He said himself he used Sidious's training to build his own Empire. That was confirmed by Filoni and Sam Witwer about his broad training by Sidious. If he was merely trained as an "assassin" he wouldn't have such skills or even ambition for that matter.
Which Padawan's are you talking about exactly?
His inferior brother Opress has beaten 2 different Jedi Council Members, and Ventress. Whilst Maul has consistently stalemated Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Dooku is much older and more experienced than Maul, and has therefore fulfilled much more of his potential than Maul whose actually younger than Obi-Wan, and basically missed out on about 10 years of his life.
The skepticism surrounding your alleged motivation owes to your post history: it tells a radically different story. You jubilantly championed the Antediluvian platform back when it was vogue; you viciously stifled dissent rather than encourage it; and your position hasn’t changed in that prevailing decade.
In other words, you helped perpetuate the status quo back when it aligned more closely with your opinions. The only difference between 2005 and 2015 is that public opinion isn’t as generous to the ancient Sith.
{You’ll probably cite obscure scenarios where you sparred with Janus or challenged Illustrious, but we’re talking tendency, not instance.}
For my money, you’ve yet to provide a single compelling reason why I should believe “different philosophies” afford Kun any meaningful advantage over Sheev.
You're overstating the role of single combat in ancient Sith culture. Moreover, the notion that cunning or strategy had nothing to do with it is patently false, according to the SWTOR Codex:
I see little difference between the "philosophy" successfully employed by Marka Ragnos, the pinnacle of ancient Sith society, and the Banite Sith as embodied by Sheev.
Your argument requires that we confine the Emperor to a single aspect of his character—schemer. I see no reason to grant that concession.
(please log in to view the image)
I am and I'm not impressed.
Yeah, Sheev would utterly thrash most of them and is certainly capable of beating any of them down. Nothing has been presented to indicate otherwise.
The previous 8 pages, for starters.
Nothing here that necessarily equals Sheev, let alone exceeds him.
You've yet to establish why killing Odan-Urr is meaningful in the grand scheme of things.
That's because SunRazer and Beni have been tackling the nuts and bolts quite admirably. I see no reason to be redundant. Suffice it to say that Sheev has the accolades and feats to make this a clear victory.
Having a fun time contradicting yourself? Because The Complete Visual Dictionary is not The New Essential Chronology.
Yes, he does. He's asking what type of power Palpatine's quotes refer to. And I quote:
"There's always going to be room for interpretation and debate. Is the power being measured referring to his mastery over the dark side of the Force, the governmental powers he wields as Emperor, or some combination of both?"
He was asking that because the poster who asked the question wasn't specific with the "sourcebook quote" he was mentioning. On the other hand, back on page 5, you were trying to spin this around as him negating the validity of the Palpatine quotes, when he was merely inquiring further into the context of the quote and the definition of "power" in that context due to a lack of contextual information.
If you're trying that badly to put something over me, it's really clear you're desperate at this rate. And I'd say that the big-macho talk a couple pages back was for the purpose of disguising your desperation and saving face.
No, it's not "almost all sources". And for the ones that are written by historians, they're also written by out-of-universe writers who, by virtue of authoritative intent, usually grant assumed credibility to the notes written by the historians in the sourcebook.
Chee's disinterest in handing out "absolute" accolades clearly doesn't reflect in the myriad of writers who've made it as clear as it can possibly be regarding Palpatine's supremacy.
Also, Chee's quote is message board-clarifier, which I don't place on the same level of dependability as the canonical quotes from sourcebooks. Regardless of how you want to twist it, Chee's quote just doesn't work. Even if you're talking about political or governmental power as opposed to Force power, the fact remains that numerous quotes state explicitly that Palpatine is "the most powerful" Sith Lord/Dark Sider in history. Whether it's referring to Force Power, political/governmental power, militaristic power, or even economic power, it's clearly an "absolute" quote nonetheless.
So when it comes to Chee contradicting the myriad of sourcebooks written by a plethora of SW writers, I'm afraid I can't grant Chee the credibility on this one, especially because, ironically, his message-board quote just isn't "absolute" either.
