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

An imposing figure with ghostly pale features, prominent Sith tattoos, a gleaming red lightsaber, and devastating Dark Side power, Malak struck terror into the hearts of his former allies. He also wore a vocal mask that may have concealed a form of cybernetic life-support. Did it provide him with powers far greater than even Exar Kun or Freedon Nadd, or was cybernetic enhancement too simple an explanation?

―Wizards of the Coast: Darth Malak

Azronger, given the shit that you take as legit, yeah, it's legit.

Given the shit normal people take as legit, no.

Though Ant, tbf if you take the red-text quotes seriously, I don't see why you shouldn't take this one as such too.

What are the reasons against its legitimacy?

Originally posted by XSUPREMEXSKILLZ
Though Ant, tbf if you take the red-text quotes seriously, I don't see why you shouldn't take this one as such too.
I take all quotes, feats, etc. as subjective. I don't regard the Foundry quote as definitive, but rather evidence.

Same applies here, but when this is the only evidence in a stream of contrary evidence, I'm inclined to dismiss it.

That being said, it's pretty lawl to say Kun could one-shot Malak if a source is establishing something like this.

The only reason that I can think of that people would bring up off the top of my head is that WotC has said a lot of ridiculous shit. Though I doubt that's a sufficient answer for you.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
I take all quotes, feats, etc. as subjective. I don't regard the Foundry quote as definitive, but rather evidence.

Same applies here, but when this is the only evidence in a stream of contrary evidence, I'm inclined to dismiss it.

That being said, it's pretty lawl to say Kun could one-shot Malak if a source is establishing something like this.

What contradictory evidence is there?

Originally posted by XSUPREMEXSKILLZ
The only reason that I can think of that people would bring up off the top of my head is that WotC has said a lot of ridiculous shit. Though I doubt that's a sufficient answer for you.

That's fallacious reasoning, yeah.

Originally posted by Azronger
What contradictory evidence is there?
By "contrary evidence," I didn't mean outright contradictory.

Dooku is a second tier Jedi like Bastila.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
By "contrary evidence," I didn't mean outright contradictory.

Then what did you mean?

Originally posted by TenebrousWay
Dooku is a second tier Jedi like Bastila.

That quote is solely applicable within the context of the Star Wars Miniatures Game. This one - from the looks of things - is applicable to the actual continuity.

Given this source says Sidious > Caedus >/~ Revan > all other Sith and Yoda ~ Vader ~ Mace Windu > Dooku ~ Obi-Wan ~ Bastila... No, I don't take it as canon.

Malak > Kun isn't explicitly contradicted, as far as I know.

Originally posted by MythLord
Given this source says Sidious > Caedus >/~ Revan > all other Sith and Yoda ~ Vader ~ Mace Windu > Dooku ~ Obi-Wan ~ Bastila... No, I don't take it as canon.

Fallacy of composition. Dismissed.

Also, see my response to TenebrousWay.

Originally posted by XSUPREMEXSKILLZ
Malak > Kun isn't explicitly contradicted, as far as I know.

Indeed.

Also, for anyone wondering for the context of the quote, here's the full article:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090603071915/https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sw20031009malak

As you can see, it's lore-related, not gameplay-related.

Why's it matter? It doesn't answer the question if Malak is better than Kun or not.

Originally posted by ChocolateMuesli
Why's it matter? It doesn't answer the question if Malak is better than Kun or not.

Originally posted by Azronger
Also, for anyone wondering for the context of the quote, here's the full article:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090603071915/https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sw20031009malak

As you can see, it's lore-related, not gameplay-related. Ah good, not canon then.

What is suppose to be legit here? I mean the quote isn't saying anything, it's asking a question. It isn't confirming anything if it's asking something. So the question is legit I suppose.

Can people really not read? The quote is asking by what means did Malak grow far more powerful than Exar Kun.

far greater

People seem to be missing the

"or was cybernetic enhancement too simple an explanation?"

not that I'd take this seriously

I must be missing something. How would it be canon, the date above the article is 2003, and the heading states he's an expanded universe character.

Also it seems to be just a review and the link to the author (if it's current with the article) says he's no longer a star wars employee, instead he's just a freelancer.

One-time Star Wars RPG editor Cory Herndon is now a freelance writer, editor, and game designer.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
People seem to be missing the

"or was cybernetic enhancement too simple an explanation?"

not that I'd take this seriously
Probably a reference to the star forge in all honesty.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Ah good, not canon then.

