Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

where does he fall

1. Ki Adi Mundi

2.Rots obiwan

3.Anh Vader

4. Kit Fisto

5. Dooku

6. Grevious

7.Mace

8. Ploo Koon

9.Sidious

10. Yoda

Why is Plo Koon and Greivous above Dooku.

To Mix up the strength levles

Ragnos is good, but he's not almighty. I don't believe there's not enough evidence that puts him above ANH/TESB Vader.

Call it blasphemy, but since Sidious is referred to as "the greatest master of evil ever to use Sith power" as of Attack of the Clones (and, bear in mind, this was before he made any noteworthy political achievements - such as conquering the galaxy, the destruction of the Republic and the Jedi, and the formation of the Empire) - I have to assume that it is a reference to outright power, which would make Sidious as of AotC and RotS as more powerful than Ragnos, which would mean that Yoda is also more powerful than Ragnos - which means that Dooku or Mace could arguably beat the guy.

Assuming that a good counterargument is made, however, he would probably make it - unless it's DE Sidious. Then he dies there.

He loses at one.

Were those statements in universe? I have a hard time believing Yoda could or anyone but Sidious could handle the most powerful ancient sith.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Were those statements in universe? I have a hard time believing Yoda could or anyone but Sidious could handle the most powerful ancient sith.

That statement regarding Sidious was made in the Complete Visual Guide.

So I take that as a yes? Interesting. But again, I wouldn't mind debating that Ragnos, although unknown, is second only to Sidious(which I have only recently conceded).

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
So I take that as a yes? Interesting. But again, I wouldn't mind debating that Ragnos, although unknown, is second only to Sidious(which I have only recently conceded).

I don't know where you'd get that... no. The statement was made out of universe by the author.

Get what?

Makes it to 9, if that's DE Sidious, if not he might make it, not sure. How much rest does he get? Why's that list to f*cked up, anyways? How are Fisto or Plo above ROTS Kenobi?

Meaning he's the evilest, not neccessairly the strongest, though, right?

By Evil it means Sith.

And what makes Marka Ragnos sooo powerful? I always wondered y people thought he was so uber.

being the most powerful of the ancient sith. You know, those guys that other sith lords go to and learn from that want to become exponentially more powerful. This forum sure went from ancient sith fanboyism to anti ancient sith fanboyism.

And yet this makes him better than Vader how? He is very powerful no doubt, but he's not a God. I mean, Sidious is better. And in that case, Vader, Yoda, and Mace could probably take him...

Originally posted by General Kenobl
And yet this makes him better than Vader how? He is very powerful no doubt, but he's not a God. I mean, Sidious is better. And in that case, Vader, Yoda, and Mace could probably take him...

How so? What does "frightening grasp/surpassing command of the darkside" mean to you? We know he knew the Nihilus drain technique as his scepter had it. All we know is DE Sidious was the most powerful sith ever, that's it. But Vader taking him? Mace? Come on. Yoda would have a chance.

He loses at two.

So he's basically the strongest of the ancient sith? proof? And just by being an ancient sith, he's automatically as strong as the Top Sith tier: sidious, revan, kun, bane, and vader?

Originally posted by General Kenobl
So he's basically the strongest of the ancient sith? proof? And just by being an ancient sith, he's automatically as strong as the Top Sith tier: sidious, revan, kun, bane, and vader?

He was the greatest and most powerful of the ancient sith, and yes, I think that would put him above every one of those characters except Sidious who was stated to be the greatest and strongest ever. He ruled for over a century with an IRON FIST. You tell me the last time a mediocre character ruled over an empire that thrived on deception and weakness, etc.

All of them? Even Mace? Yoda? Seriously? Come on, now. Just being the Ancient doesn't make him better than them

Ruling a Sith Empire doesn't necessarily make him as strong as others Darth Sexy. Lord Kaan was able to hold the Sith together and would have probably held them longer had not for the Battle of Ruusan. While Kaan was obviously weak, unlike Ragnos, you cannot say Ragnos > Revan, Kun, Vader, and Bane because he ruled the Sitih.

Originally posted by General Kenobl
Ruling a Sith Empire doesn't necessarily make him as strong as others Darth Sexy. Lord Kaan was able to hold the Sith together and would have probably held them longer had not for the Battle of Ruusan. While Kaan was obviously weak, unlike Ragnos, you cannot say Ragnos > Revan, Kun, Vader, and Bane because he ruled the Sitih.

They were two different empires. The Ancient Sith empire(the true sith) was based on rule of the strong. One dark lord and several powerful sith lords. Anyone can challenge the dark lord if they felt strong enough. So ruling with an iron fist over the most powerful era of the sith(in terms of sith knowledge and power), speaks volumes for Ragnos. Not to mention that HE is the one that always crowns the DLOTS after his death, that HIS passing was felt on the other side of the galaxy by Odan Urr, etc. Everything points to him being extremely powerful. Now he was at least 150 years old when he died, so his quality and quantity of knowledge was greater than Kun, Revan, Vader and Bane. We don't know everybody's potential but it's safe to say at their prime, Ragnos was the most powerful of everybody except Sidious.

This is probably true.



He is powerful because he's the one who crowns the Dark Lord after himself? Perhaps maybe because the other reason is that he has good charisma and was able to influence people like Exar and Ulic to be Master and Apprentice. While the future Sith might have feared him, the fact is he could have been chosen because people considered him wise and charismatic and listened to his ways.



Proof?



Proof?



And how do you know that Bane or Revan didn't become that old as well?

Look at Yoda, he's 900 and has considerable knowledge. Look at Mace, he's 40 something but is still on par with Yoda.

And please, Vader and Revan has proven to be extremely powerful in terms of the Force and the lightsaber.




No, not really.

The thing, the Ancient Sith probably created most of the Dark Side techniques used afterwards by Dark Lords like Revan and Bane, etc. However, to what magnitude they could use these techniques are unknown. Thus, while the Ancients might have taught techinques like Force Lightning, Force Crush, the level which Sith used these techniques in battle is up to the mastery of the specific Sith Lord.

Originally posted by General Kenobl
He is powerful because he's the one who crowns the Dark Lord after himself? Perhaps maybe because the other reason is that he has good charisma and was able to influence people like Exar and Ulic to be Master and Apprentice. While the future Sith might have feared him, the fact is he could have been chosen because people considered him wise and charismatic and listened to his ways.
You do realize Ragnos was called THE Dark Lord. That means the strongest of the strongest, until Palpatine.


Lets see proof of his passing. Read GAOTS.. Proof of him being at least 150 when he died? Well lets see, he ruled for about 100-150 years with an iron fist, and before that at some point he defeated Simus, and at some point before that, he was younger. So he's about 150 at the least.



Because Bane died in his 20s and Revan's fate was unknown. Although I concede the points about them both being "greater" sith lords due to their accomplishments.

You also have to look at the quality of teachings, the potential of the force user, etc. Yoda at 900 was equal to Sidious at 60. Ragnos lived during the Golden Age, when sith alchemy/knowledge/power were at their apex, so it's fair to say his quality of knowledge surpasses all those after him(with the exception of Palpatine).


So? Vader's abilities were severely limited and Revan studied ancient sith techniques designed by ancient sith like Ragnos.







Techniques such as force storm, thought bomb, amulet blasts, etc, were all invented by the ancient sith. The only sith lord to develop some techniques of his own was Sidious.