Last edited by SunRazer on Jul 19th, 2015 at 12:17 AM
Registered: May 2005
Location: .::The Anti-Fanboy Confederation::.
What "Empire"? What "skills"? What "ambition"?
What Maul does is using his talent for violence to craft an alliance between the Death Guard, the Black Sun and the Hutts - with the latter two being brought to the table by outright elimination of their leaders.
So his "Empire" was limited to Mandalore, the "skills" he used were those that I've described before. And his "ambition"? That was, if I may remind you, just to exact revenge against Obi-Wan (and, later, his former master and the "Sith pretender" Dooku). Maul didn't have a plan to rule the Galaxy or gain more influence, which is pretty evident from behavior when Sidious finally shows up.
Darsha Assant, who managed to hold her own against Maul in direct confrontation and almost killed him by detonating the warehouse she and Maul were fighting in. And of course Obi-Wan who managed to remove the Sith Lord from the picture in TPM.
I wonder how that does influence my argument: Maul was trained as an assassin. His brother was another being trained specifically for combat. And?
And there is also the fact that - unlike Maul - Dooku was trained like a real Sith Lord in the ways of the Dark Side, which Plagueis saw coming very precisely:
"Already strong in the Force, trained in combat, and a diplomat, as well, Dooku might have made for a powerful partner under different circumstances. Except for the fact that Dooku, [b]unlike the Dathomiri Zabrak whom Sidious had trained[b], would never be content to serves as an apprentice or a mere assassin. He would demand to become a true Sith, and that would lead to trouble." - Darth Plagueis, Chapter 26.
There is a reason for Dooku's very clear thoughts on Maul:
"Maul had been an animal. A skilled animal, but a beast nonetheless." - Revenge of the Sith Novelization.
Can it be, that certain people here just want to make Maul look good to make Sidious look better. I'm wondering.
__________________
"Dear God, what is it like in your funny little brains?"
Registered: May 2005
Location: .::The Anti-Fanboy Confederation::.
My dear Gideon. I can't recall having talked to you, so I wonder why you jumped at the sentence. Maybe to introduce an indirect "ad hominem" or possibly to gloss over the giant gaps in anything "your side" has brought to the table so far. Don't worry. I will adress it nontheless.
I'd certainly love to see you employing "skepticism" but, much like with your personal opinion regarding the power of Sidious, you don't do it here. You have formed your opinion regarding my posting history, and you will defend that opinion, no matter how factually wrong it is.
We have gone through this particular debate again and again, with the same result in each instance: I demonstrated, that you're wrong by citing factual evidence (in case you need a reminder, a nice set of links can be found there and you vanished, knowing, that this is a discussion you can't win against the facts. Do you really want to have that once more? Then, by all means, be welcome to lose this once more. But don't come back at me with the same nonsense in a few months, just to have me lay waste to it another time. It's getting boring.
I'm certainly not innocent, when it comes to verbally beating down my opposition in debates. Far from it. But, much like your opinion regarding my posting history, your views of the "status quo" is equally skewed. The Antideluvians were never the spokesmen of the "mainstream opinion" in these forums. The groupname itself is a testament to that fact. It points to a time before the "flood" of – at that time – KotoR "fanboys" coming here to argue that Revan could curbstomp everybody and their mothers in direct confrontation. Some of the Antideluvians marshalled the Ancient Sith against that – but again, far from the homogenic front you are, apparently, imagining. I've had some of the most intense (and vicious) debates here with the likes of IKC and Janus, which you can easily see for yourself, if you'd examine my posting history instead of making assumptions regarding it. I found IKC's veneration of Exar Kun – just as example – as disconcerting as I find your worship of Sidious. And I acted accordingly by attacking him, multiple times. Did you, by chance, miss that or does it simply run against your opinion, which means, it must be ignored?
That aside. Janus has pretty much given an account of what the "Antedeluvians" were to you two years ago. Did you conveniently "forget" that in order to attack me? Geez.