And why is that?

Originally posted by Raptor22
I must be missing something. How would it be canon, the date above the article is 2003, and the heading states he's an expanded universe character.

I mean the Legends canon, not Disney Canon.



Chee still states Internet articles are canon.

What people don't look into is that later on they talk about Malak using some "hidden source" of power to greatly increase his status. They are obviously referring to the Star Forge but at the time they didn't want to spoil the SF. The cybernetic enhancements is a ref herring. I believe Malak with the SF>Kun and Nadd going by that quote.

Originally posted by The Merchant
What people don't look into is that later on they talk about Malak using some "hidden source" of power to greatly increase his status. They are obviously referring to the Star Forge but at the time they didn't want to spoil the SF. The cybernetic enhancements is a ref herring. I believe Malak with the SF>Kun and Nadd going by that quote.

And by that it goes, all the ancient Sith Lords <Thon=<Ulic<Exar kun<Malak SF<Kotor Revan<Novel Revan=<Novel Vitiate.

There's a quote that says Thon>ancient Sith lords? May you post it? And yes I agree with that scaling.

Originally posted by The Merchant
There's a quote that says Thon>ancient Sith lords? May you post it? And yes I agree with that scaling.
Its more so his feat on ambria that is why I place him here.
The only ancient sith who have shown anything close to what Thon did was via the use of rituals/alchemy/sorcery/Trinkets etc.

Originally posted by The Merchant
What people don't look into is that later on they talk about Malak using some "hidden source" of power to greatly increase his status. They are obviously referring to the Star Forge but at the time they didn't want to spoil the SF. The cybernetic enhancements is a ref herring. I believe Malak with the SF>Kun and Nadd going by that quote.

Well, yeah, it's pretty obviously hinting at the Star Forge as the source of Malak's Kun+ powers. But that's not what we're discussing here.

Originally posted by Azronger
Also, for anyone wondering for the context of the quote, here's the full article:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090603071915/https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sw20031009malak

As you can see, it's lore-related, not gameplay-related.

Does the article having been taken down make it not-canon to Legends?

Nah. If that was the case, quotes from starwars.com would be tossed out the window.

The quote under dispute is invalid for two important reasons.

1. Matt Martin, member of the Lucasfilm story group and Lucas Licensing (who also worked on SWTOR), has stated... https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-PMhijPh5JHs/Wai3azAULNI/AAAAAAAAChg/BdeH25ypVjYQ2aZFH8y7X1HiTUgTlNtPgCL0BGAYYCw/h578/2017-08-31.png.
The immediate counter is to assume the quote is referring to the lore, not to the RPG itself; however, the individual who wrote this citation is an RPG editor. His authority only matters in the power levels of the game. This truth is further accentuated based on his role in the Dark Side Source Book. (He was the RPG guy)
http://web.archive.org/web/20090603000341/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/bio/herndoncory, http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Cory_J._Herndon All of this goes to say, that the quote is referring to power in the RPG, not within the lore.
2. The article we are referring to was taken down in 2009. The significance of this is up to individual interpretation, but it no longer is officially in the continuity.

Originally posted by XSUPREMEXSKILLZ
Does the article having been taken down make it not-canon to Legends?

Not to my knowledge, no.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
The quote under dispute is invalid for two important reasons.

1. Matt Martin, member of the Lucasfilm story group and Lucas Licensing (who also worked on SWTOR), has stated... https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-PMhijPh5JHs/Wai3azAULNI/AAAAAAAAChg/BdeH25ypVjYQ2aZFH8y7X1HiTUgTlNtPgCL0BGAYYCw/h578/2017-08-31.png.
The immediate counter is to assume the quote is referring to the lore, not to the RPG itself; however, the individual who wrote this citation is an RPG editor. His authority only matters in the power levels of the game. This truth is further accentuated based on his role in the Dark Side Source Book. (He was the RPG guy)
http://web.archive.org/web/20090603000341/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/bio/herndoncory, http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Cory_J._Herndon All of this goes to say, that the quote is referring to power in the RPG, not within the lore.

You are making a huge logical leap assuming that an RPG editor can't write lore-related articles at all. Nothing in the article in question implies the quote is confined only to gameplay.



