored Sadow's feats. Kun himself instakilled a powerful Jedi Master, Odan-Urr, froze the Senate (thousands or tens of thousands of members, as well as non-force-using guards, etc.), toyed with and curbstomped the Grandmaster of the Jedi, and similarly toyed with Master Ood, yet another ancient and powerful Jedi Master.
So even though they found what you claim to be traces of what the Ancients had, they performed comparable, the exact same, or better feats. What does that tell you?
calvin44
Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
Do you have any proof that Exar had Naga's best Amulet? Notice that Nadd was trained BY Sadow. Nadd may very well have been given his by Sadow, which makes sense as nearly all Sith from that time gave their apprentice's Amulets. Again, with DE Sidious, prove that the Amulet was a particularly powerful one and that he had a large enough piece of the Kaiburr Crystal to have much effect(Luke had a piece too, but the farther he got from the place it had bound itself to, the weaker it got.). You need to offer proof.
Ulic was made his apprentice by the ghost of ragnos, and kun the master. therefore it is only probable that kun got the better of the two.
BUT would sadow make one amulet more powerful that than the other?
IKC
One, I never said Kun wasn't boosted. Please read everything I post.
So if one creates a powerful artifact, one must therefore have imbued the artifact with one's own power? I see. Does that mean Exar Kun himself imbued the hundreds upon hundreds of temples on Yavin 4 with his own power? You know, those very same temples that allowed the padawan students of Luke Skywalker to throw back a Super Star Destroyer?
Of course not. The artifacts gather and channel the force by themselves, then. If one is that powerful without them, they wouldn't need to be created.
You forget, by the way, that Aleema's own meditation creates illusions much like Sadow's.
Really? Where, exactly, does it say that Sadow is the only Sith Lord to create force-boosting amulets and similar baubles, and indeed is the originator of the knowledge? My reasoning is as follows: Persons A and B grow vastly more powerful when they acquire person C's artifacts. Ergo, Person C's power must diminish if these artifacts are taken away, or there would be no reason for Person C to have the artifacts in the first place.
I was throwing that quote out as an example of subjective hyperbole.
Problem is, again, those are the only feats Sadow has performed in the stories. My question is this: What else is he capable of?
And you're not getting my reasoning. They'd be all on the same level if they had a contest to see who could rip the core from a star, sure. But in raw force power, obviously Kun and Sadow are superior to Aleema. However, Kun has displayed feats that Sadow has never mirrored, whereas both of Sadow's feats are mirrored by Aleema. Ergo, Kun may be more powerful than Sadow.
Actually, I wrote that Aleema's illusions fight like real enemies. I can't say conclusively whether Sadow's did. Aleema's monstrosities were just as impressive; she created dozens of "space grazers," creatures who prey on space traffic, to attack the Republic fleet over Koros Major. Ergo, Kun's feat is still more impressive.
And the B'omaar monks kept themselves alive as brains. Yes, Simus' feat is impressive. So is Vader's feat of staying alive for the considerable time it took for Palpatine to reach him, even though it's obvious he cannot breathe.
Tell me where it says Sith blades are made of cortosis, for one, and don't say KOTOR. Cortosis didn't exist as a mineral in the Star Wars mythos until Zahn's Hand of Thrawn series, I believe. That was a good time after the comics were penned.
Either way, so? Immense strength is not a feat that's unmirrored elsewhere in Star Wars.
Yes, but are you saying every citizen of the Sith Empire had access to, for example, Naga Sadow's hidden trove of alchemical equipment and tomes, etc? Are you saying they could freely roam the empire and take and use each other's secrets at their will, with no fear of reprisal from the owners? Nonsense. Those that came after have the small advantage of there being no owners left to battle over knowledge with. As well, they have the advantage of having access to the knowledge of some of the greatest Sith Lords, whereas those Sith Lords couldn't study one another's knowledge for the reason I've already stated.
I've already mentioned the feats that later force users performed. All we have to go on on the Ancients is star-ripping and illusions.
And are not shown to be in the actual story. I could pen a story about a clown and constantly describe him as godlike in the narration, does that make him so? Obviously, the ancient Sith are not clowns, but the point stands.
That's not necessarily true. We don't know, for example, if Kun either researched his freeze spell or invented it himself. We also don't know if Sidious did the same with his Force Storm and teleportation.
You operate under the assumption that the accumulation of all knowledge of the Force happened under the Sith Empire, and when the Empire fell all knowledge was lost forever, only to be picked up in traces by later, lesser men. You don't take into account that new techniques can be invented, or that progress can be made. You don't take into account that someone that was born thousands of years after the Ancients could possibly be naturally stronger in the Force. I find that narrow-minded.
Luke Is Better
Ianus, with your reasoning right there your pretty much saying that Yoda could never be more powerful then say Hoth or Vodo because they studied the force before him and w/e Yoda is learning they already learned. I'm not saying that Kun, Revan, Sion etc... are better than Simus, and Kressh and others of the Sith Empire but your reasoning is not very sound.
Darth_Glentract
Originally posted by IKC
Read what I wrote. "He wore the most prominent one, anyway, and one I speculate may be his best."
In anycase, you need to back up why you think that it is his best, or it is trash.
You missed my point though. You said, "He wore the most prominent one..."
That was what I was asking you to prove, not that it was his most powerful(which I would advise you add some solid proof to your speculation.).Key word is speculate.
Originally posted by IKC
Nadd was not given his by Sadow, however, Glentract. He made it himself. That's not up for debate.
Do you have ANY proof of this?
Originally posted by IKC
And with DE Sidious, do you really think that Sidious himself is powerful enough to conjure force storms and teleport people across the galaxy without those two objects? DE Sidious is a massive improvement from ROTS Sidious. Other than being in a younger body, how else would he have suddenly gotten more powerful?
Please read more carefully next time. I never stated that those two objects weren't what got him to that level of power. I stated that you need to prove that he ever got to that level of power to begin with. You also need to prove that Force Storms and teleporting people across the galaxy is as impressive as what Naga did.
Originally posted by IKC
Nadd did take over a planet and establish dark side rule, as well as continue to rule from beyond the grave through his puppet descendents.
How does this make him as powerful as Sadow?
Originally posted by IKC
DE Sidious, as I've already said, conjured Force Storms that ripped apart capital ships and teleported people across the galaxy.
You have failed to prove that force storms and moving people across the galaxy makes him more powerful.
Originally posted by IKC
As for Kun, one of his lackeys mirrored Sadow's feats.
It was one of his lackeys who temporarily had much of Sadow's technology. This goes back to Janus' naked Sadow argument.
Originally posted by IKC
Kun himself instakilled a powerful Jedi Master, Odan-Urr, froze the Senate (thousands or tens of thousands of members, as well as non-force-using guards, etc.), toyed with and curbstomped the Grandmaster of the Jedi, and similarly toyed with Master Ood, yet another ancient and powerful Jedi Master.
Can you scan a pick of Kun "instakilling" Odan.
Freezing the Senate isn't very impressive as Sidious, as of ROTS, was constantly controlling a far greater number of Senators(greater number because the Republic was far larger in Sidious' time).
The second are both hyperbole and fail to make Exar more impressive than Sadow.
Originally posted by IKC
So even though they found what you claim to be traces of what the Ancients had, they performed comparable, the exact same, or better feats. What does that tell you?
You haven't proved any of that. Prove up or shut up. It's really that simple.
IKC
Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
In anycase, you need to back up why you think that it is his best, or it is trash.
You missed my point though. You said, "He wore the most prominent one..."
That was what I was asking you to prove, not that it was his most powerful(which I would advise you add some solid proof to your speculation.).Key word is speculate.
Do you have ANY proof of this?
Please read more carefully next time. I never stated that those two objects weren't what got him to that level of power. I stated that you need to prove that he ever got to that level of power to begin with. You also need to prove that Force Storms and teleporting people across the galaxy is as impressive as what Naga did.
How does this make him as powerful as Sadow?
You have failed to prove that force storms and moving people across the galaxy makes him more powerful.
It was one of his lackeys who temporarily had much of Sadow's technology. This goes back to Janus' naked Sadow argument.
Can you scan a pick of Kun "instakilling" Odan.
Freezing the Senate isn't very impressive as Sidious, as of ROTS, was constantly controlling a far greater number of Senators(greater number because the Republic was far larger in Sidious' time).
The second are both hyperbole and fail to make Exar more impressive than Sadow.
You haven't proved any of that. Prove up or shut up. It's really that simple.
Answering in order again. Oh, and I recommend you read my response to Ianus, too.
The amulet that Kun picked up is one I've never seen Sadow without in all the scans I've seen of him. The other decorations Sadow wore could very well have been jewelry, for all I know. It's rather difficult to know what's an empowered bauble and what isn't. (Kun's Sadow amulet was a left gauntlet connected by chains to a shoulderpad, made of gold metal. It had a circular red jewel, cracked in many places, on the back of the hand.)
And my reasoning for Nadd's amulet being his own creation is that Nadd had bound his spirit to the amulet. It seems unlikely to me that he'd be able to do this if it were someone else's creation.
As for Sidious' feats, why wouldn't Force Storms that rip apart capital ships be impressive, Glentract? They literally kill everything they touch. That counts as an impressive feat to me, especially since he seems to be able to do it on his own power (aided, of course, by the amulet and crystal).
As for teleportation: if teleportation is not a great feat, why don't all force users do it? Hell, Anakin and Obi-Wan need never have endangered themselves flying to The Invisible Hand to rescue Palpatine. All they would have needed to do is teleport Palpatine back to his office, nice and neatly.
Of course, such would have been ludicrous. Teleportation is quite a feat by any standard, unless it becomes commonplace.
Nadd's feat doesn't necessarily make him more powerful, and I never said it did. However, Nadd performed it without assistance from a major focus of the Dark Side (Sadow's ship or meditation sphere).
And because Kun's lackey hadthe technology (which is only true for one feat, star-ripping, not the illusion one), she could perform the very same feats Sadow did. Where, then, is Sadow's superior power?
For Kun instakilling Odan-Urr: Like I wrote at DTF, I'll bring my scanner from home next time I go there.
Freezing the Senate: Glentract, Sidious didn't manipulate the Senate by exclusive use of the Dark Side. We're speaking about Force feats here, not political maneuvering.
And how is Exar Kun curbstomping two more ancient Jedi masters, one of which is the Grandmaster of the Order, hyperbole? How many Jedi did Sadow meet in single combat? I'm not saying that because Exar did he's more powerful, but it gives us a good measure of what he's capable of.
For the last line: Yes I have.
Illustrious
No. Because it's bad logic.
Sadow's ship blew up the star, ergo Sadow couldn't. Hardly true. This is an unknown. Sadow very well could have the capacity, but the ship be more efficient.
Get it through your head. Sadow without his godly items is an unknown that's talked up by the narrator. And I give the narrator more precedence.
As for why your narration doesn't count. When did I say that? I said it doesn't prove anything. I've shown your logic to be invalid numerous times. You just get defensive and try to cover up.
Do you see me saying it's not true?
Kun's the darkest force of the galaxy. It never states Kun's the baddest mofo of all time. You shouldn't fling around additional modifiers that aren't in the text.
No you can't estimate fairly well.
For example, if Kun had no on-panel feats, and he blew up a star with the aid of technology, does that mean he is weak?
No. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Get that through your head. I won't repeat it again.
Sadow also pulled a solar flare with his bare hand.
Kressh shattered an enchanted cortosis sith sword with his bare hands.
The fact of the matter is that the Golden Age of the Sith is about Gav and Jori, not Naga Sadow. Simply because they have an absence of on panel evidence does not mean they can not execute power.
The logic that "Naga Sadow has powerful toys that a lesser force user can use means he sucks" is not valid. All you did was reduce him to an unknown, an unknown that the narrator STILL talks up.
And we know that with his toys, he's has some of the highest end feats around.
What feats are greater?
Freezing a bunch of non-force users does not seem to be all that impressive, I'm sorry.
Again, blowing up a star is a combination of Sith Magic and a ship, how does this prove anything?
One of the quotes in the Golden Age is that their power was "immense" and "titanic" in comparison to the later Jedi. In fact, their abilities were even described as "frightening." In fact, the general modifier for Ragnos was that he was "the most powerful of the most powerful."
Those aren't exactly phrases a narrator tosses around accidentally. When he writes "most powerful of the most powerful" or "titanic in comparison" he usually is trying to emphasize a point. Especially if he tries to compare a force user to a god (which does not happen for the later characters).
I wouldn't even go that far. Sadow naked is a total unknown.
You made the point. ONE of Sadow's amulets. Sadow has several, he has what looks to be enchanted gauntlets as as what looks to be enchanted armor.
And need I remind you that there is not a SINGLE panel with Sadow having a prominent amulet on his person. Obviously he didn't need it as much as you are trying to claim.
And how the hell does stating Kun wore an amulet help your case? You effectively just said that Kun has his powers boosted artificially too.
Does he wear the temples on his person? No? I didn't think so.
To nowhere near the scale. In fact, Sadow's illusions were quite literally a massive army in an of itself.
I already conceded that Kun was the darkest guy in the galaxy, but it doesn't show he was the best and baddest mofo in the entire SWU.
You can't attempt to use the same quote to prove two different points.
It's the same argument again. Again you are claiming absence of proof. This is logical fallacy. I suggest you not use it again.
Why's Vader's feat even mentioned? Vader was rolling in the dirt. Simus didn't even have LUNGS. And he still was respected enough to be a Sith Lord and he was still powerful enough to use the force. Not bad as an old head in a jar.
Are you claiming they're made of balsa? I also believe it's stated in the Essential Guide as well. Glentract has the book, ask him. And if it is stated there, it is not contradicted, ergo canon.
Also, since when is having your feat duplicated indicate you suck? The point remains. Has KUN demonstrated a feat of such physical strength?
They have feats of great power. Their techniques allowed others to tap into great power. They have artifacts of great power and knew how to use them. They have great physical strength and immense force power. (All of this is practically lifted from GAotS).
We have more reason than not to believe they are godlike.
And no, because if you said your clown is godlike when he isn't, it's sardonic, there is no reason, no real point, and no instance of being satirical when they brag about the Ancient Sith's power.
How does this method work for characters like Kun, but they don't apply to someone like Yoda, whom you claim is weaker than Vodo?
The Jedi had a long period of prosperity, logic dictates they had opportunity to get stronger. The Sith were practically eradicated. Logic dictated they dropped off. If you want to argue AGAINST Logic, you must bring the proof. Burden of proof is on you.
My whole point is that your logic is faulty. And you have not addressed that.
Darth_Glentract
Originally posted by IKC
Tell me where it says Sith blades are made of cortosis, for one, and don't say KOTOR. Cortosis didn't exist as a mineral in the Star Wars mythos until Zahn's Hand of Thrawn series, I believe. That was a good time after the comics were penned.
Illustrious pretty much wasted you on everything, but I felt I should reinforce this one point since I am re-reading the Thrawn Trilogy currently and whatever, I'm just going to do it.
The first GAotS Comic came out in July '96, while the Thrawn books came out in June '91. I'm sure glad you know your stuff.
I didn't see a specific statement saying that the blades were made of Cortosis.
So, IKC, because I couldn't find the direct quote, we'll assume they aren't made of Cortosis. The point remains, they could withstand repeated hits from LIGHTSABER BLADES!!! He crushed something that a lightsaber cannot destroy with his BARE HANDS!! Tell me, where has that feat EVER been replicated or even to a near degree.
Illustrious
Look IKC. I've actually been accused of being a Kun fanboy before because I said he stood a decent chance against Ulic, Yoda, Mace, and Dooku at the same time.
I like and respect the character; however, you are just taking it too far and forgot to bring your first order logic along with the ride.
It is LOGICAL to assume, since the narrator describes them with "immense," "godlike," "titanic," "infinite," and "frightening" as well as knowing the legacy they left for future generations, that they are extremely powerful.
You are however seizing on a comic that does not even depict the Ancient Sith and using irrelevent source material as if it's the law. You said it yourself about higher order of officiality. How is Kun's comic going to illustrate Sadow's power better than Sadow's own?
IKC
Oh, so you're going to assume the positive then? Why then didn't Sadow blow up the sun of Coruscant when he was losing the battle?
"Well, Exar Kun could very well have the capacity to form and control a massive black hole in the center of the galaxy. zOMG JUST BECAUSE WE DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE PANELS DOESN'T MEAN HE CAN'T!"
That's what I'd be saying if I denied logic. It's what you're saying in favor of the Ancient Sith.
Nonsense. Sadow (and the rest of the Ancients) with his items is what is talked up by the narrator. You have no conclusive proof that Sadow is half as powerful without them.
Oh, really? So I can just say that your narrator quote "doesn't prove anything" and instantly win the argument, hm? I've challenged you to provide evidence to the contrary numerous times. You just get defensive and change the subject.
"zOMG JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE DESCRIBED AS GODLIKE DOESN'T MEAN NOBODY ELSE IS!"
Have fun with that.
Again, the quote I threw out was an example. Never do your quotes state that the Ancients were, in your words, "the baddest mofos of all time." Ergo, own up and prove that they were.
Provided that that is all we have of Kun, yes. He would certainly not be as powerful as we now rank him.
Quote it, and is he in his ship?
Cortosis didn't exist as part of the mythos at the time the comic was penned, making this irrelevant. Stop describing it as cortosis, because it wasn't.
Oh. Okay. So since the OT is about Vader and Luke Skywalker, can we say that OT Palpatine was out making Force Storms and teleporting people during ANH? "Waah, absence of proof isn't proof of absence, you can't prove he didn't! Nyah nyah! Simply because he didn't do it on screen and there's no evidence of him being able to do it doesn't mean he can't execute it!"
Logical fallacy.
Incorrect. "Naga Sadow has powerful toys to enhance his power, and has displayed feats matched perfectly by a much weaker force user. Other Force users that had less powerful toys have been shown to perform greater feats. Ergo, Naga Sadow is probably less powerful than them." And the narrator talks Sadow up with his artifacts.
Need I remind you how many senators there are? Do I have to use the words, "tens of thousands" over and over? To keep them frozen, use the Chancellor as a literal hand puppet, and then curbstomp the Grandmaster of the Jedi Order is damned impressive.
Blowing up the star was a result of Sadow's ingenious invention. His ship was able to charge and channel the Force in that manner. The power did not come from the user. It proves that his single most impressive feat says precisely squat about his strength in the Force.
Again, evidence? The narrator would be a strong source if what he said was corraborated in any way by the story. Like I said, I could repeatedly describe an off-duty clown as godlike. That doesn't make it true.
Oh, really? Is that why I remember the last panel of The Fall of the Sith Empire showing Sadow with the very same amulet that Kun later wears prominently sitting on his hand and shoulder, among other baubles on his person? I can't even remember a single scan of Sadow without such artifacts. I submit that much, if not most, of his force power was enhanced by these amulets.
And actually, I help my case. Kun only has one. Sadow had many. Kun performs impressive feats with only one, letting his lackey perform Sadow's feats without any, one of which that Kun could also have performed since he taught Aleema how to use the ship.
Read the entire quote, in context, before asking something ridiculous. His assertion was that one had to be sufficiently strong in the Force to create objects of any power. That's ludicrous, as Kun would have been ridiculously powerful to have created the temples on Yavin.
I suggest you read up a little bit on Aleema's illusions. She was able to create an entire herd of giant Space Grazers during the battle of Koros Major, which literally grappled the Republic fleet, including capital ships, and fought against them.
Nowhere near the scale? Nonsense.
I've already shown yours to be logical fallacy, have fun with it.
Because Vader's feat is performed without a whit of Sith training and even less experience as a force user in general. They're comparable feats when judged in that way.
I'm claiming they're made of non-lightsaber-resistant metal, not cortosis. Elaboration above.
Kun managed to break through a staff that was more powerful than a lightsaber. That's rather impressive, and a feat of strength.
Again, you've yet to provide me with specific evidence proving me wrong. All the things you just wrote can be said for Kun, or Nadd, or many others that came after.
Such as? (How about some evidence from the comic that you claim will shut me up?)
It is when the clown is a force user. I didn't mean it as satire.
"This man's a Dark Lord of the Sith with no equal in power. He moonlights as a children's entertainer. Meet Darth Bonzo."
Who said that new techniques weren't invented? Surely Vaapad was.
The problem with Jedi of the PT area is that they weren't inventing new ways to use the Force. They were stagnant, while the Sith were changing.
IKC
Continued:
What you write is in contrast to every civilization in history with long periods of prosperity. They continue unchallenged, become stagnant, and eventually die out or are eliminated by a new threat, which is exactly what happened to the Jedi. It is, in fact, you who are arguing against logic and history itself.
IKC
Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
Illustrious pretty much wasted you on everything, but I felt I should reinforce this one point since I am re-reading the Thrawn Trilogy currently and whatever, I'm just going to do it.
The first GAotS Comic came out in July '96, while the Thrawn books came out in June '91. I'm sure glad you know your stuff.
I didn't see a specific statement saying that the blades were made of Cortosis.
So, IKC, because I couldn't find the direct quote, we'll assume they aren't made of Cortosis. The point remains, they could withstand repeated hits from LIGHTSABER BLADES!!! He crushed something that a lightsaber cannot destroy with his BARE HANDS!! Tell me, where has that feat EVER been replicated or even to a near degree.
That was the Thrawn trilogy, Glentract. The Hand of Thrawn series was a two-part series that begins with Specter of the Past (copyright 1997) and ends with Vision of the Future (copyright 1998). Cortosis makes its first appearance in Vision.
Good thing you know your stuff, isn't it? Wrong again. I ask again, aren't you tired of being wrong?
They cannot withstand hits from lightsabers, Glentract, because they had no lightsabers in the Sith Empire, and no contact with them for hundreds or thousands of years. That makes his feat much less impressive.
Darth_Glentract
Originally posted by IKC
That was the Thrawn trilogy, Glentract. The Hand of Thrawn series was a two-part series that begins with Specter of the Past (copyright 1997) and ends with Vision of the Future (copyright 1998). Cortosis makes its first appearance in Vision.
Good thing you know your stuff, isn't it? Wrong again. I ask again, aren't you tired of being wrong?
They cannot withstand hits from lightsabers, Glentract, because they had no lightsabers in the Sith Empire, and no contact with them for hundreds or thousands of years. That makes his feat much less impressive.
Oh god, I misread your post, it's the end of the world.