They aren't "obscure", Gideon. Those were the things that happened on a daily basis back in the old days. What happened then? In case you don't remember: Most of the Antideluvians left this board and as a result, most of my regular oposition for debates was gone. You might still perceive this as a victory of Lightsnake and yourself, but in fact, it was a loss to debating culture in this place, that you, apparently, have still not grasped this fact.
And why would you? You won, didn't you? You've rallied most of the people to your cause. People who don't have an inkling of literature analysis or logical reasoning, but have an opinion that accidentally matches your own. Congratulations. Caeci caecos ducentes!
That aside from the fact that, as I've said before, my critique is not directed at your opinion but in the way you got there and the way you defend it. I'm really curious, why that doesn't get into your head. I have no personal grudge against Sidious – or yourself for that matter. For the former fact, I've given enough credit to Sidious right here (last paragraph of the posting).
Where did you ever do the same for any character but Sidious. And while we're already at it: Can you present me a single posting in your vast post history, where you deviated even an inch from your formed opinion? Because, you see, at times you certainly acted like a stubborn Sidious fanatic, who can't even accept the simplest truth, when it comes to critique in regards to his wrinkled loverboy. Just to give the audience an example: I can vividly remember, how a certain somebody in different guise attempted to argue in favor for a clearly not canon game stat statement in the light of every single bit of factual evidence speaking against his opinion, without giving an inch, right here. Glad we don't have such fanatics over here any longer, huh? Did you even once make an argument regarding a SW-topic not related to the supposed "uberness of Sheev"? Maybe somebody should rather check his own post history, than attempting to wrongly nitpick that of other people on the forum?
This statement pretty much sums up the entire problem. I'm attempting to discuss facts, ideas and evidence, while you are defending your beliefs. I'm quite certain we knew the result of that years ago. And that you can't compute anything contradicting them, is quite apparent from what follows...
Did you even read what you've quoted there? Let us start with the text you didn't underline: "He [Marka Ragnos] conquered his competitors in a series of quick, ruthless campaigns and became Dark Lord of all Sith, a title he would hold for more than a century.
Emphasis mine. He didn't gain his position by political manipulation but brute force. And the stuff you underline?
"Instead of clashing directly with Sith challengers who hungered for his power, he pitted his enemies against each other to weaken and destroy them.
So instead of fighting them directly (and supposition suggests that was the regular stuff that happens once somebody took the title), he managed to pit them against each other in combat which lead to the weakening and destruction of said rivals. I wonder how the evidence you presented, that talks about nothing else but fighting, is a testament to my overstating of the role of (single) combat in Sith society. Because they were also using full-out wars to fight eachother and occassionally utilized political manipulation (that led to more combat / wars)?
Furthermore, if you don't see any difference between that and the Rule-of-Two Sith, you have to be blind. But let me sum it up for you:
instead of being chosen as the sole apprentice by a master, you need to fight your way to the top, which could be a quite long way, considering the number of Sith Lords (several thousands by SW:TOR sources).
from that position, you could eventually get a chance to either compete for the Dark Lord title with another / a group of others or challenge the reigning Dark Lord himself. A Sith apprentice doesn't usually have other competitors that he or she needs to cope with.
that challenge is usually conducted in a direct confrontation between two – or more – possible candidats (see Sadow and Kressh) in personal combat. While that did happen with the Rule-of-Two Sith, too, it wasn't really necessary, due to a lack of witnesses of different methods to get to the top position.
disputes between Sith were, apparently, also settled in single combat or full-out war. It did involve violence, though, and – as it seems – not necessarily small bloodshed. The Rule-of-Two Sith order didn't have the resources (read: number of Sith Lords) to have such things happening
Still not seeing much of a difference? Because I clearly perceive a much higher likeliness for the Ancient Sith to face powerful Dark Side users in combat in comparison to Sidious. And I also see much more reason to focus on the combat aspects of force use (offensive force abilities, Sith magic, boosting combat abilities) than any of Bane's Sith would have faced. You disagree?
__________________
"Dear God, what is it like in your funny little brains?"
Registered: May 2005
Location: .::The Anti-Fanboy Confederation::.
Absolutely not.