Meaning he's the evilest, not neccessairly the strongest, though, right?

I don't see how. "Greatest master of evil ever to use Sith power".

Originally posted by Gideon
Meaning he's the evilest, not neccessairly the strongest, though, right?

I don't see how. "Greatest master of evil ever to use Sith power".

While it's obvious DE Sidious is the most powerful sith ever, you could interpret that quote as "greatest master of evil", meaning he's the most evil sith lord to everu se the sith power. Or the greatest and most evil sith lord. Many ways to interpret that. We don't know how evil Ragnos was.. That's why I don't like ridiculously ambiguous quotes such as that.

I see. Pulling the ambiguity card? "The greatest master of evil ever to use Sith power". This was before Sidious performed any legendary achievements. He didn't destroy the Jedi or the Republic at this point and the Empire was still a fantasy at this point. Hell, by the time that this quote was made, he didn't even get his "emergancy powers". So, we can rule out "achievements" right off the bat.

Originally posted by Gideon
I see. Pulling the ambiguity card? "The greatest master of evil ever to use Sith power". This was before Sidious performed any legendary achievements. He didn't destroy the Jedi or the Republic at this point and the Empire was still a fantasy at this point. Hell, by the time that this quote was made, he didn't even get his "emergancy powers". So, we can rule out "achievements" right off the bat.

What is this cliche with "omg he said ambiguity he MUST be making excuses". Notice how I said that DE Sidious is obviously the most powerful sith lord but quotes like that have multiple interpretations. It says he's the greatest master of evil. Possibly the most evil sith lord ever? It CERTAINLY does NOT translate into "Greatest dark side user" or "Greatest sith to ever use dark side power".

Oh my god Darth Sexy. Learn to comprehend English.

"The greatest master of evil ever to use Sith power ."

What does this mean?

Greatest- Synonym is foremost.
Master of Evil- Symbolizes the Dark Lord of the Sith
Sith Power- Symbolizes Dark Side of the Force

So it basically says in simpler terms, Sidious is the foremost Dark Lord of the Sith to the Dark Side of the Force.

Since this was from AOTC as Escape says, AOTC Sidious > Ragnos.

Originally posted by General Kenobl
Oh my god Darth Sexy. Learn to comprehend English.

"The greatest master of evil ever to use Sith power ."

What does this mean?

Greatest- Synonym is foremost.
Master of Evil- Symbolizes the Dark Lord of the Sith
Sith Power- Symbolizes Dark Side of the Force

So it basically says in simpler terms, Sidious is the foremost Dark Lord of the Sith to the Dark Side of the Force.

Since this was from AOTC as Escape says, AOTC Sidious > Ragnos.

Learn to comprehend English? You're telling me to do that when you post complete shit? Greatest master of evil could mean GREATEST evil force user to use sith power. I already know that DE Sidious is the most powerful sith but that text hardly clarifies it. Greatest villian to ever use sith power. Do we know how evil any DLOTS was prior to Sidious?

Wonderful. Unfortunately that is only opinion as of right now, not fact.



I have looked over GAOTS some time before, I just never paid attention to the limited Marka Ragnos portion of it. And unfortunately, swtimeline doesn't seem to be working....

Your age count is pretty accurate. However, age doesn't matter (look what happened to Dooku), though it does signify experience and wisdom.



Bane died in his 20s? What source? Revan's fate is unknown. Revan and Bane are more powerful Sith Lords than Ragnos. All the things they have done to show this power easily rivals that of Marka.



Ragnos's time was during an age where more of the Dark Side was being uncovered and revealed. And much of Golden Age's discoveries on the powers of the Dark Side were stored in holocrons for a reason: to preserve this new found knowledge.



Revan mastered these techniques to a very high extremity. And despite Vader's potential going way down, he was still very powerful when going all out .



While the Ancient Sith discovered the techniques, it does not mean they were its greatest masters. I mean in a battle of a certain game where the Creator vs. Champion, the Champion will probably win because he has mastered all the rules of game to its highest extremity. The Creator, while creating the game, may have considerable knowledge on gameplay, but even he may not have mastered all the different strategies. This in a way resembles the Ancient Sith and the future generation of Sith Lord like Revan and Sidious, who mastered the Dark Side techniques set out by the Ancients.

is sidious more evil than vader?

Originally posted by General Kenobl
Wonderful. Unfortunately that is only opinion as of right now, not fact.
Actually no, the description was "most powerful of the most powerful, THE dark Lord". So it's fact.




Look at it now.


Dooku got powerful with age, so did Yoda. Ragnos' teachings surpass all of the SW characters other than Sidious.




More powerful than Ragnos? Oh please. All they have done was developed by RAGNOS and the ANCIENT SITH. Nothing even begins to indicate that Bane was as powerful as the most powerful of the ancient sith. Revan has more of a case for him but even he was awed at the power of the ancient sith, and became a LOT more powerful through their teachings.




Golden Age of the Sith=Apex of sith knowledge/power. Granted that Sidious himself was the greatest, there was no greater time of sith knowledge/power than the GAOTS.




But could he beat Revan or Bane? Unlikely. Ragnos? Very unlikely.




The only character that has shown to take abilities from the ancient sith, to new heights, was Sidious, which is why he is the most powerful.

Why yes, I am telling you to comprehend that sentence.

A definition of greatest from Dictionary.com is:

"chief or principal"

When they mean Master of Evil, it's basically an elaborate of describing a Dark Lord of the Sith. I mean, what is a Dark Lord of the Sith: a master of evil. The Sith are evil, and the DLOTS is the master of this evil. Get my flow?

What is a Sith's Power? What do all the Jedi and Sith get power from? The Force, because it makes them different from all other warriors. So what aspect of the Force is the Sith's power? Why: the Dark Side of the Force.

So basically, it means that Sidious is the chief Dark Lord of the Sith to use the Dark Side of the Force.

I mean, there is no other way for it mean anything else, since Sidious didn't accomplish much during this time.

In AOTC novelization, Sidious is said to be that sentence. This makes AOTC Sidious > Ragnos and any other Sith Lord. I am sorry Darth Sexy, but it is true.

Originally posted by General Kenobl
Why yes, I am telling you to comprehend that sentence.

A definition of greatest from Dictionary.com is:

"chief or principal"

When they mean Master of Evil, it's basically an elaborate of describing a Dark Lord of the Sith. I mean, what is a Dark Lord of the Sith: a master of evil. The Sith are evil, and the DLOTS is the master of this evil. Get my flow?

What is a Sith's Power? What do all the Jedi and Sith get power from? The Force, because it makes them different from all other warriors. So what aspect of the Force is the Sith's power? Why: the Dark Side of the Force.

So basically, it means that Sidious is the chief Dark Lord of the Sith to use the Dark Side of the Force.

I mean, there is no other way for it mean anything else, since Sidious didn't accomplish much during this time.

In AOTC novelization, Sidious is said to be that sentence. This makes AOTC Sidious > Ragnos and any other Sith Lord. I am sorry Darth Sexy, but it is true.

Greatest master of evil- one who uses evil to its fullest extent.
Care to quantify the amount of evil all of the other DLOTS possessed? Didn't think so.

Not the greatest evil...the greatest master of evil.