"Sith swords were weapons used by the Sith during the Sith Empire. Developed by the ancient Sith, it was adopted by the Dark Jedi when they arrived on Korriban. Sith swords were altered by Sith Alchemy to be harder and sharper. They were never dulled, could block blaster fire, and were even able to resist lightsabers."
They can resist lightsabers. Good thing you know your stuff, isn't it? Aren't you tired of being wrong?
Illustrious
When did I assume the positive? I said "Sadow's ship blew up the star, ergo Sadow couldn't. Hardly true. This is an unknown. Sadow very well could have the capacity, but the ship be more efficient."
No it isn't. Because the Ancient Sith are described as immensely powerful by the narrator. The burden of proof falls back on you since you're trying to contradict it. Learn that fact.
Then it's the same with Kun, as he wasn't even able to get out from under Nadd's foot until he got a hold of an amulet.
What's your point? You have no conclusive point he's weak without his items.
Oh good, you can argue that absence of proof is proof of absence.
What else can you do? Jump through hoops?
They were defined as "titanic" in comparison to the later Jedi. Where's your proof?
Again, absence of proof means proof of absence, which is again, completely false.
Yes, but that feat wasn't duplicated by Aleema, so it's not proven it was his ship. And secondly, even if it was his ship, it still doesn't show he is weak.
It wasn't described as any metal. It was later filled in. How is that invalid? Later EU can fill in for earlier EU if it isn't contradictory. By that logic, the PT can't be canon since it fills in for canon established earlier.
Now you're being daft. We see his lightning barely able to fry Luke, yet you're assuming he can make force storms.
And need I remind you Palpatine was never once described with anywhere near the grandiose language as the Ancient Sith.
You're the one with Logical Fallacy.
"If they aren't shown taking a shit, they clearly can't."
False. The narrator talks up the ENTIRE ANCIENT SITH of which only Sadow is shown with a bunch of toys.
Pick up the comics and read them. The trade paperback is pretty cheap and you can order it online.
And what 'greater' feats are you talking about? Freezing the Senate room of non-force users? Right.
More semantics. Somehow doing what Kun did is impressive, but doing what Nadd did and conquering armies of Beast Riders or what Sadow did by creating armies out of illusions is not impressive.
So the ship's power came from Sith Batteries? Unless you prove that Sadow didn't imbue sith powers into the ship or otherwise, you can't prove they didn't come from his person, at least originally.
You asked if Kun creating these temples made him more powerful than he was.
The simple answer is no, he's not exactly wearing them, now is he? And if you're nitpicking, you need to read my entire post, because you've failed to grasp at it.
That's because there's a difference between sarcasm and narration. If you described your clown as godlike and you meant him as such, then he is. You will have to prove the narrator had no intention of meaning they were godlike through literary analysis.
He was not depicted wearing them in the GAotS, and like you said, since it's the source, it's a higher level of canon.
Not really. So suddenly Sadow has "many" when he isn't even depicted as wearing one. He sure wasn't wearing one while arguing with Kressh, who was his biggest rival.
And Sadow's army was up to 90% illusions. The other 10% were able to drive back the main Republic forces. Yes, I'll say it's not on the same scale.
Really? Care to repoint it out? I believe I already took care of it. You're arguing against the source while proving a negative. Logical fallacy on you man.
non-lightsaber-resistant? Where does it show a lightsaber cutting through a sith sword?
With his bare hands?
By that logic, Nadd is more impressive because he conquered an entire warlike planet (of more persons than the Senate, btw).
Joruus is more impressive because he was literally able to control tens of thousands of individuals.
Your reasoning doesn't hold any water.
You argue absence of proof is proof of absence, and you argue descriptive narrative holds no water.
Like I said, you would argue Yoda is blue if it helps Kun.
If you have full creative license and you mean it seriously, then it is serious.
Simple as that.
Yet somehow this change from an "wealthy empire" to a rule of two indicates improvement? Substantiate.
Illustrious
I argue against History?
I'm pretty sure the Romans didn't exactly develop anything for oh.... a thousand years after they were wiped off the MAP in 476.
Oh... I'm pretty sure the Macedonias splintered and never returned to power after Alexander died.
Oh... I'm pretty sure the Persian Empire never made a cultural or scientific revolution since Darius was pwned.
Oh... I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union stopped making Nukes after it COLLAPSED.
Contradicting history? Please.
Illustrious
Bottom line is this:
You have not been able to show with any level of certainty that the narrator is not being sincere, greatly exaggerating, or otherwise being dishonest with the audience. In fact, he seems to keep a relatively unbiased third party view of the entire situation.
Until you can prove the narrator is wrong, there is no reason for the readers to believe Sadow is not godlike, is not immense compared to later generations, and is not as powerful as he is described.
Your clown analogy is pointless, it doesn't add anything to your argument. If you genuinely mean for the clown to be godlike, and you have full creative license, that clown is godlike. In DC 1Million, The Joker inherited Mr. Mxy's power and was a threat to the universe, but it was done in earnest and there was no reason to doubt otherwise, same here.
So you're effectively telling me that your word as IKC holds more merit than the author of the comics.
Additionally, you have shown to defy first order logic because you do not deem it fit. Somehow, after the Sith Empire is fragmented, shattered, and pretty much disjointed, you claim that an individual scouring the remnants is both more immersed and more powerful than those same Sith titans; you back this up with the almighty power of IKC's opinion.
I'm sorry if I'm not convinced. In fact, I think I'll continue believing the author, just like I'll continue believing Yoda is green, Mace uses a purple lightsaber, and Anakin skywalker had the potential to be 10 times that of Sidious (as GL says).
You can continue to believe the sky is maroon, Yoda is blue, and Sadow is a weakling all you want. As far as I'm concerned, I'm done going around in circles with an individual who can't even substantiate their logic.
IKC
Glentract, source that quote please.
It's still irrelevant, those swords weren't lightsaber-resistant at the time the comic was written. That's like me saying character X broke a wooden stick, and then in an Essential Guide book we find out the stick was made of diamond. Nonsense. There's no reason for the Sith to have made their blades resistant to lightsabers; they had no contact with lightsabers for centuries.
You just did. You assume that he could when evidence points to the contrary. He needed the ship to perform the feat, or else he would have performed other impressive feats on his own power.
Immensely powerful is a subjective term, Illustrious. I'm sure you know what that means. Description, I argue, means nothing without evidence. And evidence is something you've failed to provide.
Or until he embraced the Dark Side. What kind of offensive powers could he have used against Nadd? None. He was fresh out of Vodo's tutelage, you expect him to stand a serious chance against an experienced and comparatively ancient Dark Side spirit?
You have zero conclusive proof that he's strong without his items. On the contrary, evidence that his best feats were the total result of his artifacts leads me to believe otherwise.
No, I just point out that, when challenged to display evidence, you don't, and change the subject. As you just did. Nor did you answer the fact that you claimed my narrator quote "doesn't prove anything" yet yours somehow does.
I now declare it, your narrator quote "doesn't prove anything." Can I dance around the subject and refuse to provide evidence just like the great Illustrious, now?
Where's your proof that by "later Jedi" they mean "all later Force users?"
The fact that he's in the ship casts doubt on his natural ability to perform the feat. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. If I invented artificial arm strengtheners, and I can lift cars with them while normally I can only lift something like 25 lbs., am I weak or not? The answer is yes, I am.
The problem is when later EU changes the nature of a feat. What if later EU said that the swords were made entirely of balsa wood? Would you still be claiming that the later EU takes precedence?
Actually, I was pointing out the logical flaws in your argument, that "just because we don't see examples of a person's power doesn't mean that they don't have the power." And Palpatine is described, by Yoda himself, as powerful. He warns Luke not to underestimate his power. Grandiose language would have been inappropriate in such a situation. The best assumption, rather than believing each person to be a demi-god, is to believe they do not have power until we are shown otherwise.
Oh yes, because Sadow's the only one that can create artifacts, right? Never mind you just supported that Sith swords were imbued with power. Oh, my, did I just catch you in an inconsistancy?
Nadd's feat was impressive, but not any more so than Kun's because Kun could have replicated it with the freeze spell. That may simply have been what Nadd did anyway. Sadow's feat was even less impressive because of Aleema's ability to match it. Aleema's nowhere near the power of either of these three.
I've already disproved this with the temples argument, and I'll go further.
All of the temples on Yavin IV were built by the Massassi. Not by either Kun or Sadow. Were the massassi secretly the master race, the most powerful force users ever, because they can make temples that focus tremendous Forfce energies? Hell no.
Emphasis mine. Obviously, something about their design allows them to channel and focus the force. There's absolutely nothing about imbuing them. The same goes for Sadow's ship, and the rest of the Ancient Sith baubles.
No, I asked if he created those temples (he didn't, but replace him with the Massassi) then did he have the power, naturally, to throw Super Star Destroyers out of orbit?
If I describe my clown as godlike, and mean it, and throughout the story the clown does nothing more than entertain children, are you going to assume that the clown is still very powerful?
And he is depicted wearing them in FotSE. It's also the source, and a higher level of canon than any reference book.
If Sadow didn't have many, Illustrious, how the hell did later generations like Sidious and Exar Kun manage to find them, hm? And like I said, he's shown wearing at least Exar's in FotSE. As I recall, he was adorned with quite a bit more.
And Aleema's "fleet" was at least 50% illusions, the rest of which, when the illusions were dispelled by Nomi Sunrider, were able to perform kamikaze attacks on the Republic fleet and drive them back.
Definitely on the same scale.
The Ancients had no lightsabers, and had no contact with lightsabers for thousands of years. What point would there be in making them lightsaber resistant?
With his own lightsaber. It shows him literally plowing through the staff. He either overpowered it physically or he disabled Vodo's empowerment with his own power.
What you quoted and what you wrote don't jive. Two different subjects. But I'll remind you he didn't have to conquer Iziz, he took control relatively peacefully. The Beast Riders he wiped out, sure.
You still haven't answered my calls for evidence.
But it isn't true. Not all narrators are omniscient.
Here's the substantiation: The Sith had their revenge, took control of the galaxy, and "won." Simple, no?
IKC
Yes. You were essentially stating that since the Jedi of the PT times were in their greatest period of prosperity, then they should have been inventing new and better ways to use the Force, or a lightsaber, like mad.
Nonsense. They were a civilization that was stagnant and had been unchallenged for centuries, just like Rome before the fall.
Except his third party view is not at all corroborated by the story itself. Indeed, all the evidence we apparently have is the narrator's word. That isn't good enough. We do ourselves a great disservice by overestimating their power and believing them to be the pinnacle of all Force users.
Nevermind that those Sith titans would have slaughtered each other if they had the audacity to snoop around for each other's knowledge. Nevermind that Ludo Kressh, for instance, could not possibly have more information on Naga Sadow's techniques than Sadow himself. Indeed, he may have very little knowledge because of the fierce protection of these secrets. Kun, however, had to contend with none of this, and while he may not have picked up as much knowledge as Sadow died with, he had more than Kressh ever had.
Tired of dodging my requests for evidence, hm?
Illustrious
No I said it is not logical to assume he is incapable of doing it on his own. It is logical that it is easier with the ship, I have conceded that.