Proof?

For all intent and purposes Star Forge Malak should be more powerful than how he is portrayed.

Originally posted by Deronn_solo
For all intent and purposes Star Forge Malak should be more powerful than how he is portrayed.

Indeed. A mere Star Map was the source of the Ancient Sith's power on Korriban, and it was described as blindingly powerful by Ajunta Pall, a peer of Karness Muur and co. The Star Forge then should be infinitely more powerful, and Malak was capable of harnessing its power fully, so one can only imagine how much more powerful it would make him.

Darth Malak with the Star Forge amplification being far more powerful than Freedon Nadd or Exar Kun shouldn't be out of the question at all.

Originally posted by Azronger
Indeed. A mere Star Map was the source of the Ancient Sith's power on Korriban, and it was described as blindingly powerful by Ajunta Pall, a peer of Karness Muur and co. The Star Forge then should be infinitely more powerful, and Malak was capable of harnessing its power fully, so one can only imagine how much more powerful it would make him.

Darth Malak with the Star Forge amplification being far more powerful than Freedon Nadd or Exar Kun shouldn't be out of the question at all.

You never told me about your love for Malak, I figured since you didn't like Revan/Vitiate, he would fall under the same category.

And the blinding power could be argued to come from Revan.

Originally posted by Deronn_solo
For all intent and purposes Star Forge Malak should be more powerful than how he is portrayed.
Agreed, he is just overshadowed by Revan, which is nothing to be ashamed of tbh.

Originally posted by Haschwalth
You never told me about your love for Malak, I figured since you didn't like Revan/Vitiate, he would fall under the same category.

And the blinding power could be argued to come from Revan.

Malak is one of my favorite characters, yeah. And I don't dislike Revan outside of TOR. I am actually a huge fan of the Revan presented in the original KotOR games.

Originally posted by Azronger
Malak is one of my favorite characters, yeah. And I don't dislike Revan outside of TOR. I am actually a huge fan of the Revan presented in the original KotOR games.
Damn, we are more on the same page than I thought.

Originally posted by Azronger
And why is that? To be canon it has to be produced by a Lucas company or officially sanctioned, as per Leland Chee. It's not, so it's not.

WotC is officially sanctioned.

As a liscensee. Doesn't mean everything produced under their name is canon.

Says... you? If WOTC has the rights to publish Star Wars content, why on God's name would random content be deemed non-canon?

Says Leland Chee darling, canon includes any "officially sanctioned fictional element of the Star Wars universe", not "anything produced by SW licensees". The fact that WotC have license to use the Star Wars IP & branding, and have published officially sanctioned material in the past, does not prove that everything they produce is officially sanctioned. Any more than Drew being a liscensed SW author mean he's writing canon in his blogs.

Or in other words there is no proof that this article, written by no one of real authority, has been reviewed and approved by Lucasfilm. Go home Tony, no Revan wank today.

*ability

There is no evidence they are free to dictate canon without Lucasfilm approval. That being a legal disclaimer that the rights to the SW IP & branding used in their site belong to Lucasfilm, which they've been given permission to use. It has jack all to do with whether the article in question constitutes continuity, and can be found on any third party site that features the SW IP. As I've explained before.

Feel free to provide examples, otherwise dry those tears. :'(

Originally posted by Beniboybling
There is no evidence they are free to dictate canon without Lucasfilm approval.

They have Lucas Licensing's approval - they are authorized to make Star Wars content.

Thus, this is a entry made by WotC given the power invested in them by Licensing.



If I do, would that persuade you? I'm not going to waste my time otherwise.

What's with you rotating between the same two cringe insults, anywho?

The fact they have a license and sanctioned approval under Lucas Licensing to create content would therefore make their content canonical under Legends. For example, Fantasy Flight Games likewise has a license and are making content under Legends at the moment. There's obviously no one reading through the content, but Chee notes it is still Legends anyway. Same should apply here.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
They have Lucas Licensing's approval - they are authorized to make Star Wars content.

Thus, this is a entry made by WotC given the power invested in them by Licensing.The power to use their IP & branding, not dictate canon. Try again.

Sorry, Tony? Can you provide examples or not?

Terrible equivalency. FFG content is only canon in relation to officially sanctioned source material published under LucasBooks, just like with WotC (the idea it's being vetted by no one being nonsense conjecture on your part). If they used their site to host a freelance blog post like this, it wouldn't be any more credible.