Firm difference

Really? So you can quantify the amount of evil the other DLOTS possessed? It just means that he was the most evil DLOTS to ever use sith power. Again, I'm not questioning Sidious being the top dog by DE, but I am questioning that quote.

Dude, there's a word called analysis . Look it up.

You don't take the quote literally, you have to check its inner meaning, which makes sense with canon.



See, your reasoning fails here. You can't quantity who is more "evil-er " than the other. I mean, there were many Sith Lord who were a lot more evil than Sidious. The fact is Darth Sexy, this explantion is correct:

Yes swtimeline now works!!!

It's not absolute either way, and the fact that based on in-universe evidence, Sidious being the most powerful by AotC is pretty silly, it's best to assume that what Darth Sith and Darth Sexy are saying is correct.

Shut up Nebaris. You can't admit your precious Bane < AOTC Sidious even though canon agrees with it.

Originally posted by Mic Assassin
It's not absolute either way, and the fact that based on in-universe evidence, Sidious being the most powerful by AotC is pretty silly, it's best to assume that what Darth Sith and Darth Sexy are saying is correct. Sidious is the most powerful by ROTS and got even stronger by ROTJ. Again nebaris why do you keep discriminating the NEC? Several novels support this assumption

Now now, calm down there boy. The fact is, you're treating the quote as if it is absolute, when it's quite clearly not. Your use of the dictionary without applying how the words form together was pretty inept too, so unlucky!

Originally posted by Kadesh
Sidious is the most powerful by ROTS and got even stronger by ROTJ. Again nebaris why do you keep discriminating the NEC? Several novels support this assumption

Again, the NEC is fallible.

"Sigh", if only you knew how the rest of the world percieved you......

Actually nebaris your saying that because you are unhappy that sidous pwns your precious darth bane, again there are several reasons to why the historian made the assumption, do you think that guy would just write some1 is teh most powerful because for the sake of writing? Of course not, Theres a reaon: simply because sidious is the strongest

Oh noes, teh internet doesn't like me!!!

^I just cried a little.

let me ask you a question, what is your purpose on KMC? why do you keep socking? Are you trying to cause trouble? or what?

What an accurate assumption Nebaris. Congratulations for figuring out that you are teh # 1 loser of the forum. Your prize: the golden trophy of nescience!!!!

Originally posted by Kadesh
Actually nebaris your saying that because you are unhappy that sidous pwns your precious darth bane, again there are several reasons to why the historian made the assumption, do you think that guy would just write some1 is teh most powerful because for the sake of writing? Of course not, Theres a reaon: simply because sidious is the strongest

Again, history inside the SW universe was known to be inaccurate and sometime incomplete, the Ultimate Visual Guide elaborates on that. The point is, people inside the SW universe didn't have the luxury of an omniscient narrator presenting them with the facts; their opinions were based off of sometimes unreliable material. In other words, any blanket statement from the NEC is an opinion, not a fact, and it's supported by material that isn't as reliable as the material that we can use, so his opinion is lesser. There's also the possibility that Voren Na'al was biased, given that he was alive during Palpatine's time, or that he might just have been a moron. The point is, the NEC argument is flawed, stop using it.

Originally posted by Kadesh
let me ask you a question, what is your purpose on KMC? why do you keep socking? Are you trying to cause trouble? or what?

That's right, I want to be the #1 interweb rebel!

Again that sounds like a contradiction between the visual guide and the NEC, has a statement been made yet? No, and again daniel wallce confirmed it, so what if he is a employee? What ever opinions he makes become canon. Its like vaders gauntlet, one persons opinion that it was made of material which can deflect bolts become canon

Originally posted by Mic Assassin
That's right, I want to be the #1 interweb rebel!
Lol then go create your "rebel empire" and cause trouble some where else

1. Prove that it was really Dan Wallace who came to the forum and said that stuff, and not some power.

2. Since when does stuff he says on a random internet forum count as canon? Only stuff he says on official mediums would count (any pruduct with the LFL seal on it, the official website etc.)...

Nebaris, we've been through this before, and I'm not going to debate it with you again unless you've revamped your entire argument. You can't disprove the quote or its context. "The greatest master of evil ever to use Sith power" according to the Complete Visual Guide as of AotC. This was before any of Palpatine's great political achievements, and I believe that Prodigal Knight has provided you with a complete analysis of that statement that does nothing but hurt your argument.

Either disprove it, or keep quiet. Simply protesting that "no, you're wrong!" or "Sexy is right!" doesn't drive the point home.

Get working.

Edit: By the way, your attempts to discredit and render tNEC's opinions on Sidious are pathetic at best. That the historian possessed intimate knowledge of Sidious's plots and schemes proves that he's not a moron, and he's obviously well informed. And, seriously, biased? Because he's absolutely "wanting" to declare Sidious "the most powerful" simply because they lived in the same timeframe...

Excuse me? I'm still pretty firm in my belief that it had something to do with his greatness, but Darth Sith has brought up a perfectly good alternative; most evil. The fact is, it's not absolute, so you fail.

Your "firmness" is irrelevent to this discussion. You're still firm that "Kas'im redirected teh uber-blast!", but that doesn't change the fact that it's not true. You've got your ass kicked up and down, left and right when it came to this argument, and that hasn't changed.



Darthsith hasn't provided evidence. He could say that that statement is an obvious indicator of Sidious being anything - without proof it's pointless. When either of you lay out the proof that I have - or that Prodigal has with a full linguistic layout of the statement - then you've got a point. 'Til then, spouting "you fail!" is cute and all, but it doesn't exactly fill the "proof" portion of this debate.

So, looks like our interpretation stands 'til you can provide something that amounts to otherwise.

You being here is irrelevant, b1tch!



No, it is true, don't be silly Gideon.



Not by you, Gideon. By the way, what on earth possessed you to name yourself Gideon? That's gotta be like the ugliest name I've ever heard in my life.



Proof isn't required for such a thing, anyone with a brain can see that his interpretation is as viable as your's. Now stop being difficult for the sake of it.



What you don't seem to realise is that by just adding all of the meanings of each segment of the sentence together without looking at how they form together is a pretty inept analysis, so no, I'm not going to be stupid and ignore context. Now anyone with half a brain knows that 'the Greatest Master of Evil' can quite easily translate into 'the one most dedicated to the darkside', in this context. It all depends on what factor you apply to "master of evil", and adding in the "greatness" indicates the principal of that very factor. The point is, it's in-absolute, and I'm sticking with my interpretation.



You do realise I'm still waiting for you to quote the entire passage, right? You said you would last time Gideon, I'm still waiting, for all I know, you could be lying.



I just have, you moron.

Escape, so you're telling me that there's only ONE interpretation to that quite and it's definitive? I disagree. At any rate after reading all the EU including GAOTS and KOTOR era comics, it's just a little difficult to visualize AOTC Sidious as already the most powerful.

You've been reported, Nebaris. I'm tired of dealing with you, and you'll simply be ignored beyond this point.



You disagree? Then open up another avenue, or make an attempt. Just outright disagreeing with it isn't going to do anything. It's not a reference to political achievements.

Originally posted by Gideon
You've been reported, Nebaris. I'm tired of dealing with you, and you'll simply be ignored beyond this point.



You disagree? Then open up another avenue, or make an attempt. Just outright disagreeing with it isn't going to do anything. It's not a reference to political achievements.