You can't disprove description with absence of proof. That's the point from the beginning. Saying that Ragnos is the most powerful of the most powerful of the Dark Lords encompasses those both preceeding and proceeding. The honus then goes to you to prove the contrary, you can not do this by saying the Ancient Sith did not demonstate on panel evidence.
Again semantics. The fact of the matter is that he did not defeat Nadd until he received the amulet.
You have NEITHER on-panel evidence to support your assumption NOR do you have the narrator's word. You have less than I do.
You have zero conclusive proof that Kun without the amulet was even in the realm of defeating Nadd's spirit. But again, that's your logic speaking, now isn't it?
You don't get it do you? You're using your quote in an attempt to prove a negative. You don't prove negatives, they're negatives for a reason.
It doesn't, but it does indicate they were substantially greater than the later Jedi. Where's your proof that by saying Kun's the darkest person indicate he is more powerful than preceeding force users?
That's irrelevant because you haven't established that Sadow can only lift 25 lbs in comparison to his aided ability to lift a car. Until you can establish that, your point is moot.
Yes, then I'll say Ludo's maneuver wasn't as impressive. But later EU clearly states they were sith monstrosities that could resist lightsaber blades, which makes Ludo's action greater.
You're assuming he could replicate the spell. If I was a strict-constructionist like you, I would challenge you to offer proof that he could do it. That does not indicate that Sadow was in any way less powerful because his toys could be used by a lesser force user. You have not established that Sadow naked is a weakling with anything other than negative assumptions.
But did those temples make them powerful enough to blow up stars, boost up force power to tremendous levels? Hardly.
Sadow had toys that could do that. It's not comparable.
It says it itself, "dark side energies of this place."
So when Sadow's ship is flying around space, where's it drawing from dark side energy? Sith batteries? Without knowing how Sadow built his ship, it's unreasonable to assume the very lowest possible outcome and hold it against him, which is what you're doing.
Notice how I don't definitively state that Sadow imbued his ship with his own power, ergo he had that power. Why? Because I'm not you and try to argue with Feat Wars and petty extremes.
If those temples have demonstrated the abillity to greatly amplify the power of the force user to be able to perform events on a cosmic scale, then yes. But the temples do not. The Amulets do: they powered up Kun, they powered up DE Sidious.
If you are the omniscient style narrator, then yes.
In comic book fashion, the narrator describes the thoughts of MULTIPLE characters, it is not described from one single POV, ergo, omniscient narrator.
That's like me saying "God is not almighty as the Bible claims because he has not demonstrated feats of infinite power, only of great power."
Not according to Lucasfilm it's not. And I'll trust their word over yours in matters regarding EU canon. Sorry, but that's the case.
Did Sadow use many? No. For example, when he was arguing with Ludo, he did not have one on. The amulets don't do much sitting on his desk.
90% of an intergalactic army's threat was illusions, yet it's topped because Aleema had a fleet that drove Republic starships back? The forces of Naga Sadow didn't drive people back via Kamikazi either.
Need I remind you that the Japanese could "drive back" much larger forces because they rammed planes into ships, but that doesn't indicate they were a more able army.
So it's not plausible they were resistant to lightsabers, even if later canon states they were?
Vodo had to use the force to keep his staff lightsaber resistent. Exar had a lightsaber. How this is more impressive than someone breaking apart enchanted sith metal with their bare hands is beyond me.
I'd like to see the canon where he definitively took them peacefully. The only proof you have is the suspect tyranny of his future generations.
My descriptive narrative clearly doesn't work for you.
I already said that the Ancient Sith suffer from a lack of evidence. This does not mean you have the ability to go against narrative, assume them weak, then pass it off in debate.
Comic book narrators are almost always omniscient. If you don't realize this by now, you haven't read many comics.
Do you have any reason to believe the narrator is being dishonest or uninformed? And if so, point it out.
You really can't, because you don't even own the comics.
Yeah, they "won" 4000 years after Exar Kun. By that logic, then Sidious is greater than Kun, because you substantiated the Sith's improvement with their "victory."
Illustrious
Rome still produced more advancements during their "stagnation" than they did AFTER their fall.
You're effectively attempting to argue that Rome after their fall did more than before, since you said the Sith advanced, but the Jedi didn't. Please.
I covered this point already. You can not prove a definitive positive with an irrelevant negative.
I can't say Superman isn't super because he we never see him shit at rocket speed. It's an irrelevant negative that you're attempting to disprove the narrator's word with.
Tired of dodging my requests for basic logic, hm?
IKC
No, there is no evidence that he could possibly have performed such a feat divorced from his ship. The fact is, the ship is the only thing that enabled him to wrench power from the stars, not his own power. If you don't concede that, then you have to assume that Kun, for example, could have ripped apart the spirit of Freedon Nadd without Sadow's amulet, even though he did use the amulet to do so.
Absolutely 180 degrees backwards. That it says that Ragnos was "the most powerful of the most powerful" means only that it was for his time, period. There is nothing in that language stating he's the most powerful ever. As well, there's nothing in the narrator's language stating that the Ancient Sith themselves are the pinnacle of Force use, never exceeded and never to be exceeded.
He defeated Nadd by using the amulet. But by your logic, you can't prove that he couldn't have without it. He had, after all, just embraced the Dark Side and blasted apart a Sith monstrosity similar to a leviathan.
Double-standard, Illustrious. The fact of the matter is that Sadow couldn't do a damned thing to stars without his ship.
Like I just said, you have zero conclusive proof that Sadow without his ship could've done jack to affect a star! What's that? Double-standard? But that's your logic speaking, isn't it Illustrious?
And you're using yours to do the same thing: That no force user that came before or after what we define as the Ancient Sith could possibly hope to overpower them. Quite a lot of double-standards I'm catching you in, actually.
I was using that quote to show how ludicrous yours was. To use the narrator's descriptions as gauges of power is a fallacy. What's the scale? Weakling, decent, fairly powerful, powerful, awesomely powerful, titanic, godlike? Nonsense. Unsubstantiated quotations are worthless evidence.
I have submitted that he can not rip the core from a star without his ship, just as you say Kun couldn't have beaten Freedon Nadd at the time he did without his amulet. It's your double-standard that needs to be checked.
But the previous EU was not penned with the later change in mind. Do you understand my point with this? At the time they wrote it, the authors could merely have assumed the swords were steel or a similar metal, not knowing that Ludo's feat would be exaggerated by people who write reference books about their work.
Nor have you established that Sadow is an out-and-out powerhouse even without his baubles. Yes, he must have been strong, but how strong? His feats and actions are all we have to go on, and they don't speak highly of his power. I have not stated that Sadow could not have replicated his own feats over and over, therefore your logic is flawed.
Yes they could. Mere padawans in Luke's academy used the power of the temples to literally push a Super Star Destroyer out of orbit. They are on the same level of the ship.
Nice try changing the quote. It says dark side energies in this place. By changing it to "of," you changed the meaning. With "of" it means that it gathers Dark Side energies, but with the original "in" it means that it generates those energies itself. Therefore, Sadow's ship generates its own Dark Side energy or at the very least draws it from the Force around it, which wouldn't be difficult as the Force is described as surrounding and binding the galaxy.
I already made this point, but a bunch of padawans used those temples to amplify their force power and literally threw a Super Star Destroyer out of orbit.
Well, that's up for debate, is it not?
Hello? You used GAotS against me, I countered with FotSE. They are equal in regards to canon. You stated he didn't wear his amulets, I showed he did. That has nothing to do with Lucasfilm and what it thinks is canon.
... You do understand that the story continues in FotSE, right?
Here's another double standard. I thought absence of proof wasn't proof of absence? Perhaps he wore one but you couldn't see it?
The forces of Naga Sadow are helped inasmuch as every single one of them are Force users. Aleema's feat is comparable because she used illusions to attack an enemy just as Sadow did. The fact that Sadow's army was superior isn't relevant to the feat.
It's not probable. For example, why would I get a vaccine for polio in this day and age?
Not lightsaber resistant. DLotS specifically states it is more powerful than a lightsaber. Someone breaking apart an object more powerful than a lightsaber is comparable to me.
Actually, I'd like to see the canon too. And I said relatively, you understand.
From my understanding, there's no comics specifically relating to the life of Freedon Nadd.
I do not assume them weak, but I also do not assume them more powerful than any beings that came before or after, because there's no evidence for it. Their most impressive feats were matched by later generations. Until we get more information, then someone who has shown better, unmatched feats has a damned good chance of beating an Ancient.
Yes, the fact that the narrator's claims are largely unsubstantiated by the story. Until we get more examples of the power of the Ancients, we cannot definitively say that they'd curbstomp the handful of powerful beings that came before and after them.
IKC
To be honest, Sidious is greater, not necessarily more powerful, than Kun, because he nearly accomplished the ultimate goal of the Sith. He was the only Sith to ever come so close to ultimate success.
No, I'm saying that a civilization that remains unchallenged will stagnate and become lazy. The Sith were challenged by their hatred of the Jedi, and almost won for good. The Jedi weren't challenged at all, and almost disappeared from the face of the galaxy.
It's not a definitive positive if it isn't substantiated by evidence. The narrator can dance around claiming a character or group of characters have godlike power all it wants, but I'm not going to forsake all others until I get conclusive examples of that power.
Hardly. Avoiding double-standards would help if you attempt to argue logic, Illustrious.
Illustrious
Originally posted by IKC
To be honest, Sidious is greater, not necessarily more powerful, than Kun, because he nearly accomplished the ultimate goal of the Sith. He was the only Sith to ever come so close to ultimate success.
No, I'm saying that a civilization that remains unchallenged will stagnate and become lazy. The Sith were challenged by their hatred of the Jedi, and almost won for good. The Jedi weren't challenged at all, and almost disappeared from the face of the galaxy.
It's not a definitive positive if it isn't substantiated by evidence. The narrator can dance around claiming a character or group of characters have godlike power all it wants, but I'm not going to forsake all others until I get conclusive examples of that power.
Hardly. Avoiding double-standards would help if you attempt to argue logic, Illustrious.
You are the one's that have double-standards. Apparently all quotes that apply to Kun are valid, yet all quotes that apply to Sadow are not.
You have repeated attempted to argue against both narration and logic without offering definitively, contextual points. You have shown to be nothing except an insufferable Kun fanboy and a really poor debator, sorry.
Effectively this is the transcript of the "debate" (since you do need to know how to debate to have a debate):
IKC: "Kun is the most uber."
Me: "Not necessarily."
IKC: "Yes, necessarily, I have evidence!"
Me: "Show me."
IKC: -lists off random Kun feats- "See?!"
Me: "There's no context. That doesn't prove Kun is superior than Sadow."
IKC: "Yes it does! Kun has more feats than Sadow!"
Me: "Having more feats don't mean anything."
IKC: "Well Sadow's feats were duplicated! Pwned."
Me: "Hardly."
IKC: "Oh yeah? Show me."
Me: "Points to narration... oh wait, you don't have the comics."
IKC: "Narration is BS!"
Me: "You used Narration."
IKC: "So? Mine are valid!"
Me: "Why?"
IKC: "Why do you change the subject?"
Me: "I asked why you think your narration is valid but mine isn't."
IKC: "Clearly the narration is trying to state they are greater than Kun, it's not valid!"
Me: "That's the shittiest logic I've ever heard."
IKC: "Lies. I have on-panel evidence!"
Seriously. If you are going to debate, pretend you can. Please. Fake it baby, fake it. Pretend you have logic.
