Freedon Nadd vs Exar Kun

I'd like to point out that it's highly inaccurate to say that either Exar Kun or Naga Sadow, with their own power, ripped the cores from stars.

They did this using a blend of Sith magic and technology. The only way they could do it was by using Naga Sadow's ship, the "star-ripping" was its primary weapon that only a Force user could use. Why do you think Exar Kun sent Aleema, by all respects a very low-level Force user considering he knocked her out in one blast before becoming "Uber-Kun," to destroy the Cron Cluster and thereby destroy Ossus?

That means, technically, Aleema Keto "ripped the core from a star." That doesn't make her powerful, since she used Sadow's ship to do it, as did Sadow himself.

Moving on, the ability to kill a Jedi with a blaster isn't too impressive. Does anyone remember Coleman Trebor getting blasted by Jango Fett? Any number of scenarios could arise where Nadd could use trickery to blast a Jedi. I envision him dueling with his lightsaber and then blasting the Jedi from point blank range, for example. (This is despite the fact that I think KOTOR is irrelevant to arguing EU Star Wars, since it contradicts other sound sources and also plays "hard and loose" with the facts for the purposes of putting together a game that is fun and will sell well.)

However, Glentract, I do remember his "bombs and poison gas" advice. HK-47 gave the same advice in-game.

And again, I don't think Nadd conquered Onderon. I think he merely used a less subtle Sidious-like political maneuvering and dark side powers to put himself in power. Sure he fought the beast riders, but since they were at a constant war with the other people of Onderon that doesn't make him special. Honestly I could be wrong, but from what I remember of my TOTJ, he didn't stand against the combined might of all the peoples of Onderon and win. TOTJ: Dark Lords of the Sith says, "Nadd roamed the uncharted (backwater) systems, until he found a world (Onderon) he could dominate (emphasis theirs) using the powers of the Dark Side."

Oh, by the way... I also don't think Naga Sadow was ever the Dark Lord of the Sith. According to the holocron Exar Kun is studying in the beginning of Dark Lords of the Sith, when Naga Sadow fled the galaxy, he was

exiled by his Dark Lord, branded a criminal by the Republic.

Just a couple of pages later, it says that Sadow

vanished with his followers (to Yavin Four). Sadow was a member of an elite priesthood, of pure Sith blood, who were in rebellion against their Rulers, the fallen Jedi who wore the title Dark Lords of the Sith

If the holocron is true (as well it should be, since it was a history Vodo Siosk-Bass was keeping) then the KOTOR nonsense about Sadow ever vying for the throne of Dark Lord is nowhere near true, much less the even bigger nonsense about his tomb being on Korriban.

Good points.

Does using technology mean much though? Nadd used a blaster, which is a form of technology. They use lightsabers, which is technology.

It means something inasmuch as you assumed that these men ripped the cores from stars using nothing but their own Force powers, which would be a near-godlike feat.

They didn't do this. They used Sadow's invention, triggered by their powers.

Yes, but until we know just how much of it was the ship, and how much it was the man, it's still quite a feat. That, and that we've seen other godlike feats.

The Ancient Sith were narratively "godlike," and Sadow also demonstrated other force powers that could well fall into that category. To say his force powers are diminished because "it's the ship" would be like saying "it's the shoes" for a basketball player.

A counterassumption also isn't fair.

I'd have to say that most of the power came from the ship itself, since a relative weakling like Aleema Keto used it to destroy the Cron Cluster, Illustrious. (Aleema even said, "Naga Sadow's weaponry is so powerful... I can't wait to use it."😉 I'm not using it to diminish Exar's powers, since he didn't actually use it. I'm using it to diminish Naga's force powers. However, it raises Naga's prestige as far as alchemy and inventiveness goes.

Could you name some of these other powers Naga used that fall into that category?

Originally posted by IKC
Moving on, the ability to kill a Jedi with a blaster isn't too impressive. Does anyone remember Coleman Trebor getting blasted by Jango Fett?

Don't use that scene as proof that killing a Jedi with a blaster is "easy". Coleman Trebor was 100 % focusing on Dooku so basically Jango was shooting him "off guard".
Also notice that Lucas himself in the TPM commentary said it's basically impossible for a non-force-user to kill a Jedi in direct combat. And all situations we see Jedi getting killed by non-force-users they are:

a) caught off guard (Coleman Trebor killed by Jango Fett)
b) horribly outnumbered (Geonosis)
c) shot by heavy weapons (Geonosis)
d) killed in "non direct" ways (gas, explosives and so on...)