Oh no don't even think I'm going to go there lol, I know its NOT in reference to political achievements because he hasn't done anything by AOTC. I was simply stating that the quote about being a "master of evil" implied that Sidious was the most evil force user to ever use sith power. I don't think it at all implies that he is the most powerful sith lord of all time, at least not in that quoe.

But it wasn't about being just "a master of evil". The exact quote is: "the greatest master of evil ever to use Sith power bides his time..." in a caption of a picture of Coruscant at night, and that is by memory, and it was made for the AotC visual guide and - in turn - the complete visual guide.

And though I'd personally consider Sidious to be the most evil, can we really say that that is a factual interpretation? Most Sith Lords have been absolutely barbaric and cruel. Maul was described as an "instrument of pure evil" though he lacked Sidious's megalomania or brilliance. Obviously there are Sith Lords who have performed "bigger and grander" feats of evil. But can we literally sit down and say one is more evil?

LOL! Please Gideon, the only reason you won't continue is because you know that you're wrong.

Simus got his head cut off and survived as a head in a jar, using his Sith Nagic to keep him alive. That's uber. And guess what? Ragnos was the one to cut off his head, so he must be even stronger than uber Simus is. He was also the strongest Sith Lord in an order that likely numbered in it's thousands and Ludo Kressh was afraid of Ragnos's spirit.

Umm...Simus wasn't decapitated...he was cut down and had his head removed, using his Sith alchemy to preserve his life...a LOT less impressive when a random noname priestess could do the same thing In "Enemy of the Empire"

How is this uber in the least? simus couldn't even defend against a blaster shot, is that uber? Simus woud have lost almost all his power as a head, that's uber? How'd Ragnos win? How does it translate to being more uber? How did Ragnos in? Since when was Ludo scared? Ludo displays NOTHING but reverence, not fear.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Umm...Simus wasn't decapitated...he was cut down and had his head removed, using his Sith alchemy to preserve his life...a LOT less impressive when a random noname priestess could do the same thing In "Enemy of the Empire"
uh he was decapitated




stop downplaying Ragnos.

Oh my god, he can preserve his life with some technology and some Sith techniques! Ragnos > all other Sith Lords besides Sidious because of this

And please, when it says "Master of Evil to use Sith Power" you can't say it means Sidious is the most evil to use Sith power because you cannot judge who is more evil-er than the other. I mean, Nihilus sucked an entire planet, that's pretty barbaric compared to Palpatine. It's pretty obvious when it means master of evil that's it referring to a Sith Lord or a DLOTS.

Well, I want to clarify, Prodigal. I don't deny that Sidious is as evil as any Sith Lord who had ever lived, and a fair bit more devious than most of them - but it is hard to compare which one is more evil. Like I said, Maul - who had zero megalomania or intellect compared to Sidious - was described as an "instrument of pure evil". All of his biographies make a note of saying how consumed he is by evil and hatred. You're right, Malak and Nihilus and Vader and all of them have shown magnificient displays of cruelty. Sidious's evil is there, but it is more subtle - for the most part.

Edit: I think that Malak and the like are more "barbaric", in terms of outer displays of cruelty.

Aye, understood Escape.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
uh he was decapitated
No, he was cut down and had his head remvoed before he died.




How'd he win? Show me the fight

Originally posted by Lightsnake
No, he was cut down and had his head remvoed before he died.

Oh really? Prove it? I believe he lost his duel with Ragnos by decapitation, and used sith magic to stay alive. Why the HELL would he have his head removed from his body if he really WASNT decapitated and HAD the ability to use sith magic to live on? Not very logical lightsnake.

Originally posted by General Kenobl
Oh my god, he can preserve his life with some technology and some Sith techniques! Ragnos > all other Sith Lords besides Sidious because of this

And please, when it says "Master of Evil to use Sith Power" you can't say it means Sidious is the most evil to use Sith power because you cannot judge who is more evil-er than the other. I mean, Nihilus sucked an entire planet, that's pretty barbaric compared to Palpatine. It's pretty obvious when it means master of evil that's it referring to a Sith Lord or a DLOTS.

Wait, just a question. Isn't blowing up planets as barbaric as sucking the life out of them?

I don't think it would actually mean most evil, but more the most dedicated to the darkside.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Oh really? Prove it? I believe he lost his duel with Ragnos by decapitation, and used sith magic to stay alive. Why the HELL would he have his head removed from his body if he really WASNT decapitated and HAD the ability to use sith magic to live on? Not very logical lightsnake.
What you believe and what is so are apparently two fvery different things.

Probably because he was DYING and seperating his head was the only way to survive? PRobably because he had to seperate his hiead from a dying body Ragnos had cut down?

Originally posted by Lightsnake
What you believe and what is so are apparently two fvery different things.
Really? Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Not to mention you lose all form of logic when arguing against the ancient sith.



Lets think about what's more logical. The fact that he was decapitated and used his sith magic to stay alive as a talking head, or:

Him dying and THEN someone taking his head off and THEN him using sith magic to live. Well lightsnake, since you've lost all form of logic, let me ask you this, and I will try to be civil about it so you can understand it once and for all.

IF SIMUS HAS THE ABILITY TO USE SITH MAGIC TO LIVE AS A HEAD, THEN WHY WOULD HE NOT BE ABLE TO LIVE IN A BODY IF IN FACT HIS BODY DID DIE?! But according to you, your ridiculous assumptions make sense, so who am I to snap you back into reality.

How about what's actually canon? Simus is mentioned as 'cut down' and then having his head placed in a jar.

Perhaps his body was shattered completely, did you think of that? Perhaps Ragnos sliced him straight down diagonally, severing nerves and arteries and the like? How about you consider that?

And how about you consider a random, noname Priestess did the same thing that uber Simus did with the Force in Enemy of the Empire.

Oh, and Simus as a head would've been about as weak as a baby according to the loss of most of his body and what happened to Anakin

Originally posted by Lightsnake
How about what's actually canon? Simus is mentioned as 'cut down' and then having his head placed in a jar.
Really? I'm looking at GAOTS. Where?


Gee, if he was able to live as a head and JUST as a head, ever thought that sith magic would allow him to live as a body? Ah logic.


....


Irrelevant, who the hell is even discussing his abilities as a head?

Dark side sourcebook for starters. And when your body is destroyed, but your hea dis not...use some damn logic. You get so defensive whenever anyone challenges your views.

Again: random noname priestess did the same thing in Enemy of the Empire

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Dark side sourcebook for starters. And when your body is destroyed, but your hea dis not...use some damn logic. You get so defensive whenever anyone challenges your views.
Wait I get defensive? This coming from the most defensive person I've ever talked to? Quit being a hypocrite, it makes you look retarded. And please provide the exact quote, not a random book like you usually do when you fail to use logic. As usual, I suggest you consult Advent before forming and argument that ultimately gets defeated.

Marka Ragnos: Descriptions on the legendary Dark Lord

By Prodigal Knight

Biography: Provided from Wookiepedia -




Extra Descriptions # 1: Provided from the Explore the Chronicles of the Old Republic by SW Databank -



Extra Descriptions # 2: TOTJ: Golden Age of the Sith written by Kevin Anderson on SW Databank -



Importance of this:

Marka Ragnos is not the strongest Sith Lord. That rank, as of right now, belongs to Darth Sidious. However, he is the strongest Ancient Sith in existence. Through him, the Sith Empire prospered. With his death, they fell.

