There's still more, by the way, albeit most are from more questionable sources. But again, the abundance of them would more or less confirm their veracity; not that it's necessary, of course.
Well I already had an idea of what my response would be like so I might as well post it never mind whether you (or anyone) gets back to me on it. I'll try to keep it somewhat brief though and not respond to every point on the off chance that you might then be more willing to resume the discussion.
This is probably the least of what I should be responding to, given that I already said that it would be more sensible on my part to discuss the game at all once I've actually replayed it, but I feel compelled to point out that not all Force pushes are made equal, even ones of the knocking-lightsaber-out-of-hand variety, and that just because a Force-user might have showed a level of physical durability in one scenario, it doesn't necessarily mean that he possessed the same durability in another scenario as there's always the possibility that the Force-user was able to use the Force to protect himself in one scenario and not the other. Provided that Traya was not able to use the Force to protect herself from the impact of the Force push, she would have had all the frailty that her physical condition would suggest. I can't comment on the circumstances of the ship crash she emerged unscathed from but can only point out that it's possible she could have used the Force to protect herself in that situation, and not the other.
Ok but you need to be able to explain how it sets a precedent in the first place, a lack of evidence to the contrary does not positively establish your position.
But your claim was that it's a proven fact, and for that you need incontrovertible proof. That it's fallible doesn't mean that it's in error, but it does mean that it doesn't contribute in any way to establishing your position, so why even bring it up?
All that link shows is that the short stories should be treated as canon which I wasn't disagreeing with. I'm not sure what proof you want from me other than a simple observation that something has to be of a certain nature for it to be thought of as a canon source. You point out that it's official and licensed which satisfies the legal requirement. But there's also a logical requirement, which is that something needs to function as a canon source for it to be a canon source (by source I don't mean the whole product itself, but anything no matter how big or small in the sense that you can examine a single paragraph and ask if it's a canon source). A canon source is supposed to function in such a manner that it says something about the shared fictional universe that is the Star Wars canon. An article exploring the set decoration of one of the films as an example obviously doesn't function in such a manner. It's not at all obvious that references made to the fictional universe from within such confines are policed in any way by the editors of the SW canon, which is why they are of questionable canonicity.
Thanks for keeping it brief. I can actually respond to this.
1. There's really nothing to be responded to here. You're proposing various alternative lines of thought that are completely lacking in substantiation, but as you said, you'd prefer to play the game again before continuing.
2. Because both powers are aimed at attacking another's Force connection, naturally.
Or rather, let me simplify - Force Drain is a Force power that is both centred around directly and specifically attacking someone (as opposed to, say, environmental damage) and one that involves an attack on someone's Force connection. In both cases, the other powers that fit under those categories (ie. Choke for the former, Sever Force for the latter) have historically relied on either the opponent leaving themselves open or the attacker simply being more powerful. A no-limits approach has never been the case. Therefore, in the absence of compelling evidence of Force Drain's distinction from the nature of those powers, we can say that it'd be the same for Drain.
In short, I'm asking you why I should believe that Drain, a relative power, should be taken to apply without limits and function equally well against stronger opponents as it does with weaker ones. The circumstantial nature of Nihilus' feats and the fact that KotOR II's Drain has never actually been used on someone whose stronger makes your case that much harder to prove. Again, I can accept that it would work on Sidious, perhaps to the extent of Krayt's Drain on Abeloth. But what reason is there to assume that Nihilus could simply consume a factually more powerful Force user on a whim?
3. It's vindicated by the rest of the quotes; my point is that nitpicking the individual quotes is fairly pointless because there's simply so many of them (and they come from such a variety of sources and authors) that it's clear what the authors intend. The fact that there continues to exist no contradictory quotes is also very telling. The Emperor is the most powerful Sith Lord in history; it's really that simple. In the absence of compelling evidence of otherwise, I think it stands to reason that we can accept the huge mass of potentially fallible but not outright wrong evidence in favour of Sidious' supremacy.