Here, since you need it handicapped for you:
1. How are you going to argue against the canon narration when you have no proof of it? Because legitimtely, you do not have proof. You have a duplicated feat. Yet how does Sadow having powerful tools indicate he's weak? It doesn't. Logical fallacy 1.
Simply because his tools can be used by a lesser force user does not indicate he's weak. And not to mention that Sadow's not going into any versus fights naked either.
2. An absence of feats proves he's weak. No it doesn't!
Absence of anything in a non-scientific experiment does not prove anything. I hope you know what "scientific" and "experiment" are, because I'm not going to define them for you if you do not know.
An absence of something in a story simply indicates it did not happen in the current arc. It does not show it is a logical impossibility, or that it certainly did not happen. Period.
You assumed otherwise. Logical Fallacy 2.
3. The narrator is lying.
WTF? What evidence do you have do indicate the narrator is lying? You have absence. I already addressed that. Absence in a non-scientific (i.e. inductive) experiment is irrelevant.
You can not prove a positive with an absence in a non-scientific experiment. Logical Fallacy 3.
4. If I say a clown is godlike, is it godlike?
If you mean it, and you have full creative license like the comic book writer/narrator, yes it is.
False analogy, logical fallacy 4.
5. Aleema is a weakling, she was beaten by Kun.
And? If she has the technique for using a superweapon, it doesn't indicate much now does it? Ad nauseum. Logical fallacy 5.
6. "Sadow has tools that can be used by a lesser force user, ergo he is weaker than a third party because we do not see other feats."
False. Kun, Nadd, etc. are never put in context with Sadow. They were never described with anywhere near the grandiose level of Sadow. I do not give a damn what IKC feels about their feats. Like I said, your personal opinion is irrelevant.
Affirming the consequence. Logical Fallacy 6.
Appeal to Popularity. Logical Fallacy 7.
Appeal to Ignorance. Logical Fallacy 8. "I do not know of additional Sadow's feat, ergo he's weak despite canonically described."
7. Hypocrisy.
Apparently I have to use onpanel evidence to justify the writer saying Ragnos is the most powerful of the most powerful dark lord (It is the author, because it's not only in the text, but also on the cover), or that the Ancient Sith were titans or godlike. But you do not have to justify that Kun is more powerful than Ulic even though the onscreen evidence shows draw.
Logical Fallacy 9.
I can go on, but this doesn't look good for you.
Ianus
Damn. Es ist ja toll.
Darth_Glentract
Translation.
Ianus
That is cool/pimp/wicked, etc. But then again, I might be off. I only heard it said a few times.
Veneficus
No, me gusta ayudar en casa y cocinar.
Darth Faunus
Well then, your parents must love having you around. So helpful all the time. . .
tulak hord
marka ragnos is stronger than nihilus and more powerful for sure!
Ianus
Yeah, but he is a Force using and dependant being and Nihilus eats the Force.
tulak hord
No! Do not argu that nihilus could MARKA RAGNOS the most powerful sith ever save tulak hord!
Ianus
Pfft.
For all we know Sadow and Kressh could crush Tulak witht he Force alone. Tulak is such a great unknown arguing his rank is ridiculous.
And Nihilus eats the Force. KO.
tulak hord
Back then sith where more powerful than any sith now and marka ragnos was the big one then.
Darth Faunus
How many times need we say it? Nihilus literally eats Force-users.
Great Vengeance
Janus, remember your arguing with a 12 year-old.
Ianus
I'm not arguing with you.
Darth Faunus
Ah, really? In that case, tulak, you shouldn't be here.
Darth_Glentract
He probably doesn't know it, but he does have a point. Ancient Sith probably could have easily defended against Nihilus' attacks since the technique really isnt very difficult to block(Jacen Solo did it, as well as Vergere). I believe most any Ancient Sith could block it.
Darth Faunus
Not this again. . .
tulak hord
Eating the force is nothing when it comes to the power of MARKA RAGNOS. Naga sadow could blow up multiple star's, and yet feard the strong almighty
MARKA RANOS!
So did ludo kressh and njo luke, mara jade, darth traya! traya new the power of the anceint sith!
Ianus
Glentract could be right, assuming that the level of stripping one's self from the Force is sufficient enough to foil Nihilus.
Great Vengeance
Originally posted by Ianus
I'm not arguing with you.
Im 15 you ass!
Darth Faunus
'zOMG! MARA RANOS!1!!1
For your information, Sadow used the power of his starship to detonate a single, unstable star. Ludo Kressh, okay.
But when the hell did Luke and Mara fear Ragnos? They didn't want him back anytime soon, but they weren't pissing in their pants.
You're getting a little freakish again.
Ianus
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Im 15 you ass!
Younger than I thought.
Great Vengeance
Originally posted by Ianus
Younger than I thought.
Yeah, you guys have an unfair advantage..The brains logic faculties arent fully developed till 20+.
Darth_Glentract
Very true. I look back two months ago and when I remember how stupid I was it makes me cringe, and then I think how stupid I will think that I currently am two months from now.
tulak hord
Marka ragnos could break the force, bend the force to his will traya said that marka ragnos was the strongest sith, so did the books and so did every other sorce you can think of!
Ianus
That doesn't follow.
Ragnos may be strong, but strong in the Force.
Nihilus EATS the Force.
tulak hord
luke said in jedi acadomy that he "If marka ragnos breaks loos none could stop him, theres no telling what would happen." If that's not fear what is, luke and nihilus could not stop somone who can control the force!
Ianus
You need to substantiate. Nihilus can eat Luke's entire Jedi Academy and a few planets before asking for seconds.
tulak hord
Marka ragnos can suck the force eat the force but didn't!
Veneficus
Hey! I am 15! Almost 16! Decemeber 29th I finally turn 16!! Woo Hoo for my upcoming birthday!
tulak hord
Marka Ragnos could destroy the force but did not want to cauz it helped him.
Ianus
No, Ragnos has NEVER been noted to have such powers. You're jumping to false conclusions.
Veneficus
Originally posted by Ianus
No, Ragnos has NEVER been noted to have such powers. You're jumping to false conclusions.
I feel bad for the dude... he is only 12 and has no idea what he is doing.
tulak hord
marka ragnos is simply stronger than nihilus becase traya literally said so!
Ianus
No, she DIDN'T. I own the game. I have played it through to completion easily ten times. SHE NEVER SAYS THAT!
Dark Envy
Originally posted by Ianus
No, she DIDN'T. I own the game. I have played it through to completion easily ten times. SHE NEVER SAYS THAT!
Ianus is right. Heck I BEAT THE WHOLE GAME and TRAYA SAID NOTING ABOUT THAT.
Either your a fanboy noob.
Or you just can't handle the truth!
Great Vengeance
Originally posted by Ianus
No, she DIDN'T. I own the game. I have played it through to completion easily ten times. SHE NEVER SAYS THAT!
He could be refering to when Kreia says that the old masters pwn current force users or something to that effect.
Ianus
Still taken out of context. She was refering to lightsaber users.
Great Vengeance
Originally posted by Ianus
Still taken out of context. She was refering to lightsaber users.
Still, lightsaber skill is strongly correlated to power in the force.
Ianus
It is and it isn't. For example, Coleman Trebor is listed on SW.com as being very strong and wise in the ways of the Force, but he couldn't handle his blade well enough to defend himself against Jango.
tulak hord
Iwas refering to when she said that back when tulak hord was aroud they posed lightsaber skills beyong that of our own she did not say it like that but she said it
Great Vengeance
Originally posted by Ianus
It is and it isn't. For example, Coleman Trebor is listed on SW.com as being very strong and wise in the ways of the Force, but he couldn't handle his blade well enough to defend himself against Jango.
SW.com doesnt say that, I just checked.
Ianus
Joining the High Council after the death of Yarael Poof, Coleman Trebor's wisdom and insight was greatly revered by his fellow Jedi. He peacefully settled a number of major interplanetary disputes, and was considered more of a negotiator than a combatant. Still, when required to do so, Trebor brandished his lightsaber in the defense of the Republic.
Trebor was a male Vurk from the watery world of Sembla. The planet is marked by warm seas separated by volcanic ridges that are slowly forming continents. Vurks are a nomadic, amphibious species generally considered primitive by the rest of the galaxy.
Check the EU tab.
Great Vengeance
Originally posted by Ianus
Joining the High Council after the death of Yarael Poof, Coleman Trebor's wisdom and insight was greatly revered by his fellow Jedi. He peacefully settled a number of major interplanetary disputes, and was considered more of a negotiator than a combatant. Still, when required to do so, Trebor brandished his lightsaber in the defense of the Republic.
Trebor was a male Vurk from the watery world of Sembla. The planet is marked by warm seas separated by volcanic ridges that are slowly forming continents. Vurks are a nomadic, amphibious species generally considered primitive by the rest of the galaxy.
Check the EU tab.
Yes, theres a difference between "revered wisdom and insight" from SW.com and "very strong and wise in the ways of the force" from you.
IKC
Originally posted by Illustrious
You are the one's that have double-standards. Apparently all quotes that apply to Kun are valid, yet all quotes that apply to Sadow are not.
You have repeated attempted to argue against both narration and logic without offering definitively, contextual points. You have shown to be nothing except an insufferable Kun fanboy and a really poor debator, sorry.
Effectively this is the transcript of the "debate" (since you do need to know how to debate to have a debate):
IKC: "Kun is the most uber."
Me: "Not necessarily."
IKC: "Yes, necessarily, I have evidence!"
Me: "Show me."
IKC: -lists off random Kun feats- "See?!"
Me: "There's no context. That doesn't prove Kun is superior than Sadow."
IKC: "Yes it does! Kun has more feats than Sadow!"
Me: "Having more feats don't mean anything."
IKC: "Well Sadow's feats were duplicated! Pwned."
Me: "Hardly."
IKC: "Oh yeah? Show me."
Me: "Points to narration... oh wait, you don't have the comics."
IKC: "Narration is BS!"
Me: "You used Narration."
IKC: "So? Mine are valid!"
Me: "Why?"
IKC: "Why do you change the subject?"
Me: "I asked why you think your narration is valid but mine isn't."
IKC: "Clearly the narration is trying to state they are greater than Kun, it's not valid!"
Me: "That's the shittiest logic I've ever heard."
IKC: "Lies. I have on-panel evidence!"
Seriously. If you are going to debate, pretend you can. Please. Fake it baby, fake it. Pretend you have logic.
Here, since you need it handicapped for you:
1. How are you going to argue against the canon narration when you have no proof of it? Because legitimtely, you do not have proof. You have a duplicated feat. Yet how does Sadow having powerful tools indicate he's weak? It doesn't. Logical fallacy 1.
Simply because his tools can be used by a lesser force user does not indicate he's weak. And not to mention that Sadow's not going into any versus fights naked either.
2. An absence of feats proves he's weak. No it doesn't!
Absence of anything in a non-scientific experiment does not prove anything. I hope you know what "scientific" and "experiment" are, because I'm not going to define them for you if you do not know.
An absence of something in a story simply indicates it did not happen in the current arc. It does not show it is a logical impossibility, or that it certainly did not happen. Period.
You assumed otherwise. Logical Fallacy 2.
3. The narrator is lying.
WTF? What evidence do you have do indicate the narrator is lying? You have absence. I already addressed that. Absence in a non-scientific (i.e. inductive) experiment is irrelevant.