Any number of scenarios could arise where Nadd could use trickery to blast a Jedi. I envision him dueling with his lightsaber and then blasting the Jedi from point blank range, for example.

An entire army of Jedi ? Hardly...and duelling Jedi with a short lightsaber and then shoot them from point blank range is still impressive...

And again, I don't think Nadd conquered Onderon. I think he merely used a less subtle Sidious-like political maneuvering and dark side powers to put himself in power. Sure he fought the beast riders, but since they were at a constant war with the other people of Onderon that doesn't make him special.

First Nadd was not much of a "political" genious. He was a martial type of person. He failed his Jedi trials and immediatly killed his master. Nothing a "political" character would do.
Second: He did destroy the beast riders using Sith Magic ON HIS OWN. So he basically wiped out an entire army of people riding on beasts. That doesn't make him special ? I've never seen any other force user entering a battle field and fight back and fight back an entire army with his force powers only.

If the holocron is true (as well it should be, since it was a history Vodo Siosk-Bass was keeping) then the KOTOR nonsense about Sadow ever vying for the throne of Dark Lord is nowhere near true, much less the even bigger nonsense about his tomb being on Korriban.

I thought you read TOTJ ?

a)
It's told in TOTJ that Sadow was a member of the Sith priesthood. Yes. But in fact he and Ludo Kressh were both Sith Lords (under Sadow who was the Dark Lord of the Sith) and after Ragnos death they did fight for the title of the Dark Lord. Sadow manipulated the other Sith Lords to support him making him think the Republic wanted to attack the Sith Empire. So...Sadow was the Dark Lord of the Sith after Ragnos. Kressh later took that title from him before he was killed. So Kressh (being the Dark Lord now) exiled Sadow who was the Dark Lord before.

It's basically: Ajunta Pall (start of the Sith Empire) > Simus (before Ragnos) > Ragnos (until 5,000 BBY) > Sadow > Kressh. And that's the point were the Sith Empire disappeared.

b)
What the hell would a JEDI know about the history of the SITH considering the fact that they actually never had contact with the Sith Empire until the Great Hyperspace War ? They obviously didn't know that Sadow was still on Yavin 4 after the war - otherwise they would have killed him. The information given by the holocron about the Sith before the Great Hyperspace War is only speculation (because it simply can't be more than speculation).

TOTJ ("Golden Age of the Sith" and "The Fall of the Sith Empire"😉 both contradict your idea and they were both written by the same author that did the rest of the TOTJ comics (Kevin J. Anderson) but later. So Anderson simply developed his own idea further or it just wasn't clear enough in the first TOTJ comics. Note that the last Kun comic was finished in 1996 and the both I mentioned were finished in 1997 and 1998.

My oh my how times have changed, the last time this thread was made everyone was convinced Kun would take this.

Originally posted by Nai Fohl
First Nadd was not much of a "political" genious. He was a martial type of person. He failed his Jedi trials and immediatly killed his master. Nothing a "political" character would do.
Second: He did destroy the beast riders using Sith Magic ON HIS OWN. So he basically wiped out an entire army of people riding on beasts. That doesn't make him special ? I've never seen any other force user entering a battle field and fight back and fight back an entire army with his force powers only.

I don't have much to say about the other stuff, but I think you are incorrect on these.

First, Nadd failed the Jedi trials, Sidious would have too and he has political genious all over his face. Why wouldn't a politival person kill their master if they were going to leave anyway?

Second, you've never seen someone take an army with force powers? Exar took out the Massassi, who were able to give a Jedi a hard time in one-on-one. He also held off the Republic Fleet with just force powers. And greatest of all, he froze all the Jedi able to react to him attacking Vodo save one. He could have easily force the Beast Riders and then killed them all with his fist whicl they were frozen. Nadd taking out the Beast Riders is impressive, but Exar's done plenty of more impresive things.

Clarification: Out of TOTJ, I've only read Dark Lords of the Sith and The Sith War.