However, does this mean Marka Ragnos is the 2nd most powerful Sith Lord? Well with future Sith Lords who were able to master the teachings of Ragnos and his Golden Age of Sith to a very high extremity, such as Revan and Bane, we cannot say Ragnos is the 2nd most powerful.

One thing can be determined though. Ragnos is one of THE most powerful Sith Lords ever.

Originally posted by General Kenobl
Marka Ragnos: Descriptions on the legendary Dark Lord

By Prodigal Knight

Biography: Provided from Wookiepedia -




Extra Descriptions # 1: Provided from the Explore the Chronicles of the Old Republic by SW Databank -



Extra Descriptions # 2: TOTJ: Golden Age of the Sith written by Kevin Anderson on SW Databank -




Notice how my argument was always "Ragnos was the most powerful ancient sith", so I don't know why you're bringing this up now.



I've already said all this lol. And it's likely he was second only to Sidious, which we can argue.

Because you never provided a shred of evidence. I had to go physically find all this information and compile it together.



Yes, you were not lying. However, you didn't specify where I could find this information. It was not in the comic book (it didn't look like it) so I found it in the Databank.



One could argue that. Though Revan and Bane provide just as good cases.

Nevertheless, Kun, Revan, and probably Vader & Bane > Ragnos.

Originally posted by General Kenobl
Nevertheless, Kun, Revan, and probably Vader & Bane > Ragnos.

Kun? He had a year to study ancient sith knowledge. I would even rank Nadd higher than him because Nadd studied from Sadow himself. Vader? Unlikely because Sidious wouldn't have taught him everything and his abilities were severely limited. Bane? Had a strong connection to the darkside but learned everything from Revan. The only candidate that is possible would be Revan. However, I would give the quality of knowledge and overall knowledge base to Ragnos.

I take it you have never seen Advent's Kun feats page, etc. Kun is extremely powerful DS.

Bane, please, with just some training from Revan, he almost owned the ass of the best swordsmen of Kaan's Sith Order.

Vader, have you ever seen some of jollyjim's Vader pics? Vader going all out has been proven to be better than Bane.

Revan, even you DS, can't deny he's better than Ragnos.

Originally posted by General Kenobl
I take it you have never seen Advent's Kun feats page, etc. Kun is extremely powerful DS.
Right, after learning from the ancients. His raw abilities and potential is incredible, maybe top 5 out of any SW characters. That's why he became so powerful so fast. BUt then again we don't know his true potential, he might have reached already before he died. We just know he had a year to study, so I wouldn't put him above anyone you just mentioned.


Almost owned? Considering this is an Obiwan vs. Anakin type of fight, and he STILL could not break Kas'im's defenses and in fact lost, your point is moot. He defeated the guy with a force wave, that is all. Bane is very powerful but I would still put the likes of Revan and Kun above him. Both of their teachings were superior to his.


No, he hasn't. Don't make up nonsense.


Yes I can easily. Because I know the might of the ancient sith. All throughout the SW universe their power is obvious(at least among the top ancient sith). And nobody has shown to be greater and more powerful than the most powerful of the ancient sith, other than Sidious. Revan was indeed greater than them all and at the very best could have been on par with Ragnos, but Ragnos' command of the darkside was described as frightening and surpassing.

I see your opinion is steadfast. Know that you are sounding yourself to be a Ragnos Fanboy by putting him above the likes of the strongest Sith in existence, even over Revan!

Originally posted by General Kenobl
I see your opinion is steadfast. Know that you are sounding yourself to be a Ragnos Fanboy by putting him above the likes of the strongest Sith in existence, even over Revan!

I am a Ragnos and a Revan fan. I consider Revan's destiny to be the greatest out of any sith/Jedi with the exception of Luke, and I consider him to be the most powerful Jedi next to Luke(and POSSIBLY Yoda), and to be the most powerful Sith next to Sidious and Ragnos. However, even without evidence of what Ragnos actually did while alive, he was the most powerful ancient sith, and he was always the spokesman for the ancient sith spirits, so I would definitely put him right under DE Sidious and above Revan. At any rate, I can justify their power to some extent.

Don't you think him being the Spokesman for the Ancients have to do with the fact that he might be wise and charismatic, and able to influence future generations of the Sith?

Originally posted by General Kenobl
Don't you think him being the Spokesman for the Ancients have to do with the fact that he might be wise and charismatic, and able to influence future generations of the Sith?

Oh totally, and the ancient sith did NOT operate on the most powerful being the leader. Oh wait.

Hahahaha

Originally posted by General Kenobl
I take it you have never seen Advent's Kun feats page, etc. Kun is extremely powerful DS.Who learned everything he knew from Sadow's notes. . .

Who learned everything that set him apart from a Holocron. . .

Is this a joke?

How? Everything he knew, everything that made him what he was, came from the era of the Ancient Sith. You know, the Golden Age of the Sith which saw Ragnos as its head? Please.

Originally posted by Faunus
Who learned everything he knew from Sadow's notes. . .

Who learned everything that set him apart from a Holocron. . .

Is this a joke?

How? Everything he knew, everything that made him what he was, came from the era of the Ancient Sith. You know, the Golden Age of the Sith which saw Ragnos as its head? Please.

What you learn is not the same as you natural power, Faunus. One's own natural abilities can be further augmented by the knowledge they maintain, but one's own natural potential is something else. Isn't it also possible people could later refine the knowledge they'd received? Kun is, afterall, shown as quite a bit more powerful than any of his forbears.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
What you learn is not the same as you natural power, Faunus. One's own natural abilities can be further augmented by the knowledge they maintain, but one's own natural potential is something else. Isn't it also possible people could later refine the knowledge they'd received? Kun is, afterall, shown as quite a bit more powerful than any of his forbears.

Really? How? What has he done to appear stronger than his forebears? Oh that's right nothing, because he only had the teachings of Sadow. Revan had REAL ancient sith teachings, ergo more of a knowledge base. And how do you know Kun's natural abilities surpass any of the ancient sith, ESPECIALLY Ragnos? Ragnos RULED the greatest era of the sith with an IRON hand for MORE than a century. In the sith philosophy that is UNHEARD OF. I'm sorry that you dislike the ancient sith and KOTOR lightsnake, but everything points to Ragnos being second only to DE Sidious.

Tell it to Adas....

Shut up DS. When one learns something, it does not mean they cannot refine this. Jedi learn the art of swordfighting styles, but they are able to refine and master their techniques. Same thing works with mastery of the Force. Kun is able to use Sadow's teaching to a very high magnitude.

@ Faunus

Yes, I'm well aware all those people learned from holocrons or Ancient spirits themselves (in case of Vader, he learned from Sidious).

I typed up the Ragnos Descriptions several posts back. I know his power. And comparing this power to the likes of Revan, Bane, Vader, and Kun, I say that he's not the #2.

Originally posted by General Kenobl
Shut up DS. When one learns something, it does not mean they cannot refine this. Jedi learn the art of swordfighting styles, but they are able to refine and master their techniques. Same thing works with mastery of the Force. Kun is able to use Sadow's teaching to a very high magnitude.
Hey jackass, show me an instance where someone took the teachings of the ancient sith, and refined it. And anyone BUT Sidious. Otherwise, I rest my case.