You can not prove a positive with an absence in a non-scientific experiment. Logical Fallacy 3.
4. If I say a clown is godlike, is it godlike?
If you mean it, and you have full creative license like the comic book writer/narrator, yes it is.
False analogy, logical fallacy 4.
5. Aleema is a weakling, she was beaten by Kun.
And? If she has the technique for using a superweapon, it doesn't indicate much now does it? Ad nauseum. Logical fallacy 5.
6. "Sadow has tools that can be used by a lesser force user, ergo he is weaker than a third party because we do not see other feats."
False. Kun, Nadd, etc. are never put in context with Sadow. They were never described with anywhere near the grandiose level of Sadow. I do not give a damn what IKC feels about their feats. Like I said, your personal opinion is irrelevant.
Affirming the consequence. Logical Fallacy 6.
Appeal to Popularity. Logical Fallacy 7.
Appeal to Ignorance. Logical Fallacy 8. "I do not know of additional Sadow's feat, ergo he's weak despite canonically described."
7. Hypocrisy.
Apparently I have to use onpanel evidence to justify the writer saying Ragnos is the most powerful of the most powerful dark lord (It is the author, because it's not only in the text, but also on the cover), or that the Ancient Sith were titans or godlike. But you do not have to justify that Kun is more powerful than Ulic even though the onscreen evidence shows draw.
Logical Fallacy 9.
I can go on, but this doesn't look good for you.
I'll answer in order.
Need I remind you that it was me who pointed out that you simply dismiss my quotes while retaining yours as gospel?
You have repeatedly claimed that your evidence will disprove everything I've said. You've repeatedly, I point out, use insults and namecalling in your vaunted debating technique. However, you refuse to come forth with clear evidence.
Your transcript is highly inaccurate, displays a mocking tone clearly unnecessary in a debate, and shows you don't care enough to be correct. I started out by stating zilch about Exar Kun. I state that Naga Sadow, and the rest of the Ancient Sith, are not as powerful as we think they are because, while the narration does describe them as powerful, the on-panel evidence (Sadow's feats) have been replicated by a being clearly less powerful than Sadow.
So either A) Aleema and the rest of the Force users of her time are miles above the Ancients in Force strength or B) the Ancients are not necessarily the pinnacle of all Force users.
Quoting myself from a related thread:
1) Sadow having powerful tools shows that his feats are not a result of his personal power. If Sadow blew up a star with his own Force power, unaided by any ship or similar device, we wouldn't be having this debate. He did not, and he can not, or else why would he be defeated? A being of that kind of power could have feasibly crushed the Republic by themselves.
2) Absence of feats does not prove he's weak, but they show he is not clearly superior either. You claim that even though there's no evidence, either on-panel or narrative, that shows or states that the Ancients were superior to the Force users that came after or before them, they must be because the narratives do state that they were titanic in comparison to an amorphous "later Jedi."
Nonsense. And because there's no on-panel evidence, there's no proof.
3) I have never said that the narrator is lying. I've pointed out that the narrator may be not omniscient. I've also pointed out that he uses subjective language, and the only comparative language you've shown relates to, again, unknown "later Jedi." I point out this doesn't state all later Jedi, much less later Sith or other such Force users.
4) The question was, if I state a clown is godlike but provide no evidence in the story, is he godlike? Would you believe that he is godlike? What exactly do I mean by godlike?
Subjective language.
5) The statement was not she was beaten by Kun. It was actually more along the lines of she's never won a fight or struggle against another Force-user, minus her use of Sadow's weapon. (Nomi Sunrider repeatedly asserted her superiority over Aleema by dispelling her visions, at one point entering her mind and knocking her out). In comparison to other Force users, she was quite weak.
6) Again, the "ergo" is that he may be weaker than the third party. Indeed, I'm inclined to believe he is because of the lack of evidence for his strength. However, as I stated above, it is unknown.
And grandiose language? Please. For one, you've not proven whether or not that language meant the Sith Empire in its entirety or each individual member. Secondly, Kun and Nadd's power was clearly evident in their comics. What use would there be in emphasizing the point with grandiose language when on-panel evidence speaks for itself?
7) Pardon? Clarify.
8) I have never said that Sadow was weak. Do not put words in my mouth, you've done it throughout your post. I have stated, in essence, that we've overestimated his power as well as the power of the other Ancients. I've stated that they are not as powerful as we think they are. That doesn't mean Coleman Trebor is going to pound them. I say this because there's no on-panel evidence giving us a clear picture of their Force power, as we have with others like Nadd, Kun, and DE Sidious.
Because of this, we cannot with intellectual honesty assume that they're superior to all others.
9) You've never had to use on-panel evidence to justify Ragnos' position at the top of the heap of the Ancient Sith. However, you assume that he's the most powerful Dark Lord of the Sith of all time, when, with the language you're given, you can't honestly do.
Secondly, it's impossible, or at least extremely difficult, to use evidence to justify subjective language.
And not to correct you for the second or third time, but the on-panel evidence only shows a draw in lightsaber skill.
I could go on, but you'd probably misinterpret it and continue namecalling.
Illustrious
I have never dismissed your quotes. I have stated your quotes don't demonstrate anything. They do not put Kun's power in context with another individual. Then you had 2 quotes with Kun speaking, which is a character and easily thrown out.
Me, on the other hand, have given you my quotes, and then I have used logical inference to apply it to later generations.
The only response you have to my first order logic is basic hypothetical.
Logic > Supposition.
Wait. A lesser force user can use Sadow's stuff indicates Sadow is not necessarily as powerful as we believe?
Again. The postulate does not support the conclusion. I've said this several times. This is a logically inaccurate statement.
No it doesn't. It just shows that his natural powers aren't on a level of destroying a star with a wave of his hand, or that he can't create an entire army of illusions with a thought either.
Neither can Kun. So what's your point there?
How's the statement "amorphous" again? Later generations of Jedi were not as powerful as the Ancient Sith, i.e. the proceeding generations of Jedi never attained the Ancient Sith's power. Considerng following the Golden Age of the Sith, the Sith Empire (as far as being a member of the Sith race) almost all the Sith proceeding were initially Jedi.
I'm I necessarily going to apply this to Nadd or Kun? No, but I'm pointing out you can.
It's not nonsense because the on-panel evidence in a narrative is not the know-all-end-all in this debate.
On-panel evidence does not show Kun beating Sadow. Ergo, you can't simply use on-panel evidence to indicate he is superior. You have to use logical reasoning in application of that power. I have done that, you have attempted to say certain on-panel feats prevail without a context.
If I say you are "a noob," can I infer that I don't like you very much?
Certainly. The statement is not any more amorphous than saying Kun is the darkest dude in the galaxy. If I wanted to be obnoxious, I could ask does that mean Kun is the blackest man in the galaxy?
If you want to go against the narrator's word and argue he is subjective. You have to go to the comics, and indicate that his word is questionable. Then and only then can you prove that those quotes regarding Sadow are false.
And my counter question was "Do you as the author have full creative license and state he is godlike in earnest?"
You replied "Yes." Ergo, the clown in godlike. The author who has the literary power over his comics as well as speaking in earnest can make the clown (or any of his characters) godlike.
Nomi Sunrider also stripped Ulic of the force.
If I was simply going off result, like you are, I would ignore all the other circumstance.
He is an unknown, ergo yo are inclined to believe he is weaker? That indicates a clear personal bias. Why should I hold your opinion to be more valid than the narrator, which you have not proven to be biased?
It referred once to the wealthy Ancient Sith empire, once to the Sith Lords of the Ancient Sith Empire (of which there were quite a few nameless ones), and numerous times to leaders like Naga Sadow, Kressh, and Ragnos. And several times, the text stated lines along the line of the Ancient Sith's force powers to be simply immense.
Capiesch? Like I said, read the comics.
The point is that in a crossover versus fight, the evidence does not speak for itself. You must tie in logic into your supposition.
How is Kun's force powers stronger than Sadow? How is Kun using one ancient amulet stronger than Sadow who had several? How is Kun who looted from Sadow suddenly more knowledgeable in the ways of Sith Magic than Sadow? How is Kun who learned to use some of Sadow's technology indicate he is more powerful than Sadow? How is Kun who commands the degenerate creations of Sadow (Massassi) more powerful than Sadow?
You have to prove these points to be the contrary. Because logic dictates just the opposite. See?
Where's your on panel evidence of Exar being superior to Ulic?
You've stated they are not as powerful as we think they are, but you've never once were able to prove it. Why? Does having tools that another individual with tutelege does not indicate they are weaker than previously assumed? No, the logic applied in the statement is false.
I have stated several statements using first order logic to argue my case. You have not replied to them. How exactly can DE Sidious or Kun who have one amulet have stronger force powers than someone with several and who is described as being immensely powerful?
Seriously, don't dodge this question.
He is clearly the top of he heap of the Ancient Sith. He ruled unquestioned for over a century during the Golden Age, the peak of the Sith's power. He is stated in both the comics but the official synopsis as being the most powerful of the most powerful, as well as being the Dark Lord of the Sith. Considering later generations were also given that title, you have to indicate to me that they have a prayer of trumping Ragnos. Otherwise the entire debate is moot if you can simply throw out everything the narrator says.
You've never indicated the narrator would not be honest with his assessment.
No, the on-panel evidence shows Kun never being able to overpowerul Ulic during their duel. The fact that Kun did not rely on his "superior force powers" (your word), does not prove he is the superior.
Ianus
I'd like to see you answer his questions directly, IKC. I feel he has some valid points that you've been dancing around.
Veneficus
You guys do realize that you are arguing in circles over something that does not exist?
Ianus
Yeah, but I have little else to do since business is sporadic.
IKC
That'd be correct if my quotes had a thing to do with Kun's power, Illustrious. They didn't.
They were about Sadow's ship, how the ship itself was powerful and how it was the reason the user can rip the cores from stars.
No, a lesser force user can replicate his on-panel feats, indicating he's not necessarily as powerful as we believe.
And I remind you Aleema had nothing of Sadow's when she used illusions on his level.
Good, we're getting somewhere. Since his powers, obviously, are not on that level and he hasn't had the opportunity to display more of his personal strength, then it is rather hard to gauge, isn't it?
Ergo, we can't necessarily say that he'd curbstomp character X, because we don't know. We cannot say that he and the rest of the ancient Sith are more powerful than all later Jedi, much less all later Force users, especially since the quote doesn't read that way.
The statement is amorphous because it reads, "later Jedi." Not "all later Jedi" or "later Force users" or "all later Force users."
For all we know, it could be speaking of Jedi of the Ruusan era. It is certainly not, however, speaking of the Sith or Dark Jedi.
I point out, to counter, that Nadd and Kun grew exponentially more powerful when they stopped being Jedi. You can't even prove the quote applies to Jedi of either Nadd or Kun's era, much less Nadd or Kun once they are no longer Jedi.
I have not done so, but I have argued that Sadow is not a demigod Force user, and that he would not necessarily curbstomp Nadd, Kun, or DE Sidious, etc. Those battles would be up in the air, because we have no on-panel evidence to show Naga's superiority.
Yes, it is. Saying Kun is the darkest power in the galaxy is definitive. Saying the Ancient Sith's power is titanic in comparison to unknown "later Jedi" is definitive, but not universal. It does not use all, and it only refers to Jedi.