Assuming that his power does indeed fluctuate and strongly, do you not see how utterly mysterious questions are of how powerful Nihilus is as we envision him when we use him in these threads, compares with how powerful he is with respect to how he fits into the canon quotes declaring Sidious the most powerful Sith of all time (not that I agree with your claims regarding those quotes)? I mean, is your claim more than that Sidious' regular level of power is simply greater than the regular level of power of any other Sith? For it can be true that Sidious' regular level of power is greater than the regular level power of Nihilus (however we might make sense of such a thing), but that it pales in comparison to Nihilus' level of power as it is when it is abnormally greater than usual (such as it might be after feeding on a planet). We can't really say how we would make sense of what Nihilus' regular level of power would even be, and we certainly can't be certain of exactly how such a level of power fits into how he he has been portrayed in the few sources he has appeared in.
Last edited by GM_Nebaris on Apr 4th, 2017 at 10:07 PM
Registered: Mar 2017
Location: Sith shrine below the Jedi Temple
Nihilus gains power step by step with everything he consumes. However the longer he waits, the more fervent his need to feed so to speak becomes.
Sidious is factually the most powerful Sith Lord in galactic history. I will agree with SunRazer in that there is no evidence as to what would happen if Nihilus attempted to drain someone more powerful than himself.
Then I would further add that Sidious knew almost all known applications of the force. Clearly he didn't know Nihilus', one of the rare few abilities he couldn't do (immediately drain planets of the force). We do know however on a side note, that Sheev was fully capable of at least slowly draining a planet to sustain himself. I think the only reason why Sidious had not learned Nihilus' applications of force drain was because Nihilus' ability to do so were a direct result of him being a wound in the force, like the exile, and therefore the application of such abilities are circumstantial and exclusive to those that were at Malachor or suffered a similar event in their life (exposure to the mass shadow generator or something similar, or cutting oneself from the force to save oneself from dying of shock).
That is why Sidious cannot apply force drain in the way Nihilus does. That, plus no evidence to suggest Nihilus could drain targets stronger than himself and the absolute fact that Sidious is the most powerful Sith Lord in history makes it likely that Sidious would win.
Notwithstanding that Sidious was a master of every known Jedi technique as well, meaning he could most likely mount a defense against such an attack.
__________________ The Sith are not placid stars but singularities. Rather than burn with muted purpose, we warp space and time to twist the galaxy to our own design. - Darth Plagueis
Actually, the whole "hunger weakening him" thing hasn't been explicitly stated to my knowledge and is mostly an online assumption. But rather, the quotes would logically refer to Sidious at his optimum level of power being above Nihilus at his optimum level of power. Nihilus at his "regular level of power" would be him before he failed to Drain the Exile etc. Nihilus isn't Galactus; while he needs constant feeding to sate his hunger, it is never indicated that his powers diminish in proportion to his hunger or anything of the sort.
Certainly nothing Nihilus has achieved at any point, especially given the circumstantial nature of most of his showings, make the Emperor "pale in comparison" or anything of the sort. And in many domains, it's quite the opposite, in fact.
The reality is that Nihilus is simply not as powerful as Vitiate or Sidious. Most of his showings, including all of his best, are circumstantial in nature, and sources, including those that include him and his act on Katarr, continue to describe Palpatine (and Vitiate) as the most powerful Sith Lord in history (up to TOR in Vitiate's case). Plagueis himself, almost certainly familiar with Nihilus' Devastation of Katarr, eventually came to believe that he could rival any feat of power from any Sith before him; this is vindicated by a factual quote describing Plagueis as the most powerful Sith Lord up to and of his time. And we know Sidious becomes even more powerful than Plagueis.
The need to constantly search for arguments of circumstance to bolster Nihilus' standing betrays the inherent weakness of his position. He's obviously extremely powerful, but if you're going to support him against beings who are factually stronger than him, you're rightfully facing an uphill battle.