That being said, where in TOTJ is it said that Sadow ever became the Dark Lord? I've only ever heard of anything of the sort in KOTOR, which I've already expressed my opinion about. That and I've only heard of Ludo Kressh in KOTOR as well.

As well, in Dark Lords of the Sith it clearly states that Sadow was,

a member of an elite priesthood, of pure Sith blood, who were in rebellion against their rulers, the fallen Jedi who wore the title Dark Lords of the Sith.

Tell me this, then. If Sadow was ever once the Dark Lord, why would he and his fellow pure-bloods be in rebellion against the Dark Lords collectively? That and it appears from the words used that only the fallen Jedi were eligible to become Lords of the Sith.

By the way, the Jedi at that time knew plenty Sith lore, much of it gleaned from the recently-freed Onderon and the artifacts Nadd left there. That and the Great Hyperspace War had already happened.

Furthermore, I never wrote Nadd was a "political genius." If you read what I wrote you'd see I argued that Nadd used a less subtle blend of Dark Side "persuasion" (displays of power) and political maneuvering to make himself the ruler. A sort of coup, if you will, much like Satal and Aleema Keto (Nadd's Krath disciples) did to take control of the Empress Teta system. (Read, multiple planets)

As well, like Glentract said, it's nothing special that Nadd was able to eliminate the beast riders. Exar could have easily done the same with the "freeze" sith spell he used on the Senate.

By the way, since when did Nadd fight an "army of Jedi?" From what I understand, and from the introduction in Dark Lords of the Sith, Nadd had taken over Onderon without Jedi interference (inasmuch as the Republic was unaware of Onderon's existence) and ruled until he died, leaving behind his descendants which ruled Onderon (among them King Ommin and Queen Amanda). He controlled these descendants in spirit form. Four hundred years after Nadd's arrival on Onderon, Master Arca brought a band of Jedi including Dace Diath, Tott Doneeta, Shoanes Culu, Oss Wilum, Cay and Ulic Qel-Droma, Qrrl Toq, and Nomi Sunrider to liberate Onderon (recently discovered by the Republic) from the Dark Side legacy of Freedon Nadd.

That and the fact that KOTOR is notorious for contradicting other, earlier sources of the Star Wars mythos makes the "Freedon Nadd's blaster skills" point a moot one.

Ah, I've found the answer myself. I concede the point that Naga became the Dark Lord, though I'm confused inasmuch as it says that Naga was a half-blood. Why Kevin J. Anderson would contradict himself is beyond me. As well, Ludo Kressh is a character that's not exclusive to KOTOR.

However, I maintain all my other points, especially those about Nadd and the fact that Jedi knew a great deal about the Sith and their Empire.

By the way, since when did Nadd fight an "army of Jedi?" From what I understand, and from the introduction in Dark Lords of the Sith, Nadd had taken over Onderon without Jedi interference (inasmuch as the Republic was unaware of Onderon's existence) and ruled until he died, leaving behind his descendants which ruled Onderon (among them King Ommin and Queen Amanda). He controlled these descendants in spirit form. Four hundred years after Nadd's arrival on Onderon, Master Arca brought a band of Jedi including Dace Diath, Tott Doneeta, Shoanes Culu, Oss Wilum, Cay and Ulic Qel-Droma, Qrrl Toq, and Nomi Sunrider to liberate Onderon (recently discovered by the Republic) from the Dark Side legacy of Freedon Nadd.

Unless I'm gravely mistaken, Nadd fell against the army of Jedi. Similarly to Exar Kun, except that he actually stood toe-to-toe with them. It was during the climax of the battle that he transferred his spirit into an amulet, one that Exar would come across in times to come. I'm not positive on this, but I'm quite sure of it.

Exar's amulet was Sadow's. The amulet Nadd was linked to stayed with his descendants. (Why would the Jedi have left them alive if they fought Nadd? And why would they leave them to rule Onderon only to return centuries later to root them and Nadd's spirit out?)

I'm fairly certain Nadd died naturally.

Bump.

Bump

Ludo Kressh was also the Dark Lord at the time Sadow was fighting his hyperspace war.

Originally posted by Rayvann
Bump

Apparently an attempt at:

Ad hominem tu quoque - This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

You can't possibly still be typing..

Originally posted by IKC
Apparently an attempt at:

Ad hominem tu quoque - This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

Yup.. I think IKC needs a nap.