I've not argued that they are false for the second time, Illustrious. Read what I wrote.
What's your point? She did so while he was overcome with grief and not resisting anything. That plus the fact that Ulic is never shown to have learned Sith magic.
And you haven't denied that Aleema's a relative weakling.
No, he is an unknown that displays less feats of personal power. I'm inclined to think he's weaker, but that doesn't make it true. What is true is that the fight would be up in the air, because we don't know.
I'd like some specific quotes, please. Does it refer to, for example, Ragnos' power being "titanic in comparison to later Jedi?"
I refer you to the response before the last, as well as this:
This is where you're wrong. Logic cannot dictate the opposite here, because none of the quotes read that they're superior to all that came after them. As well, the on-panel evidence gives us no indication that they'd be able to best everyone that came after them.
The mere fact that Ulic is never shown using Sith magic (Indeed, the most he does with regard to Force powers is choke a man in the War Room on Coruscant). As well, we can logically assume that since Ulic was running a war effort and shacking up with Aleema while Exar was studying Sith magic and honing his Force powers in the interval between DLotS and TSW, Exar has grown more powerful.
I've stated that because we've repeatedly assumed that the Ancient Sith batted stars around on their own power. That's false. We've also assumed that they'd be able to curbstomp literally anyone (save maybe Nihilus) that comes from either another faction or another time period. That is false, not even your quotes indicate that, as I've expressed above.
How is it "first order logic" to assume that because the narration reads that their power is titanic in comparison to "later Jedi," they must be more powerful than every Jedi that came after, as well as every Sith and other miscellaneous Force user?
So because the Ancients are described as being "immensely powerful" then they can slap around anyone not so lucky to be described that way? Nonsense. Narration is not the end-all gauge of power. Sidious in the PT and OT is powerful himself, and he doesn't have any amulets. You're assuming that because the Ancient Sith are described as being immensely powerful, which is subjective and not comparative language, then they automatically win. That is not the case. It is possible that Kun or DE Sidious and the like could simply have more Force potential.
There's no evidence to indicate that, but "absence of proof isn't proof of absence" as you like to claim.
IKC
Continued:
Yes, he's at the top of the Ancients. It's questionable whether the Golden Age was the peak of the Sith's power, I'd argue that Palpatine's New Order was. Yes, he was the most powerful of the most powerful, of the Ancient Sith. The use of the Dark Lord of the Sith indicates that others like Naga and Ludo were also Dark Lords, but Ragnos himself held the official title. Kressh and Sadow certainly didn't call themselves merely Sith. They were Lords of the Sith.
As stated before, there's no comparative language used in this description regarding him or the other ancients to those that came before or after them. Ergo, it is possible that those Force users could have beaten Ragnos, because we have nothing to indicate his superiority or inferiority. It is up in the air.
I'm not sure why you like to read comparisons into these descriptions. They aren't there. You seem to want to believe that they are.
For the third time, I've never said he was lying. I have pointed out that he uses subjective language. We wouldn't be having this debate if he came out and said something like, "The Ancient Sith were the pinnacle of Force use. Their power was unmatched by any that came before or after them."
He doesn't say that.
The on-panel evidence lasts all of a page, Illustrious. We cannot know for certain who would come out on top if their battle had gone uninterrupted. However, I'm inclined to believe Exar would, because of his knowledge of Sith magic.
Veneficus
Originally posted by Ianus
Yeah, but I have little else to do since business is sporadic.
I know, but it just seems funny to me sometimes that we all argue over things that do not exist. Its like my hatred for Lolth. I hate Lolth but then I get pissed at myself for hating something that doesn't exist. Its all fantasy, but sometimes it seems like I get way to sucked in.
Ianus
IKC's questioning the validity of the Golden Age of the Sith?
So they embellished when they called the entire series that?
Wow. Just wow.
IKC
No, I question whether that was the height of their power. Certainly it was the height of their civilization. But during Palpatine's New Order, the Sith had more power (not Force power) than they ever had before. That is the meaning of my statement.
Illustrious
And this can be held against Sadow how?
Short answer: It can't.
How does this equal this?
First off? A lesser force user using his techonlogy replicating his feats does not mean any thing. I've been attacking that logic of yours the entire argument.
You still haven't covered up.
Don't twist the statement, it should be very clear what "later Jedi" means. It means Jedi who came later.
Arguing that it "certainly" doesn't mean Sith or Dark Jedi is a fallacy, there is no credible reason to believe that. Besides the fact you don't even have the comics, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
So Nadd and Kun weren't Jedi that came later?
We have logic dictating this. You haven't proved against it.
You don't follow them. Ergo, you think they're false. It's simple as that.
No it isn't. Darkest is subjective, it's an opinion. Most powerful is not so much, it indicates the single most powerful individual of that time.
Wonderful. You take into account circumstance selectively.
Once again, you've shown to be the most biased poster on here. Aleema knew how to operate the ship, he was taught Sith Magic necessary for using the ship, and he had Naga Sadow's technology. None of that is even close to being on par with Sadow for making the technology and magic necessary in the first place.
Again. False.
You have offered nothing logical in belief of Kun being more powerful. In fact, logic contradicts you.
No, but it says that for Sadow.
I'm not using the quote as my logical basis. Read the post.
No. You can assume Exar has grown more powerful. Where's your on-panel proof? Again, nonexistant by your own standards for proving points.
When do my quotes indicate that they won't batter later generations? In fact, the quote indicates they are superior to Later generations of Jedi, and that the Sith plundered from their shares of knowledge indicate more than enough logic for them being superior.
Yes, you are allowed to claim that Kun or DE Sidious have more Force Potential. That is a possibility, but you do not have logic supporting that.
There were multiple Sith Lords, the Dark Lord of the Sith was supreme, basic hierarchy.
Again, what you argue is irrelevant. Stop bringing you into the discussion. You're grasping straws with that argument. There's no reason to even assume Palpatine could clean Ragnos' boots.
The comparitive language is there. You just choose to either discount it, say it's temporally inaccurate, or "amorphous." Personally, I don't find "later Jedi" that hard to comprehend, nor do I find "the most powerful of the most powerful."
When did I say this? Good job taking things out of context.
For the last time, regardless of subjective language, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove the author's statement to be invalid. Apparently you know nothing about literature.
Again, your belief is irrelevant. The on-panel evidence does not show Exar winning. By your OWN standards, he does not.
I'm just pointing this out to tell you to be consistent with your own logic.
Wow.
Screw going point by point. You're getting more ridiculous.
Until you develop some level of uniformity with your points, you can stop bothering. You haven't done anything except get more fallacious with each passing post.
Illustrious
I like how you totally ignored this:
"The point is that in a crossover versus fight, the evidence does not speak for itself. You must tie in logic into your supposition.
How is Kun's force powers stronger than Sadow? How is Kun using one ancient amulet stronger than Sadow who had several? How is Kun who looted from Sadow suddenly more knowledgeable in the ways of Sith Magic than Sadow? How is Kun who learned to use some of Sadow's technology indicate he is more powerful than Sadow? How is Kun who commands the degenerate creations of Sadow (Massassi) more powerful than Sadow?
You have to prove these points to be the contrary. Because logic dictates just the opposite. See?"
Don't have an answer?
That above is logic. The logic is supported by the text (aka "godlike," "immense," and "titanic."
.
Burden of proof (I hope you know what that is) is on you.
Stop selectively quoting and taking me out of context. Answer my entire debate or STFU.
Illustrious
Originally posted by IKC
No, I question whether that was the height of their power. Certainly it was the height of their civilization. But during Palpatine's New Order, the Sith had more power (not Force power) than they ever had before. That is the meaning of my statement.
You questioning it is irrelevant. They make it perfectly clear that was the peak of their imperial power and civilization. They make it perfectly clear that Ragnos, the most powerful of the ancient Sith, had brought about a golden age.
For an empire based upon using the Dark Side to become more powerful, that should be a clear inference.
Ianus
They were about Sadow's ship, how the ship itself was powerful and how it was the reason the user can rip the cores from stars.
You act as though the ship manifests its own energy, and that Sadow found it in space and has no scope of its abilities.
No, a lesser force user can replicate his on-panel feats, indicating he's not necessarily as powerful as we believe.
By this logic Mace Windu must be weaker than Obi-Wan Kenobi, since Kenobi easily absorbed Dooku's lightning with his saber, but Mace buckled under Sidious' similar assault.
And I remind you Aleema had nothing of Sadow's when she used illusions on his level.
Incorrect. She learned through Nadd, who himself had plundered artifacts and learned from Sadow. And Sadow's illusions trumped hers anyday, being more ffective and more numerous, nearly breaking the back of Republic and jedi forces on Coruscant despite being 90% of the attacking force.
The statement is amorphous because it reads, "later Jedi." Not "all later Jedi" or "later Force users" or "all later Force users."
Arguing semantics? So all later jedi isn't implied? So it must be talking about four weak jedi sometime down the road, since the term "later jedi" is too vague for the likes of IKC?
For all we know, it could be speaking of Jedi of the Ruusan era. It is certainly not, however, speaking of the Sith or Dark Jedi
IKC, do you even have the quote in front of you? You should be able to infer what it's talking about if you did.
I point out, to counter, that Nadd and Kun grew exponentially more powerful when they stopped being Jedi. You can't even prove the quote applies to Jedi of either Nadd or Kun's era, much less Nadd or Kun once they are no longer Jedi.
You can't disprove it, either. You don't even have the quote before you, do you?
Yes, it is. Saying Kun is the darkest power in the galaxy is definitive. Saying the Ancient Sith's power is titanic in comparison to unknown "later Jedi" is definitive, but not universal. It does not use all, and it only refers to Jedi.
Definitive? Kun being the darkest power in the galaxy is precise and explicit? Did he on-panel challenge and defeat all comers? Technically, he didn't beat Ulic on-panel. But you would like to infer that he could, based on absence of information about Ulic knowing Sith magics. Considering that Ulic CAN use the dark side of the Force and indeed is a Force and lightsaber prodigy, why are you saying he would lose due to the apparently lack of knowledge of something (Sith magics) which I've never seen anyone successfully specify? Sith magics could be rituals. How do rituals help Kun in combat?
What's your point? She did so while he was overcome with grief and not resisting anything. That plus the fact that Ulic is never shown to have learned Sith magic.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. The Krath had Sith teachings. And besides, Sith magics aren't definitive enough to use as a reason as to why Kun would beat Ulic. They DID stalemate on panel.
The mere fact that Ulic is never shown using Sith magic (Indeed, the most he does with regard to Force powers is choke a man in the War Room on Coruscant). As well, we can logically assume that since Ulic was running a war effort and shacking up with Aleema while Exar was studying Sith magic and honing his Force powers in the interval between DLotS and TSW, Exar has grown more powerful.
More powerful? Name the instances in which Kun has beaten opponents in combat due to Sith magics.
Yes, he's at the top of the Ancients. It's questionable whether the Golden Age was the peak of the Sith's power, I'd argue that Palpatine's New Order was. Yes, he was the most powerful of the most powerful, of the Ancient Sith. The use of the Dark Lord of the Sith indicates that others like Naga and Ludo were also Dark Lords, but Ragnos himself held the official title. Kressh and Sadow certainly didn't call themselves merely Sith. They were Lords of the Sith.