Face it, unless it's a sourcebook. WotC shouldn't be taken seriously.

Just as those books are published under LucasBooks, these articles are under LucasLiscensing. The notion that something has to be for-profit to be considered canonical is absurd. There's no difference between the two situations.

I will give you examples if you confirm to me you'd then consider them when presented, rather than try to dodge the facts like you are here. WotC online is filled with stories, by the way, about random Jedi, Sith, bounty-hunters, etc. The idea that, despite being approved by LL to officially publish material, you consider it all fan-fiction, is just dense.

I'm not going to debate in circles though. You consider everything there non-canon, neat. If I show you explicit examples of content there being recognized as canon, will you bend the knee or will you try to dismiss it from a different angle?

One example off the top of my head though: WotC "blogs" created Oricon.

The Darkstaff, I believe, is another example of WotC blogs establishing canon lore.

Show me your examples, Ant. I am interested.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Just as those books are published under LucasBooks, these articles are under LucasLiscensing.No there are not kek, they are published on a website owned by a company authorised by Lucas Liscensing to use their IP. Massive difference. On this basis the PEZ dispenser company can dictate canon as well.

Strawman does that to an argument, it has nothing to do with them being for profit, it has to do with them being sanctioned source material, had they been free they'd still be valid.

No that's not how it was works. You provide evidence, or you concede. You don't dictate terms before you've even presented the proof, lmao.

My stance is this poppet, if there is no evidence that the material in question has been officially sanctioned, nor is it produced by a Lucas company, it's not canon.

Not going to debate in circles, but I cited two examples already of WotC articles being canon: Oricon and the Darkstaff. There's countless other examples.

So no, other legitimate EU material treats WotC as legitimate EU - big shock, because it is, since it has a license to publish Star Wars works (PEZ presumably has one to just make PEZs).

>WotC gets license to publish official Star Wars RPG-stories
>WotC published official Star Wars RPG-stories
>Beni: "these are not official Star Wars RPG-stories!"
>EU material: "these are official Star Wars RPG-stories."

I'm struggling to see your argument here, Beni.

If they have a license to publish RPG content, all official RPG content by them should be legit.

Not exclusively all material officially read through by Licensing, which isn't a prerequisite for being Legends.

You say that's not true, yet we have sources taking WotC as true, so it seems you're wrong.

To give a specific, The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia explicitly summarizes a range of stories published under WotC on page 168 of Volume I concerning the Darkstaff.

The EU treats WotC "blogs" as proper EU material for a reason: because it is.

As another example, a WotC article states The Dark Underlord uses Jar'Kai, a fact that is later referenced in TCSWE as well.

By all accounts, it seems these WotC "blogs" are added to the Holocron.

(Cont.)

The Order of Shasa is another thing from WotC "blogs" that are referenced again later in the EU.

Man, the list goes on and on.

If I went through everything, I assure you the list would be well in the dozens.

Also, simply minor characters referenced within stories are referenced again.

Take Hower Jerimott, a doctor who appears in just one of the WotC stories.

You bet your ass he's in TCSWE's Volume II, page 158!

https://media.tenor.com/images/ab297913a8def775baf015ac599f0e20/tenor.gif

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwkej79U3ek&t=0m20s

Let's not forget about my homeboy Dathka Graush, first from WotC, later mentioned in TCSWE and Book of the Sith.

Or the Valley of Golg, Jolsz, Janah, and Naz Felyood, all of which are mentioned in TCSWE after being in WotC blogs.

"We love our Jolszs, don't we folks?"

Damn, Beni taking L's like:

https://images.rapgenius.com/9e1fcdb0818f57a077c8de863c808ab9.320x320x69.gif

I'm shaking in ma space boots. Expect a response by the end of the day Tony.

I bet 200 USD that Beni won't respond by tonight, kek.

Thanks for the incentive. I'll link you my PayPal account.

Either he's not going to respond or the response will be hilariously long for a quote that I don't even recognize.

Ant, can you provide quotes for all your examples - from both the original WotC article and TCSWE?

I mean, I can, but why? I think TCSWE can be accessed online, and the articles the characters are in can be found via Wookie.

Also: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=16312881#post16312881

Alright, I'm voting in favor of the quotes being legitimate.