My argument requires, that we examine the focus on combat of different characters and cast a judgement on who might be more suited to engage (powerful) opponents in direct confrontation. As I see it, Sidious didn't have much reason (see above) or motivation (see previous posts) to be on top of the heap when it comes to the abilities associated with that particular field. Kun had reasons and motivation to do so, and the weapon and corresponding style he came up with in a timeframe of six months actually proves that he did invest a nice amount of time into this particular field. This is not denying, that Sidious had a talent for swinging his lightsaber, it's merely the observation, that other people focused on the discipline more than him, which could give them an edge in combat.
Or, to make it short for you: Non statim pusillum est, si quid maximo minus est. If something is smaller than the greatest, that does not mean it is insignificant.. The latter appears to be the assumption you have in your head whenever somebody proclaims that Sidious is not "zee greatest" in any given field.
A nice .gif. Did you post it, because you had no answer to that statement? I think so. Because, you see, there is still no definitive quote, statement or feat that puts Sidious above the Ancient Sith, Vitiate, Kun, [insert name here]. The only people that are definitely inferior to Sidious are those that he did face and defeat in combat. But then, there is no definite way to compare them to their counterparts of different eras, is there? So would you please stop acting, as if you're opinion is "the truth" and everybody has to agree with you? Thank you very much.
Can you again remind me, why we should assume that Sidious is more powerful as a persona than any of the people who carried a load of stuff around that boosted their force powers?
And, gosh, I'm also not impressed by anything Sidious did. So he is not impressive, and loses. Ipse dixit!
Since you can't even prove that he is equal to them, I wonder how you developed the line of thought that led to this statement. Face it, Gideon. For all we know any fight between one of the powerhouses in the SW mythology and Sidious could go either way. And no amount of statements, feats or accolades presented to hype Sidious is going to change that.
Nothing on the previous 8 pages serves as definite proof for "Sidious > them", I'm afraid.
And nothing "Sheev" has done necessarily equals Kun's actions, let alone exceeds them. Ipse dixit!
Because Odan-Urr is presented as the head-figure of the Jedi Order in that particular time. He is the oldest being, the most respected, has fought Ancient Sith in combat – and apparently did so succesfully, while some of the people who tried ended with their spirits trapped in crystals on Korriban. He is the Yoda of his time, and I don't see much reason to put him far below his PT era counterpart in terms of power. I'm certain that you do, but given that your ability to debate appears to have dwindled to nothing but nay-saying, we will probably never know.
Sheev has the accolades and feats to win a "who has the more accolades and feats" contest and nothing else. Clear victory? Because you say so? I wonder, how often I do have to lecture people, that ipsedixitism doesn't win debates. Neither do compilations of indefinite quotes from the source-material. How about trying to think for yourself?
__________________
"Dear God, what is it like in your funny little brains?"
Registered: May 2005
Location: .::The Anti-Fanboy Confederation::.
I've explained that already...
Ever heared of something called "rhetorical question"?
Chee doesn't ask something, he just gives examples, why a source saying "most powerful" is subject to interpretation. His answer can be found in the first sentence: "There is alsways going to be room for interpretation and debate." And the rest is an elaboration of that statement. You interpretation of his post doesn't even make sense, given what question he was asked to answer. If he had asked about the nature of the source, as you suggest, neither does the first sentence of his statement make sense (giving an answer to the question) nor do his other postings (rejecting the idea of "absolute" statements).
Since basic rhetorical figures seem to be going over your head, I find it hard to type anything down that meets your low standards. And what "big-macho talk" are you even talking about?
Firstly: Apparently, you didn't get my statement correct - or you didn't want to get it. I didn't say "Historians" but "people who view Sidious as historic figure", which includes all authors of the respective sourcebooks themselves. None of them did cast judgement on the Sith Lord from the position of a "contemporary" but they were all discussing his actions from the position of observants living after his death, with all his - quite outstanding - archivements in mind.
Secondly: I find it rather unworldly to argue intent in the context here. I'm fairly certain that none of the authors ever wrote what they did with the idea in mind, that their quotes will be used to decide virtual matchups between fictional characters.