You usually have to back up your opinion. I'm pretty sure I can back up mine and Faunus can back up his.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Tell it to Adas....
I'm so glad you brought up a relevant point after apparently conceding yet another argument.

You calling me a jackass? Look who is talking.

My bad, refining is not the best term. What I mean is when Sith Lords like Revan learned the Ancient Sith techniques, they mastered it to a very high magnitude. I say Revan's mastery of these Dark Side techniques > Ragnos's mastery of the Sith powers.



I am pretty sure you know Revan's and other Sith Lord's feats and powers.

Originally posted by General Kenobl
You calling me a jackass? Look who is talking.
What a witty retort, I'm blown away.


That is your opinion and nothing more. Revan learned the techniques and became uber powerful. Ragnos and the ancient sith invented these techniques, but suddenly they can't master their own techniques? Lets be serious here. Once again the ONLY instance we have of someone using the ancient sith techniques better than the ancient sith, and to an extent never seen before, is DE Sidious who incidentally is the most powerful sith.





Yup, but I wouldn't place them on par with the most powerful ancient sith.

Faunus, are you implying that simply because Revan is in Ragnos's lineage of information and knowledge, that Ragnos must automatically be more powerful than him? If that is the case, then any Sith who ruled before Ragnos must automatically be more powerful than him. Lightsnake is correct in one instance - raw power and natural abilities aren't measured by knowledge. So assuming that they possess the same knowledge, it is still very possible for Revan to be more powerful than Ragnos, given all the hype about Revan's connection with the Force is far more descriptive and impressive than anything on Ragnos.

Likewise, as we've said before, techniques and knowledge can be improved and extended upon given time. Ragnos's century of existence does not come close to matching the amount of time that thousands of generations of Sith Lords have all spent studying the Force. Thus, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but just because Ragnos was a member of the Ancient Sith when a lot of dark side techniques were created doesn't necessarily mean at all that he is as powerful as Revan.

Originally posted by Gideon
Faunus, are you implying that simply because Revan is in Ragnos's lineage of information and knowledge, that Ragnos must automatically be more powerful than him? If that is the case, then any Sith who ruled before Ragnos must automatically be more powerful than him. Lightsnake is correct in one instance - raw power and natural abilities aren't measured by knowledge. So assuming that they possess the same knowledge, it is still very possible for Revan to be more powerful than Ragnos, given all the hype about Revan's connection with the Force is far more descriptive and impressive than anything on Ragnos.
It is possible, assuming Revan had more natural abilities and potential than Ragnos. I find it hard to believe anyone but Sidious had all the abilities to be more powerful than Ragnos. Also, let's say we are saying the first were the greatest. Even if that were the case, and we are talking about the ancient sith as a whole, meaning the 2,000 years they were on Korriban, Ragnos is still confirmed as the most powerful of the ancient sith. His knowledge base and apparent skills were good enough to rule untouched for over a century during the greatest era. If that's not saying something, I don't know what is Escape.


So you're saying quantity>Quality? Would you rather learn from a holocron, or from the master himself? Which one possesses more quality escape? The simple fact that Ragnos WAS the greatest and most powerful ancient sith, and that he was always the spokesman for the sith spirits, puts him at the very least, near Revan, if not above. Not to mention he had over 100 years to study and create techniques during the Golden Age. Logical deduction points to Ragnos>Revan.

Maybe ignoramus, when two people know something and begin to master it, one just becomes simply better.

Like what Escape said, just because Ragnos and his Sith invented these techniques, does that mean they mastered it fully. No, that depends on Ragnos's ability to use the Force. Sidious > Ragnos because his mastery and ability to the Dark Side as well as his lightsaber skill surpass the skills of the Ancient Sith Dark Lord. Same thing for Revan. His ability to use the Force and his skill with the lightsaber is probably greater than Ragnos.

Originally posted by Gideon
Faunus, are you implying that simply because Revan is in Ragnos's lineage of information and knowledge, that Ragnos must automatically be more powerful than him? If that is the case, then any Sith who ruled before Ragnos must automatically be more powerful than him. Lightsnake is correct in one instance - raw power and natural abilities aren't measured by knowledge. So assuming that they possess the same knowledge, it is still very possible for Revan to be more powerful than Ragnos, given all the hype about Revan's connection with the Force is far more descriptive and impressive than anything on Ragnos.

Likewise, as we've said before, techniques and knowledge can be improved and extended upon given time. Ragnos's century of existence does not come close to matching the amount of time that thousands of generations of Sith Lords have all spent studying the Force. Thus, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but just because Ragnos was a member of the Ancient Sith when a lot of dark side techniques were created doesn't necessarily mean at all that he is as powerful as Revan. I'm glad you specified that you weren't putting words in my mouth, because that's the conclusion I would have come to. What I'm trying to get at is that all the vaunted knowledge and expertise of Revan were passed down from Ragnos's people. Hence, I see nothing suggesting that his arsenal puts him above the mightiest of said civilization.

Originally posted by General Kenobl
Maybe ignoramus, when two people know something and begin to master it, one just becomes simply better.
Master it to what extent pray tell? Lets see.. Revan learning from a holocron.. Or Ragnos creating the technique. Which one has more of a chance of mastering it. Sidious was the only known Sith to take ancient sith teachings and master them to their fullest extent. All you have is speculation, "ignoramus".



They likely did master them, hence the Golden Age of the Sith. I guess with all the wars against the Republic and all the internal strife, they didn't have time to fully master their own techniques. Oh wait..
Sidious was pretty much the perfect dark side being. Ragnos strength was described as incredible, and his command of the darkside was frightening. All you're doing is shooting off random unwarranted speculation.

Perhaps Ragnos never had a Sith like Revan during his tenure as the Dark Lord.



Darth Revan mastered an entire Sith Empire during a very martial time between Jedi and Sith. He was shown to have been Malak's superior (and Malak was crazy good) and had considerable mastery over the Ancient Sith's Dark Side techniques.

Originally posted by Faunus
I'm glad you specified that you weren't putting words in my mouth, because that's the conclusion I would have come to. What I'm trying to get at is that all the vaunted knowledge and expertise of Revan were passed down from Ragnos's people. Hence, I see nothing suggesting that his arsenal puts him above the mightiest of said civilization.

Again, if you're basing this conclusion simply by the knowledge that was passed down, am I to assume that any Lord of the Sith predating Ragnos is automatically more powerful than him?

A Holocron, imbecile, is used for that very purpose: to pour all the Dark Side techniques so a future generation can learn from it in case the Sith Empire collapsed.

And even then, Revan learned some Dark Side techniques. The reason why he is so powerful because he mastered these techniques to a very high degree. That's why he is so legendary and powerful.



A Golden Age does not simply refer to the Sith being able to master all their invented techniques. It refers to so many different aspects: cultural and technological advancement, etc.

Originally posted by General Kenobl
Perhaps Ragnos never had a Sith like Revan during his tenure as the Dark Lord.Revan was known more for his skill as a tactician, and his beliefs, than for his power. That's not to say he's prolly #3 on the all time list, but I'm just saying.





Which techniques exactly? The ones he picked up from the ancient sith but was never shown to use because there was no need for them? What is your point?

