Why is it my stated narration is not quite up to your standards, then? I forget, did you or did you not accept that it was Sadow's ship, not his force power, that was capable of ripping the cores from stars?
Where do you think the ship got its vaunted powers from? Was Naga Sadow someone who could make ships better than the Empire 4,000 years later? Or would it be that the powers were originally from him? Ludo Kressh didn't have a star blowing ship. No one else did either. It came from Sadow. Consider the source; his knowledge and mastery over the force WAS considerable. He was able to make those illusions... he made up 90% of his own forces which are, as noted in narration, thousands upon thousands in ships, troops, and mounts. He did this via meditation. Also, the red jeweled gauntlets Kun wears? Sadow wore them in the Golden Age of the Sith comics. In Fall of the Sith Empire, he sports newer blue ones. Tell me Kun wasn't boosted again?
Here it is:
Emphasis mine.
There are other examples where the narrator emphasizes the power of people who are not ancient Sith, for example calling Kun "the darkest power in the galaxy." Is the narrator's word the only thing that matters?
Again, consider the source. Sadow is the ONLY Sith Lord in the series to have such "toys". He is the originator of such knowledge and power. How can you argue he's somehow vastly weaker without them? You most certainly don't have any "hard evidence" of such, since he's never shown without them in the series. Really, you're assuming that he's weaker or that he's really close to say, Person A's level without proving it.
And the narration may call Exar Kun the darkest power in the galaxy. Certainly, he was waging a war of sorts against the jedi order and was the greatest living threat of his time.
We can estimate fairly well, however, using feats. However, those estimations diminish when we find out that those feats were accomplished through artificial means.
Not really. You're using a -sample- of Sadow's feats, not everything he is capable of. Sadow's creations endow Force users with the ability to do something that is truly godlike. Kun could do it, Aleema could do it, Sadow could do it. By your reasoning, they are all on the same level.
Also, no one else has duplicated the feat of Naga's force illusions. You said yourself, they fight like real enemies, and he says "I imagine them in my mind's eye and they become a reality"... He's spawning all of these creations from his mind via the Force. This is CONSIDERABLE, and certainly makes even Kun's freezing of the Senate pale in comparison.
And again, absence of proof is not proof of absence. You are trying to tell us he's weaker or boosted and all this other stuff but you can't substantiate your claims with any real evidence, just assumptions and nitpicking.
The problem is, Illustrious, these are the only two feats (illusions and stars) that the Ancient Sith have going for them, and have been used in the past to greatly overestimate their power. Frankly, I would rather use hard evidence from the comic rather than the word of the narrator, because the narrator's word is extremely subjective.
So you're being selective of your evidence? There's other feats you neglect to mention:
- Simus keeps himself alive as a head.
- Ludo Kressh, upon the council of the Sith making Sadow DLotS, took out his blade and broke it. Sith blades are made of heavy cortosis and are reinforced via Sith magic. Ludo Kressh is also near Sadow's own level in power, since he was unanimously elected DLotS in Sadow's absence.
- Every single thing that Nadd, Kun, Revan, Kreia, Sion, etc. ever practiced as Sith originated from the Sith Empire. It was -their- knowledge. To argue that people alien to Sith culture have better understanding and mastery of Sith magics is folly.
Yes. I. Do. I've been asking you for the greater part of this week to prove up and give me a better example of the power of the Ancient Sith than the narrator's word. I've already given them, specifically Sadow, credit for inventing these artificial means of controlling, focusing, and enhancing the Dark Side. But when people from later times perform the same and sometimes greater feats with less equipment than the Ancients themselves had, I question whether they're really as naturally powerful as we think.
Same or lesser feats? Such as what? Specify.
My entire point is that we need to rethink whether or not the Ancients would curbstomp everyone that came after them. I don't think they could. They have a damned good chance of winning in most cases, but it's not guaranteed.
Nothing is guaranteed. Versus forums operate under the "Who would win best 2 out of 3" mode. If I say Kun curbstomps Yoda, it doesn't neccessarily mean he'd win EVERY fight. But the ancient Sith are described as godlike. Their mastery of the Force was the foundation for advanced power for millenia after their decline, and considering they are the source for the very magics you credit people like Sidious and Kun with, I don't see at all how you could imply they are weaker than such, and I most certainly haven't seen you prove it.
Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
Do you have any proof that Exar had Naga's best Amulet? Notice that Nadd was trained BY Sadow. Nadd may very well have been given his by Sadow, which makes sense as nearly all Sith from that time gave their apprentice's Amulets. Again, with DE Sidious, prove that the Amulet was a particularly powerful one and that he had a large enough piece of the Kaiburr Crystal to have much effect(Luke had a piece too, but the farther he got from the place it had bound itself to, the weaker it got.). You need to offer proof.Also, what did Nadd do that surpasses, or even equals Naga's achivements? What did DE Sidious do that is greater than Naga's feats? In what way did Exar demonstrate power equal with Naga?
The people who followed in the wake of the Ancient Sith found small pieces of what the Ancient Sith really had. They in no way found all or even near all of what the Ancient Sith had.
I'll answer in order.
Read what I wrote. "He wore the most prominent one, anyway, and one I speculate may be his best." Key word is speculate. Nadd was not given his by Sadow, however, Glentract. He made it himself. That's not up for debate. And with DE Sidious, do you really think that Sidious himself is powerful enough to conjure force storms and teleport people across the galaxy without those two objects? DE Sidious is a massive improvement from ROTS Sidious. Other than being in a younger body, how else would he have suddenly gotten more powerful?
Nadd did take over a planet and establish dark side rule, as well as continue to rule from beyond the grave through his puppet descendents. DE Sidious, as I've already said, conjured Force Storms that ripped apart capital ships and teleported people across the galaxy. As for Kun, one of his lackeys mirrored Sadow's feats. Kun himself instakilled a powerful Jedi Master, Odan-Urr, froze the Senate (thousands or tens of thousands of members, as well as non-force-using guards, etc.), toyed with and curbstomped the Grandmaster of the Jedi, and similarly toyed with Master Ood, yet another ancient and powerful Jedi Master.
So even though they found what you claim to be traces of what the Ancients had, they performed comparable, the exact same, or better feats. What does that tell you?
Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
Do you have any proof that Exar had Naga's best Amulet? Notice that Nadd was trained BY Sadow. Nadd may very well have been given his by Sadow, which makes sense as nearly all Sith from that time gave their apprentice's Amulets. Again, with DE Sidious, prove that the Amulet was a particularly powerful one and that he had a large enough piece of the Kaiburr Crystal to have much effect(Luke had a piece too, but the farther he got from the place it had bound itself to, the weaker it got.). You need to offer proof.
Where do you think the ship got its vaunted powers from? Was Naga Sadow someone who could make ships better than the Empire 4,000 years later? Or would it be that the powers were originally from him? Ludo Kressh didn't have a star blowing ship. No one else did either. It came from Sadow. Consider the source; his knowledge and mastery over the force WAS considerable. He was able to make those illusions... he made up 90% of his own forces which are, as noted in narration, thousands upon thousands in ships, troops, and mounts. He did this via meditation. Also, the red jeweled gauntlets Kun wears? Sadow wore them in the Golden Age of the Sith comics. In Fall of the Sith Empire, he sports newer blue ones. Tell me Kun wasn't boosted again?
One, I never said Kun wasn't boosted. Please read everything I post.
So if one creates a powerful artifact, one must therefore have imbued the artifact with one's own power? I see. Does that mean Exar Kun himself imbued the hundreds upon hundreds of temples on Yavin 4 with his own power? You know, those very same temples that allowed the padawan students of Luke Skywalker to throw back a Super Star Destroyer?
Of course not. The artifacts gather and channel the force by themselves, then. If one is that powerful without them, they wouldn't need to be created.
You forget, by the way, that Aleema's own meditation creates illusions much like Sadow's.
Again, consider the source. Sadow is the ONLY Sith Lord in the series to have such "toys". He is the originator of such knowledge and power. How can you argue he's somehow vastly weaker without them? You most certainly don't have any "hard evidence" of such, since he's never shown without them in the series. Really, you're assuming that he's weaker or that he's really close to say, Person A's level without proving it.
Really? Where, exactly, does it say that Sadow is the only Sith Lord to create force-boosting amulets and similar baubles, and indeed is the originator of the knowledge? My reasoning is as follows: Persons A and B grow vastly more powerful when they acquire person C's artifacts. Ergo, Person C's power must diminish if these artifacts are taken away, or there would be no reason for Person C to have the artifacts in the first place.
And the narration may call Exar Kun the darkest power in the galaxy. Certainly, he was waging a war of sorts against the jedi order and was the greatest living threat of his time.