Registered: Mar 2017
Location: Sith shrine below the Jedi Temple
^
That pretty much wraps up the argument. And as I said, the only reason Sheev can't do what Nihilus does is because it's specific to Nihilus being exposed to the mass shadow generator and becoming a wound in the force. In everything else, Sidious outperforms Nihilus.
__________________ The Sith are not placid stars but singularities. Rather than burn with muted purpose, we warp space and time to twist the galaxy to our own design. - Darth Plagueis
The quotes establish the bounds of what we can think, lol. A fact is a fact. There's no way around that. "Thinking for yourselves" in this context is a euphemism for conjuring your own conspiracy theories and running off with them. I'm all for alternate interpretations, especially where the issue is unclear, but here it's as clear as day.
But as I've said above, even without the quotes, the Emperor is superior. People seem to miss the fact that the quotes are in fact vindicated by feats and other such things, so even if you want to take the inherently flawed approach of feats-only, Palpatine's supremacy still stands. Using a feats-only approach doesn't help Nihilus, as has been established in this thread over and over again.
It might've occurred to you that a lot more people than just one man wrote these quotes. That in of itself demands greater consideration of the quotes. And as I said, I can make the argument independently of them. For all your independent thinking, you seem to have been incapable of comprehending that basic concept. Moreover, quotes in of themselves are not inherently gospel, and I've argued against a variety of quotes before. But in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, such a vast array of quotes (evidence) would indeed prove something (in this instance, Palpatine's supremacy) to be the case.
Do you have a case to make in favour of Nihilus here, or are you just here to espouse libertarian ideology? You don't seem to know where to draw the line between free thinking and accepting facts. Hopefully you don't go into maths class and try to argue that 1 +1 isn't equal to 2 for fear of allowing your mind to be dominated by your maths teacher next.
Last edited by SunRazer on Apr 5th, 2017 at 09:54 AM
You literally said that "the quotes establish the bounds of what we can think" lol. And that entertaining a different opinion amounts to a "conspiracy theory".
Your thoughts betray you.
And your analogy was as stupid as I expected it to be, only I would have guessed you would go for the "earth is flat" route.
That's because there's so many of the quotes; if a dozen sources from numerous authors from the 90's right down to the mid 10's say one thing, I think we can all pretty safely call it a fact. Again, what reason do we have to believe otherwise? There is no evidence to the contrary. These quotes continued to be published after Nihilus' appearance in KotOR II. Whereas for Valkorion at least, you can actually make a case against the quotes. Here, we're given literally no material to make a case against them. This is a collection of quotes defined not only by its size, but the fact that it has every kind of variety. It would take an especially strong reason to disregard them. It's not like they're off-hand remarks from one of Drew Karpyshynn's emails.
Not sure if you've followed me at all but I'm constantly arguing for differing interpretations of quotes or outright dismissing them on various grounds. So your implied criticism that I'm brainwashed is a bit unfounded. In this case, I'm simply not seeing a valid reason for doing so. If you'd care to venture one, I'm more than willing to listen. As of yet, however, you're just questioning something without any basis whatsoever. On what grounds are these quotes capable of being dismissed? Try stating your case instead of trying to demean others.
More importantly, questioning somebody's stance on the basis of what you think has influenced them isn't a valid approach; at least not until you present an actual argument yourself. So again, are you going to make an argument for Nihilus or are you just going to stand behind a fence and take potshots at arguments in favour of the Emperor?
My analogy's capturing your approach perfectly. You're belittling people for taking an established fact as a fact. You cherish your independent thinking; I'll wait for a genuine argument against the quotes.
Last edited by SunRazer on Apr 5th, 2017 at 10:18 AM
In that case I have to concede. SunRazer, you are a reasonable guy. Completely unlike the quote worshiping guys who would use a publisher blurb to argue for a character's a priori supremacy over any other character in any other medium.
Mar 21st, 2017 09:49 AM