Originally posted by Gideon
Again, if you're basing this conclusion simply by the knowledge that was passed down, am I to assume that any Lord of the Sith predating Ragnos is automatically more powerful than him?
No because Ragnos was stated as the most powerful. And if this IS the case, think of it this way, and I don't know if it's a good example. Remember the game where there's 20 people in a circle. First person whispers something to the next guy. Buy the time it goes around, there's only a fraction of what the original guy said. Not sure if that really makes sense in this case, but the point is Ragnos and the ancient sith created and perfected these techniques, and passed them down. Obviously if someone after them had more potential and raw abilities, they'd be able to master them to another extent, but unfortunately the only one we see with this capability is Sidious.

No. Ragnos was not stated to be more powerful than anyone before him.

Edit: Likewise, prove that "Ragnos" came up with all the dark side techniques. Unless it's stated in canon that the Ancient Sith (during Ragnos's time) specifically came up with all or most dark side techniques, it's ridiculous to assume he'd master them to the level that his forerunners have.

Originally posted by General Kenobl
A Holocron, imbecile, is used for that very purpose: to pour all the Dark Side techniques so a future generation can learn from it in case the Sith Empire collapsed.
Your random, simplistic outburts make you look hilariously stupid. Now, holocrons contain history passed down and certain powers. Can you speculate as to how much power and techniques the holocrons pass down? No you can't, so it's more logical to say that Ragnos and his gang who developed these techniques, were at more of an advantage.


Can you quantify?





Not this Golden Age.

Originally posted by Gideon
No. Ragnos was not stated to be more powerful than anyone before him.

Edit: Likewise, prove that "Ragnos" came up with all the dark side techniques. Unless it's stated in canon that the Ancient Sith (during Ragnos's time) specifically came up with all or most dark side techniques, it's ridiculous to assume he'd master them to the level that his forerunners have.

Ok Escape, here's logical deduction.

Premise 1:The ancient sith(Whether before or during Ragnos), created all of these techniques.
Premise 2: Ragnos was the most powerful of all the ancient sith

Conclusion: Ragnos knows at least SOME of these techniques.

Nobody said "all".

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Ok Escape, here's logical deduction.

Premise 1:The ancient sith(Whether before or during Ragnos), created all of these techniques.
Premise 2: Ragnos was the most powerful of all the ancient sith

Conclusion: Ragnos knows at least SOME of these techniques.

Nobody said "all".

:erm: You just said "all". Ragnos was said to be "the most powerful of the most powerful" at his time. That does not automatically include all of the Lords of the Sith prior to him.

Originally posted by Gideon
:erm: You just said "all". Ragnos was said to be "the most powerful of the most powerful" at his time. That does not automatically include all of the Lords of the Sith prior to him.

No, not his time Escape you know this. Ragnos was the most powerful of the ancient sith. That means from 6900 BBY to 5000 BBY. Anyways we'll continue this later, I actually have to do some work.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
No, not his time Escape you know this. Ragnos was the most powerful of the ancient sith. That means from 6900 BBY to 5000 BBY. Anyways we'll continue this later, I actually have to do some work.

Good. Take the time to provide me proof. Where is Ragnos stated to be more powerful than any Sith prior to him? I want quotes and sources.

Nice job for totally changing the topic.



WTF? I am talking about the holocrons in which he learned from.



That's a faulty analogy in two different ways:

1) When an Ancient Sith Spirit teaches a future disciple, he will teach all of his repetoire, not just do some selective power thinking. The Ancient Sith want to further the Sith Empire in every way possible, including teaching possible future Dark Lords.

2) When a Sith Lord makes a holocron, he pours all of his teachings into it? Why? Because the Sith knows when he dies, he'll need a way to pass his teachings to a future generation of Sith Lords so that they too can one day create Sith Empires and such and such.

Thus your example that the Sith techniques become less and less as generations go down is not truly valid.


And I see Revan, Vader, Kun, and Bane all having such raw power and potential surpassing that of Ragnos.

What is the exact quote for the "most powerful of the most powerful," in full context? I thought it said something along the lines of "Marka Ragnos, Sith Lord, the most powerful of the most powerful," and that the most powerful of the most powerful part was simply referring to the title of Dark Lord of the Sith. Meaning the most powerful was the Dark Lord.

Still, these guys are "The best of the best." Are they above the likes of, let's say. Dooku? http://www.swtimeline.ru/?comics=128&page=022

Excuse me? If he was the most powerful of his era, he would be stated as the "most powerful". However, and I'm not genius interpretater, but I interpret "The most powerful of the most powerful" as the most powerful of all the ancient sith. As in 6900 BBY to 5000 BBY.. I thought we've had numerous discussions about this, I don't know why people are playing stupid. There's NO need to state that Ragnos is the most powerful of the time because that's a given as a DLOTS. Hence, the most powerful of the most powerful, THE DARK LORD, means he's the most powerful and greatest of the ancient sith. Not to mention that again, he crowns the DLOTS of the sith and speaks for the ancient sith for a reason, and not because of his good looks. Too much anti ancient sith rhetoric.

What if the ancient sith are all pussys and ragnos is only the strongest of the weak?

That would refute facts that the ancient sith were the strongest as a whole, and all the techniques they created made later sith lords uber powerful.

Kadesh does bring up a valuable point DS. How powerful were the Sith under Ragnos's reign? We know for one, that they were not martial, considering how Lord Marka did not want to bring the attention of the Republic and the Jedi upon them.

By Golden Age, it does not mean they were the strongest Order. A Golden Age can refer to their advancements in the fields of science and culture, not only in sith swords and Force. You can't deny that.

And still DS, you fail to prove Ragnos > Revan and other powerful Sith Lords.

Originally posted by General Kenobl
Kadesh does bring up a valuable point DS. How powerful were the Sith under Ragnos's reign? We know for one, that they were not martial, considering how Lord Marka did not want to bring the attention of the Republic and the Jedi upon them.
What point? The ancient sith, and specifically the Golden Age consisted of the apex of sith knowledge and power. This isn't even a discussion. Every sith lord that wanted to gain incredible power studied from the ancients, ALWAYS. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that as a whole, the ancient sith were the most powerful of all time. You somehow fail to comprehend this simple concept. And at the same time with all their power, they kept to themselves practicing there techniques, so of course they weren't ready for the Republic.



Gee lets see. Sith..Golden Age of the sith. Aka the time where the sith were the most powerful and knowledgable in the sith arts. This is common sense. And I don't have to make a case for Ragnos being more powerful than Revan, right now it's more than likely without me having to constantly defend Ragnos.

I just asked for the quote and it's source, DS, I assumed you had it... If not, no biggie.

Originally posted by jollyjim311
I just asked for the quote and it's source, DS, I assumed you had it... If not, no biggie.

Sorry Jim, quote for what?

"The most powerful of the most powerful" quote. I've heard it metioned a kajagazabillion times, but, I've never even seen or looked into it...

Book Description
Marka Ragnos ruled the galaxy with an iron fist. He was the Dark Lord of the Sith -- the most powerful of the most powerful. But now he is dead.

Originally posted by jollyjim311
"The most powerful of the most powerful" quote. I've heard it metioned a kajagazabillion times, but, I've never even seen or looked into it... I tried finding it on SW Timeline, but with the current archiving, it's nearly impossible.

That could simply be stating that the Dark Lord of the Sith was the most powerful of the Sith, and not be specified to Ragnos. Basically a job description, to simplify it. Also, if the term "power" is always ambiguous with PT characters, why is Ragnos exempt from this? Could it mean politically or economically?