I was throwing that quote out as an example of subjective hyperbole.
Not really. You're using a -sample- of Sadow's feats, not everything he is capable of. Sadow's creations endow Force users with the ability to do something that is truly godlike. Kun could do it, Aleema could do it, Sadow could do it. By your reasoning, they are all on the same level.
Problem is, again, those are the only feats Sadow has performed in the stories. My question is this: What else is he capable of?
And you're not getting my reasoning. They'd be all on the same level if they had a contest to see who could rip the core from a star, sure. But in raw force power, obviously Kun and Sadow are superior to Aleema. However, Kun has displayed feats that Sadow has never mirrored, whereas both of Sadow's feats are mirrored by Aleema. Ergo, Kun may be more powerful than Sadow.
lso, no one else has duplicated the feat of Naga's force illusions. You said yourself, they fight like real enemies, and he says "I imagine them in my mind's eye and they become a reality"... He's spawning all of these creations from his mind via the Force. This is CONSIDERABLE, and certainly makes even Kun's freezing of the Senate pale in comparison.
Actually, I wrote that Aleema's illusions fight like real enemies. I can't say conclusively whether Sadow's did. Aleema's monstrosities were just as impressive; she created dozens of "space grazers," creatures who prey on space traffic, to attack the Republic fleet over Koros Major. Ergo, Kun's feat is still more impressive.
- Simus keeps himself alive as a head.
And the B'omaar monks kept themselves alive as brains. Yes, Simus' feat is impressive. So is Vader's feat of staying alive for the considerable time it took for Palpatine to reach him, even though it's obvious he cannot breathe.
- Ludo Kressh, upon the council of the Sith making Sadow DLotS, took out his blade and broke it. Sith blades are made of heavy cortosis and are reinforced via Sith magic. Ludo Kressh is also near Sadow's own level in power, since he was unanimously elected DLotS in Sadow's absence.
Tell me where it says Sith blades are made of cortosis, for one, and don't say KOTOR. Cortosis didn't exist as a mineral in the Star Wars mythos until Zahn's Hand of Thrawn series, I believe. That was a good time after the comics were penned.
Either way, so? Immense strength is not a feat that's unmirrored elsewhere in Star Wars.
- Every single thing that Nadd, Kun, Revan, Kreia, Sion, etc. ever practiced as Sith originated from the Sith Empire. It was -their- knowledge. To argue that people alien to Sith culture have better understanding and mastery of Sith magics is folly.
Yes, but are you saying every citizen of the Sith Empire had access to, for example, Naga Sadow's hidden trove of alchemical equipment and tomes, etc? Are you saying they could freely roam the empire and take and use each other's secrets at their will, with no fear of reprisal from the owners? Nonsense. Those that came after have the small advantage of there being no owners left to battle over knowledge with. As well, they have the advantage of having access to the knowledge of some of the greatest Sith Lords, whereas those Sith Lords couldn't study one another's knowledge for the reason I've already stated.
Same or lesser feats? Such as what? Specify.
I've already mentioned the feats that later force users performed. All we have to go on on the Ancients is star-ripping and illusions.
But the ancient Sith are described as godlike.
And are not shown to be in the actual story. I could pen a story about a clown and constantly describe him as godlike in the narration, does that make him so? Obviously, the ancient Sith are not clowns, but the point stands.
Their mastery of the Force was the foundation for advanced power for millenia after their decline, and considering they are the source for the very magics you credit people like Sidious and Kun with, I don't see at all how you could imply they are weaker than such, and I most certainly haven't seen you prove it.
That's not necessarily true. We don't know, for example, if Kun either researched his freeze spell or invented it himself. We also don't know if Sidious did the same with his Force Storm and teleportation.
You operate under the assumption that the accumulation of all knowledge of the Force happened under the Sith Empire, and when the Empire fell all knowledge was lost forever, only to be picked up in traces by later, lesser men. You don't take into account that new techniques can be invented, or that progress can be made. You don't take into account that someone that was born thousands of years after the Ancients could possibly be naturally stronger in the Force. I find that narrow-minded.
Ianus, with your reasoning right there your pretty much saying that Yoda could never be more powerful then say Hoth or Vodo because they studied the force before him and w/e Yoda is learning they already learned. I'm not saying that Kun, Revan, Sion etc... are better than Simus, and Kressh and others of the Sith Empire but your reasoning is not very sound.
Originally posted by IKC
Read what I wrote. "He wore the most prominent one, anyway, and one I speculate may be his best."