That being said: Did it ever occur to you, that the presentation of the material happens via a in-universe-narrator, to ensure that there is room for interpretation and debate? Obviously not.
And no: The writers don't grant credibility to the characters. Characters in fictional worlds can lie, interprete facts wrong or present them according to their own agenda. But no matter what the author had in mind: They remain fallible sources. The same, although to a far lesser extend, can also be said about the narration in virtual all SW sources. Or,
*sigh*
Apparently, you don't get the point: There is no writer who "made it clear". We have allusions to Sidious power and command of the Force and whatnot, but there is no author, that busted out a clear "Sidious is the most powerful force user in the ranks of the Sith Lords" or something equally clear. And with the "myriads of writers" you're siting, by now some of them should have done it by accident if not intentionally. But still, this hasn't happend. Can it be, that there is a reason for that? For example: the guy at LFL responsible for continuity not greenlighting absolute statements. Just a thought.
And again: You don't seem to grasp the concept of "absolute quotes". If the quote said "Sidious is the most powerful Sith ever when it comes to political influence", you would have an absolute quote. By not defining the word "powerful", the quote remains entirely indefinite. That's the point that Chee was trying to get across. There is always room for interpretation and debate.
Chee contradicts nothing, except your opinion that the sourcebooks represent definite proof for something. They don't. And that's what Chee was saying. There is always room for interpretation and debate. Nothing more, nothing less. That this is, apparently, contradicting your personal opinion on the matter is - most certainly - no reason to question Chee's statement. Especially when I've pretty much demonstrated, that every quote in question is actually far less "absolute" than the Sidious supporters here want it to be.
__________________
"Dear God, what is it like in your funny little brains?"
Registered: Mar 2014
Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Holy ****
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Registered: Mar 2014
Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
I can.
If anyone questions Sidious's place as the most powerful Sith, things quickly turn into pages upon pages of wall of text posts.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Registered: May 2005
Location: .::The Anti-Fanboy Confederation::.
The question parts in his answer are rhetorical questions. If you really are incapable of seeing that, there is really no point responding, because you would need to be as dense as a brick wall - and I'm tired of talking to obstinate people, who can't even accept clear facts if they contradict their marvelous opinion.
__________________
"Dear God, what is it like in your funny little brains?"
So I'm a brick wall for not seeing this despite a lack of clarity on the issue, which is surely just as "open to debate" as the Palpatine sourcebook quotes, but I'm hearing this from the same person who ignores factual text in front of him and who resorts to artificial context to deny those quotes? Sure, everybody's obstinate and as dense as a brick wall when you're up against them... you might take the opportunity to consider applying such criticisms that to yourself, though.
I'm fine for people disagreeing with my "opinion", but these criticisms are coming from the same poster who denied the impressiveness of top-tier Force Speed feats on the basis that "every Jedi could do use such a power" or that Maul's feats aren't impressive "because it's just telekinesis that every three-year-old Jedi knows" and that his inability to use Lightning constitutes deficiencies in Force Mastery. It's especially hard to hear that Sidious' speed is largely irrelevant in combat due to virtually all others being able to perform it - except anybody who isn't "as dense as a brick wall" can clearly see that not everybody can move so fast the likes of Maul and Anakin can't even see them. You're still asking for evidence as to how it would matter?
The whole argument of "you can't prove he's faster" is just negative logic and nobody proves a negative in a debate. The onus is on you to prove that Kun is as fast (or comparably fast) as Palpatine, not the other way around. Saying they have no comparable instances of Force Speed isn't a sufficient answer - unless there's something to indicate otherwise or present some sort of reasonable doubt, all that means is that Kun simply isn't comparable to Palpatine in speed. You're calling us out on our credulity regarding factual sourcebook quotes which you keep spinning around in endless circles in an attempt to introduce falsified context, but now you're outright ignoring the scale of Palpatine's canonical, factual, untwistable Speed feats for the benefit of your argument/lack of proper response? Oh, please. Even in the non-accolades debate, Palpatine has been clearly presented as Kun's superior, and whilst debating against that is held in ridicule by other posters, it's at least a genuine, fathomable and respectable concept, as opposed to your desperate lowballing and endlessly not-conceding in an attempt to get people to let up.