The Golden Era of the Sith is NOT subjective to IKC, but to the will of Lucasfilm. They did authorize and release the Golden Age of the Sith comics. I doubt they were just bullshitting us all when they did that.
And the emphasis in the Dark Lord of the Sith was the narrator's own, IKC.
For the third time, I've never said he was lying. I have pointed out that he uses subjective language. We wouldn't be having this debate if he came out and said something like, "The Ancient Sith were the pinnacle of Force use. Their power was unmatched by any that came before or after them."
Darkest power in the galaxy is NOT subjective, but numerous mentions of "godlike", "titanic", and otherwise is, according to you? What a bunch of shit.
Darth_Glentract
IKC, have you stopped and wondered if perhaps there is a reason that you are the only one who feels like you do when it comes to Exar? I mean, everyone else says differently. Have you wondered if perhaps you are wrong?
IKC
It is held against his Force power, but it increases estimations of his genius at invention or creating Sith magic. However, these would not directly aid him during a fight.
Exactly how doesn't it mean anything? It shows that his Force power was not at the root of these feats. It doesn't make Sadow a lesser being, it only shows that he's less likely to win in any given battle.
Yes, but it doesn't say which. It doesn't even quantify it for us with a "most." The best we can interpret it to be is "some." This is not a statement you can twist to mean what you want it to mean.
Point one: Bullshit. It says Jedi. To say it means Sith and Dark Jedi as well is evidence of your own fanboyism.
Point two: I've been calling on you for the past week to give me evidence. You provided the quote, Illustrious. It doesn't prove what you want it to.
They weren't Jedi for long, were they? Furthermore, there's no proof that they were the "later Jedi" meant in the quote.
No you don't because you have no proof. Not even from your quotes. They don't read that the Ancients were the pinnacle of Force use, or anything similar.
How is it logical to assume that because they were stronger than a vague "later Jedi" then they must be stronger than all later Jedi as well as force-users who are not Jedi?
Wrong, I don't follow what you think they mean. You think they're absolute proof of the superiority of the Ancient Sith over all other Force users. I don't. The quotes do not state such.
I hope you understand that it read, "the (as in, definite article) darkest (read: there is none darker) power in the galaxy..." Please, tell me how that's not definitive.
And I've never argued that Ragnos wasn't the most powerful individual of his time.
I've never stated that Naga was worthless just because it was his creations that enabled him to perform these feats. I have always given him credit for having created them. What I am trying to bring down to earth are our estimations of his, and by extension the rest of the Ancients, Force power. That's all.
Aleema Keto is a she, by the way.
As I've stated, it is my opinion that Kun is more powerful, but it is not definitive fact.
Logic, however, does not contradict me. There is nothing to indicate that Kun or anyone like him is weaker than any of the Ancient Sith, especially nothing you've quoted so far. I call on you for evidence once again.
So if I understand you correctly, it reads in essence that Sadow's power is "titanic in comparison to later Jedi?"
I've answered the same laundry-list in the other thread.
My on-panel proof? I just thought of it.
In DLotS, Exar Kun was unable to beat Vodo Baas in a fair duel. In TSW, he was able to slap Vodo around like an initiate. As well, he was able to kill a Jedi Master comparable to Vodo in Force power with a wave of his hand.
He grew more powerful, on-panel and narrative evidence dictates it.
It does not read which later generations they are superior to, much less gives us a number, Illustrious. Not "many," "some," or "all." There's no logic, then, in believing that they'd curbstomp Force user X unless we can clearly prove their superiority with evidence.
And you seem to forget that Force potential plays a great role in what a Force user's power is.
I threw out the possibility that they may have more Force potential, read more carefully. I didn't claim it. This entire debate started about the Ancient Sith. Exar Kun was dragged in as the best example, in my opinion, of a Force user who may be able to best them.
This is, essentially, what I wrote.
And there's no reason to assume Ragnos could spit on DE Sidious.
Temporal impossibilities are another argument, Illustrious. Try and keep them straight.
I've not discounted the language, but I've pointed out it is not specific, nor is it universal. "Later Jedi" does mean "Jedi that came later," but which? Is it most of them? All? The quote doesn't answer this. As well, since it reads "Jedi" it doesn't apply to non-Jedi Force users. To argue that it does indicates bias.
This is what you're doing by assuming that "later Jedi" means "all later Force users." It doesn't.
For the last time,
I have never said the quote was false.
However, I have pointed out that it is vague and as such doesn't prove their superiority over specific individuals. I'm not going to keep repeating myself, I've made this argument throughout the entire post.
Nonsense, I just showed you clear, on-panel improvement above.
Again, I answered the same laundry list in the other thread.
How could the Golden Age have been the peak of their imperial power? Palpatine's New Order easily was many times the size, wealth, and military strength of the old Sith Empire. I'm stating that, for the Sith as an organization, conditions were better in many ways under the New Order than the Golden Age.
I don't dispute that the Golden Age was the height of their civilization. Power, though, I question.
IKC
Ianus:
Nonsense. As I've stated above, I've always given Sadow credit for having invented it. This does not, however, necessarily make him an uberly powerful Force user.
Nevermind that the feats aren't really being replicated, since Dooku is inferior to Sidious, Obi-Wan was further away, and Sidious used two hands.
My meaning was she had no artifacts of Sadow's to use when she performed her illusions (especially his meditation sphere).
So creating illusions of giant space creatures that literally grapple your enemy's capital ships as well as illusions of starfighters to harass the enemy is not on that level? DLotS doesn't give us hard numbers, the quote reads, "Many ships are illusory... but many more are real!" Emphasis theirs.
It isn't implied. If it were meant, it would've been stated. It could very well be speaking of what you mentioned, though that is unlikely.
Illustrious has been kind enough to quote it for us, Ianus.
So of course, the correct thing is to assume the positive? Ridiculous.
Yes, please ask me to prove negatives. That's logically viable.
That's what it reads. See above for elaboration.
Except they aren't. Kun literally blasts Aleema Keto away with a beam of energy, saying "Nadd only taught you the beginnings of Sith power, woman."
In lightsaber combat, they may have. They were interrupted, however.
1) Aleema Keto, blasted her away with a beam of energy.
2) Odan-Urr, shot his hand forth and the Jedi Master fell to the ground and died.
3) It's unknown how Kun broke through Vodo's staff. Either he physically broke through it or he may have used magic to disable it.
Yes, and? I never said it wasn't the height of their civilization. That tends to be what a Golden Age is.
When did I deny this?
How disappointing. I'll repeat: The is the definite article, darkest means there is none darker.
Godlike and titanic? Since when are godlike and titanic definitive? They do not translate to "most powerful" and "largest."
Illustrious
Would he walk into the fight naked?
What exactly are you attempting to prove?
Again, illogical conclusion. If I wanted to be a stickler, I'd say blowing up a star or creating an army of illusions wasn't going to help him in a 1 on 1 fight either.
You are the one twisting it to be what you want it to mean.
It never gives a modifier for later Jedi. From a literary standpoint, it heavily implies all later Jedi. Do not twist it because it screws up your argument.
Were these Dark Jedi or later Sith never at one point Jedi?
No, you are the one being a fanboy. Everything that doesn't support Kun's argument isn't conclusive or is "amorphous." Yet something like "darkest person in the galaxy" is definitive. Please.
Did it ever name a timeframe?
The short answer: No. Literary quotes are a positive unless modified. Dude, you suck at reading comics.
You missed the logic again. You dodged it once again.
How is it logical if you twist around the params for anything?
You haven't conceded a single point, you've just decided it's necessary for you to bend everything to IKC's interpretation.
So I can say "darkest person in the galaxy" only indicates to a few "persons" in the Republic space of the galaxy. That means it's not even definitive that Kun was the baddest mofo, right?
When you have quotes + logic in favor of the ancient Sith. You have contextless on-panel feats and your fanboy reasoning. GG.
If I wanted to be like IKC's annoying arse, I could state it really only says "the darkest human race individual in Republic Space." There could well be darker individuals of other races, or they could be beyond the outer rim.
Funny, if you won't bother conceding valid points, this debate doesn't need to continue.
And you're not doing a good job, because you are attempting to assume the very lowest possible interpretation of their power and apply it as fact.
Is that logical? No.
Yeah, Aleema is a she, typo.
Clear as day.
With worthless assumptions such as "well Kun has more force potential."
Where does it state Kun has more force potential? You can't attempt to slap away logic with bullshit reasoning, sorry.
The on-panel evidence shows Ulic growing stronger too, what makes you believe he grew stronger than Ulic? He has never demonstrated on-panel evidence that he's greater than Ulic.
If I wanted to be like IKC, I'd say you can't prove he is.
The possibility does not supercede the DEFINITIVE first order logic. Nadd and Kun definitively (your word) looted from the Sith Empire, they would naturally not have all, or be as proficient, as the leaders of the Sith Empire with their powers.
You arguing it's a "possibility" might as well be me saying there's a possibility that it rains outside. Irrelevant. There's also a possibility the ancient Sith had more force potential making the scales more lopsided. Without proof, the best you can hope for is a wash.
Fact.
There's no reason to assume the unquestioned leader, and clear most powerful of the golden Age of the Sith Empire would beat a later individual who scrounged for Sadow's amulet?
Don't forget that Sadow was under Ragnos' boot the entire time.
No it doesn't.
If I say a particularly individual "eats like a pig." Is it logical to assume he eats a lot? Is it logical to assume he eats rather messily, or is not all that picky?
Yes. Because there is no modifier on a positive statement.
There is no modifier on the positive statement "later Jedi." The meaning all later Jedi is implied. To say it only refers to a few specific later Jedi is being truly biased.
Wow, do you want me to give you an English lesson too?
And it's also not a temporal impossibility that Sadow was titanic compared to all later Jedi. And I hope you know both the denotation and connotation of "titanic."
See above, your English comprehension blows.
If this quote was applied to Kun, you would not be arguing the point.
And the whole point is that it does.
Tell me, where the hell does it have a modifer for "later Jedi."
If you point it out to me, I'll concede it doesn't indicate all later Jedi. There is no modifier, it is a positive statement. Ergo it is absolute. English is your friend.
It still doesn't indicate he can beat Ulic. Now does it. Where's your on-panel evidence he beats Ulic?
Again, with bullshit assumptions and speculation. Not viable. Next.
How does political power indicate their power as individual force users?
How does one particular man who adopted the ideology of the Sith have more imperial power than the Sith Empire at their peak?
All of these feats are irrelevant in a fight. The point being made of the Golden Age is that it is the peak of their civilization, it is the peak of each individuals power and is the peak of the collective empire. If you want to argue this, you will need to go to the Golden Age and point it out.
Illustrious
The bottom line is you haven't established anything. You've attempted to discredit positive narration without any other modifier.
That screams bullshit ten times over. You can't even submit when you have your argument shredded. You can't even submit when logic indicates Sadow is superior to Kun, but instead you make up BS excuses for your inherent fanboyism such as "Well Kun may have had more force potential" or "Kun was able to master the Sith magics more than Sadow."
What a load of crap. Where in context does it mention that? It doesn't. Plain and simple, you have no argument besides attempting to twist around semantics that have no other modifier, and are ergo absolute. Sit down and next.
Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.
Copyright 1999-2024 KillerMovies.