In anycase, you need to back up why you think that it is his best, or it is trash.
You missed my point though. You said, "He wore the most prominent one..."
That was what I was asking you to prove, not that it was his most powerful(which I would advise you add some solid proof to your speculation.).Key word is speculate.
Originally posted by IKC
Nadd was not given his by Sadow, however, Glentract. He made it himself. That's not up for debate.
Do you have ANY proof of this?
Originally posted by IKC
And with DE Sidious, do you really think that Sidious himself is powerful enough to conjure force storms and teleport people across the galaxy without those two objects? DE Sidious is a massive improvement from ROTS Sidious. Other than being in a younger body, how else would he have suddenly gotten more powerful?
Please read more carefully next time. I never stated that those two objects weren't what got him to that level of power. I stated that you need to prove that he ever got to that level of power to begin with. You also need to prove that Force Storms and teleporting people across the galaxy is as impressive as what Naga did.
Originally posted by IKC
Nadd did take over a planet and establish dark side rule, as well as continue to rule from beyond the grave through his puppet descendents.
How does this make him as powerful as Sadow?
Originally posted by IKC
DE Sidious, as I've already said, conjured Force Storms that ripped apart capital ships and teleported people across the galaxy.
You have failed to prove that force storms and moving people across the galaxy makes him more powerful.
Originally posted by IKC
As for Kun, one of his lackeys mirrored Sadow's feats.
It was one of his lackeys who temporarily had much of Sadow's technology. This goes back to Janus' naked Sadow argument.
Originally posted by IKC
Kun himself instakilled a powerful Jedi Master, Odan-Urr, froze the Senate (thousands or tens of thousands of members, as well as non-force-using guards, etc.), toyed with and curbstomped the Grandmaster of the Jedi, and similarly toyed with Master Ood, yet another ancient and powerful Jedi Master.
Can you scan a pick of Kun "instakilling" Odan.
Freezing the Senate isn't very impressive as Sidious, as of ROTS, was constantly controlling a far greater number of Senators(greater number because the Republic was far larger in Sidious' time).
The second are both hyperbole and fail to make Exar more impressive than Sadow.
Originally posted by IKC
So even though they found what you claim to be traces of what the Ancients had, they performed comparable, the exact same, or better feats. What does that tell you?
You haven't proved any of that. Prove up or shut up. It's really that simple.
Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
In anycase, you need to back up why you think that it is his best, or it is trash.You missed my point though. You said, "He wore the most prominent one..."
That was what I was asking you to prove, not that it was his most powerful(which I would advise you add some solid proof to your speculation.).Key word is speculate.
Do you have [b]ANY
proof of this?Please read more carefully next time. I never stated that those two objects weren't what got him to that level of power. I stated that you need to prove that he ever got to that level of power to begin with. You also need to prove that Force Storms and teleporting people across the galaxy is as impressive as what Naga did.
How does this make him as powerful as Sadow?
You have failed to prove that force storms and moving people across the galaxy makes him more powerful.
It was one of his lackeys who temporarily had much of Sadow's technology. This goes back to Janus' naked Sadow argument.
Can you scan a pick of Kun "instakilling" Odan.
Freezing the Senate isn't very impressive as Sidious, as of ROTS, was constantly controlling a far greater number of Senators(greater number because the Republic was far larger in Sidious' time).
The second are both hyperbole and fail to make Exar more impressive than Sadow.
You haven't proved any of that. Prove up or shut up. It's really that simple. [/B]
Answering in order again. Oh, and I recommend you read my response to Ianus, too.
The amulet that Kun picked up is one I've never seen Sadow without in all the scans I've seen of him. The other decorations Sadow wore could very well have been jewelry, for all I know. It's rather difficult to know what's an empowered bauble and what isn't. (Kun's Sadow amulet was a left gauntlet connected by chains to a shoulderpad, made of gold metal. It had a circular red jewel, cracked in many places, on the back of the hand.)
And my reasoning for Nadd's amulet being his own creation is that Nadd had bound his spirit to the amulet. It seems unlikely to me that he'd be able to do this if it were someone else's creation.
As for Sidious' feats, why wouldn't Force Storms that rip apart capital ships be impressive, Glentract? They literally kill everything they touch. That counts as an impressive feat to me, especially since he seems to be able to do it on his own power (aided, of course, by the amulet and crystal).