To that end, I really don't see this debate going anywhere. You probably think the same of me and quite possible everybody else here, but it doesn't matter anymore. So there's really nothing to do with this debate other than for the two of us to agree-to-disagree. You'll think I'm copping out - I think this debate isn't worth being seriously debated anymore, but as I said, it doesn't matter at this point. And please don't try the Latin-flaunting again. It isn't helping you save face.
Last edited by SunRazer on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 10:10 AM
What Empire? Why do you think Sidious called him a rival?
What Skills? His careful manipulation of the different underground factions to join him. He knew when to threaten, and when to inspire by greed. If you remember he manipulated Pre-Vizsla from day 1, and never once threatened him until Vizsla turned on Maul. He then manipulated Almec to be is puppet leader. Again without any kind of direct threat, but by motivating him through greed. He also carefully picked who should be the puppet leaders. And he tactically picked which groups to target.
Please explain to me if he did nothing more than threatening people, and showed no special skills why it is Pre-Vizsla needed Maul to take over Mandalore. Let me remind you it was also Maul's plan to get the people of Mandalore to follow Death Watch again.
Seems like a lot Planning and Manipulating for a mere assassin.
What Ambition? Urm to expand his rule over the thousands of neutral systems that followed Mandalore so he could crush the Republic and Sepratists?
About to expand to the Thousands of Neutral systems it influenced.
Skills of Manipulation and Enterprise building. He hardly used any "assassin" skills.
His line to Sidious in "The Lawless":
"I used your training Master and I have built all this in hopes of returning to your side."
After which Sidious says something like too bad you are attempting to DECEIVE ME. "You have become a Rival!"
Those lines show, it was Sidious's training that aided Maul in building "all this". And Sidious himself thinks Maul is manipulating Sidious into pretending his is still Loyal to him.
Pre-Vizsla clearly stated Mandalore's thousands of neutral systems would give him vast opportunities to expand his "Enterprise." That ambition had nothing to do with Revenge on Obi-Wan. He only needed Mandalore for that. Speaking of which, his Revenge on Obi-Wan hardly resembled the plan of an assassin. It was a well thought out plan to make Kenobi suffer "emotionally" more than anything else.
As for Dooku, again surely a mere Assassin would only think of Lightsaber combat in terms of revenge.
Your interpretation of Maul's portrayal in TCW clearly differs from what the creators of TCW (including Lucas) intended:
Maul is a super dangerous threat because he's been trained for years. He's really adept, but he's broken. So he's kind of in the Vader realm and you know he's a bit severed from what he knew which was having a Master. But he's well trained by Sidious in ALL Types of Sith Ways. Not the least of which is manipulation..
There's countless other interviews on this if you want me to dig. Including one where Filoni states that Maul is way too "ambitious" to be a mere bounty hunter like Ventress.
Kind of lowballing don't you think?
You do remember that neither of those 2 "Padwans" own Jedi Masters were capable of defeating Maul right? 2 Masters who were both considered Elite Swordsmen in the Jedi Order.
Talking of Maul's combat prowess there. As we have been shifting back and forth from just like the above point.
I'm sorry, exactly what training is it Dooku was given than Maul wasn't (from Sidious)?
Is your whole assessment rooting from the fact that Dooku shoots Force Lightning, but Maul doesn't?
In terms of Sidious's intentions, he was clearly willing to replace and betray either one of his apprentices.
Again Sidious's opinion would be more valid, considering he's the one who trained Maul.
That's neither here or there really. But since you put so much into Sith Lords statements to each other Dooku called Maul "The Great Sith Lord Darth Maul" to Opress.
Likewise could it be that you want to make Maul look bad to make Sidious look not as good?
Maul has shown great power in the dark side surviving being split in 2, he's shown intelligence and manipulation skills, enough to build his own Empire. And on top of that he's consistently shown himself to at least be Kenobi's equal in combat, and clearly still well above your average Council Master.
Last edited by Darth Thor on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 01:18 PM
Jul 17th, 2015 09:59 PM