No. In references to power, we all know what it means. If it wasn't referring to personal power, it would elaborate or not be in there. I'm not going to use a double standard to try and downplay a fictional character. It would look like Ragnos was the most powerful of the Ancients by the time of his death. Could he have been surpassed by Sadow? Maybe. However, we have numerous feats and quotes that reveal that Sidious is the most powerful Sith.

One thing to consider: Was his era weak? I mean, to me they always seemed like their powers were just that of watered down Jedi, who bred with some primitive species. I mean, their alchemy is amazing, as are their inventions, but, as far as personal power goes we only see Sadow throw a small brick at far from lethal velocities (and we have no examples from Ragnos at all). Despite this, due to quotes of him having a "Frightening grasp of the dark side" and the like, I'll try and make a semi-accurate call, and say he makes it to 2, Obi Wan, and loses. He would probably go down to Obi Wan in melee, but, Ragnos' skills in melee were only tested, without any visual aid, against an opponent who we know just as much about. So, my guesses are just that, guesses, and, there is no reason for me to try and say that yours are wrong, if we both have an equal chance of being wrong.

Originally posted by jollyjim311
That could simply be stating that the Dark Lord of the Sith was the most powerful of the Sith, and not be specified to Ragnos. Basically a job description, to simplify it. Also, if the term "power" is always ambiguous with PT characters, why is Ragnos exempt from this? Could it mean politically or economically?
Considering the ancient sith lived by the principle of the strongest being the dark lord and that anyone can challenge the DLOTS for the right of the title, it would mean personal power. He was repeatedly called the most powerful of the most powerful, THE Dark Lord. Hence the leader of all the ancient sith, always the spokesman for the spirits of the ancient sith. All the evidence is there, just use logical deduction.


Surpassed by Sadow? The guy that hated him but obeyed him while he was alive? The guy who didn't dare challenge him for the title of DLOTS? Again, all evidence points to Ragnos being the most powerful ancient sith.



That's your assessment and you're entitled to your own opinion although I personally think you are dead wrong with a weak argument.
You cannot call his era weak, because the most powerful ancient sith designed techniques that all other sith lords following them used to become exponentially powerful. All I see is a weak attempt to discredit the ancient sith.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Considering the ancient sith lived by the principle of the strongest being the dark lord and that anyone can challenge the DLOTS for the right of the title, it would mean personal power. He was repeatedly called the most powerful of the most powerful, THE Dark Lord. Hence the leader of all the ancient sith, always the spokesman for the spirits of the ancient sith. All the evidence is there, just use logical deduction.

Surpassed by Sadow? The guy that hated him but obeyed him while he was alive? The guy who didn't dare challenge him for the title of DLOTS? Again, all evidence points to Ragnos being the most powerful ancient sith.

That's your assessment and you're entitled to your own opinion although I personally think you are dead wrong with a weak argument.
You cannot call his era weak, because the most powerful ancient sith designed techniques that all other sith lords following them used to become exponentially powerful. All I see is a weak attempt to discredit the ancient sith.

I already said that I know it was personal power. The first sentence of your post could be what that quote is elaborating on. It could simply mean that whoever is the Dark Lord is the most powerful. Do you get what I'm trying to say? When was he repeatedly called the most powerful? I've seen that one quote that tells about him being the most powerful at the time.

What are you basing this off of? Why did he hate Ragnos? Still, I agree that while Ragnos was alive, Sadow was less powerful, but, later on Sadow may have become more powerful. This part, however, is all guesses, so, I s'pose you can just ignore it.

See, the thing is, it shouldn't have to be an opinion. If the Ancients had some kind of awesome power, you would have to think that one would use it at some point. Now I know that the lack of proof doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't have some kind of crazy force powers, but when we see the two most powerful Sith alive after Ragnos' death battle, with clear (and quoted) intent to kill each other, there is only one force attack, and you know what it is? Sadow, hand outstretched, tosses one small brick at barely enough speed to draw blood, and not enough to incapacitate Ludo. I don't see where you're getting it from that they have this unfathomable personal power.

If you want to guess like the rest of us on a character we have no information about, and the most powerful showing of the force from his era without questionable circumstances and items to help was tossing one brick, then its fine by me. However, what I do know it that Obi Wan was directly compared to Mace Windu (by Mace himself) as far as swordsmanship goes, he was able to block 18 hits per second from Greivous, who probably has about the same physical strength as an Ancient and that he sent Greivous flying with a force push, something far above tossing a lonely brick. I put Ragnos past Ki Adi due to reputation alone, and at some point there is going to need to be some real evidence, or else it is all just assumptions.

Sadow's fight with Kressh is interpreted simply, at least I believe. Has it ever occured to you that they were equals in force abilities and for all the techniques the ancient sith created, they also created defenses for them, so you don't see sith consuming entire planets of other sith? It makes more than enough sense.

If they were force titans as you are making up (be it correct or not, there is nothing to stand behind that), then Sadow could have thrown the entire temple. But no, he threw one lousy brick. That was all the personal power he has shown us. To assume that he could have drained planets, when all he has done without items is throw one brick, is completely ridiculous.

you do understand that the Golden Age of the Sith means the apex of sith power and knowledge, since this is the sith and that is what the sith aim to achieve, don't you? Not a great rebuttal. And Jim, I never said Sadow was a force titan, I said the most powerful ancient sith in the entire era had incredible force abilities and created techniques. I can just as easily say that If Sidious was the most powerful sith, then he would have used his instakill on Yoda, on Mace, etc. That nonsensical response goes both ways.

Oh my god DS, quit avoiding the obvious. I have just proven to you the errors of your assumptions. The Sith Empire were hardly the strongest Order of Sith. Their 2nd most powerful warriors couldn't even perform outstanding combat feats on one another. Hell, all their superb "force skill" resulted in Naga throwing a brick at Ludo. And it didn't even wound Kressh properly!!!

Seriously, quit being an Ancient Sith fanboy. You are making a fool out of yourself.

Originally posted by General Kenobl
Oh my god DS, quit avoiding the obvious. I have just proven to you the errors of your assumptions. The Sith Empire were hardly the strongest Order of Sith. Their 2nd most powerful warriors couldn't even perform outstanding combat feats on one another. Hell, all their superb "force skill" resulted in Naga throwing a brick at Ludo. And it didn't even wound Kressh properly!!!

Seriously, quit being an Ancient Sith fanboy. You are making a fool out of yourself.

I have read your nonsense, so I guess you're like every other moron out there that claims he's made a case for himself anytime he types. OMG WE DIDNT SEE THEM PERFORMING FEATS THEREFORE THEY CAN"T! I think it is you who should stop embarassing himself, and i'm as much of an ancient sith fan as you are anti ancient sith and Revan Fanboy.

No offense, but the what the fvck are you smoking ?

I know Ragnos's Sith Empire grew strong in the Dark Arts. However, they studied all the different Dark aspects of the Force. This doesn't totally mean combat, son. Par exampla, Sadow's illusions was a powerful Dark technique formulated by the Ancient Sith and Naga's mastery, however it CANT be utilized in combat. Because of the fact that the Sith Empire were the most dormant of Sith Order's, they never had the combat experience with the Force. They never specifically mastered fighting Dark Side attacks.

Thats why Naga vs. Ludo involved only Sith sword banging and brick-drop by Sadow.

You must understand DS.