As for teleportation: if teleportation is not a great feat, why don't all force users do it? Hell, Anakin and Obi-Wan need never have endangered themselves flying to The Invisible Hand to rescue Palpatine. All they would have needed to do is teleport Palpatine back to his office, nice and neatly.
Of course, such would have been ludicrous. Teleportation is quite a feat by any standard, unless it becomes commonplace.
Nadd's feat doesn't necessarily make him more powerful, and I never said it did. However, Nadd performed it without assistance from a major focus of the Dark Side (Sadow's ship or meditation sphere).
And because Kun's lackey hadthe technology (which is only true for one feat, star-ripping, not the illusion one), she could perform the very same feats Sadow did. Where, then, is Sadow's superior power?
For Kun instakilling Odan-Urr: Like I wrote at DTF, I'll bring my scanner from home next time I go there.
Freezing the Senate: Glentract, Sidious didn't manipulate the Senate by exclusive use of the Dark Side. We're speaking about Force feats here, not political maneuvering.
And how is Exar Kun curbstomping two more ancient Jedi masters, one of which is the Grandmaster of the Order, hyperbole? How many Jedi did Sadow meet in single combat? I'm not saying that because Exar did he's more powerful, but it gives us a good measure of what he's capable of.
For the last line: Yes I have.
Why is it my stated narration is not quite up to your standards, then? I forget, did you or did you not accept that it was Sadow's ship, not his force power, that was capable of ripping the cores from stars?
No. Because it's bad logic.
Sadow's ship blew up the star, ergo Sadow couldn't. Hardly true. This is an unknown. Sadow very well could have the capacity, but the ship be more efficient.
Get it through your head. Sadow without his godly items is an unknown that's talked up by the narrator. And I give the narrator more precedence.
As for why your narration doesn't count. When did I say that? I said it doesn't prove anything. I've shown your logic to be invalid numerous times. You just get defensive and try to cover up.
Emphasis mine.There are other examples where the narrator emphasizes the power of people who are not ancient Sith, for example calling Kun "the darkest power in the galaxy." Is the narrator's word the only thing that matters?
Do you see me saying it's not true?
Kun's the darkest force of the galaxy. It never states Kun's the baddest mofo of all time. You shouldn't fling around additional modifiers that aren't in the text.
We can estimate fairly well, however, using feats. However, those estimations diminish when we find out that those feats were accomplished through artificial means.
No you can't estimate fairly well.
For example, if Kun had no on-panel feats, and he blew up a star with the aid of technology, does that mean he is weak?
No. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Get that through your head. I won't repeat it again.
The problem is, Illustrious, these are the only two feats (illusions and stars) that the Ancient Sith have going for them, and have been used in the past to greatly overestimate their power. Frankly, I would rather use hard evidence from the comic rather than the word of the narrator, because the narrator's word is extremely subjective.
Sadow also pulled a solar flare with his bare hand.
Kressh shattered an enchanted cortosis sith sword with his bare hands.
The fact of the matter is that the Golden Age of the Sith is about Gav and Jori, not Naga Sadow. Simply because they have an absence of on panel evidence does not mean they can not execute power.
The logic that "Naga Sadow has powerful toys that a lesser force user can use means he sucks" is not valid. All you did was reduce him to an unknown, an unknown that the narrator STILL talks up.
And we know that with his toys, he's has some of the highest end feats around.
Yes. I. Do. I've been asking you for the greater part of this week to prove up and give me a better example of the power of the Ancient Sith than the narrator's word. I've already given them, specifically Sadow, credit for inventing these artificial means of controlling, focusing, and enhancing the Dark Side. But when people from later times perform the same and sometimes greater feats with less equipment than the Ancients themselves had, I question whether they're really as naturally powerful as we think.
What feats are greater?
Freezing a bunch of non-force users does not seem to be all that impressive, I'm sorry.
Again, blowing up a star is a combination of Sith Magic and a ship, how does this prove anything?
My entire point is that we need to rethink whether or not the Ancients would curbstomp everyone that came after them. I don't think they could. They have a damned good chance of winning in most cases, but it's not guaranteed.
One of the quotes in the Golden Age is that their power was "immense" and "titanic" in comparison to the later Jedi. In fact, their abilities were even described as "frightening." In fact, the general modifier for Ragnos was that he was "the most powerful of the most powerful."
Those aren't exactly phrases a narrator tosses around accidentally. When he writes "most powerful of the most powerful" or "titanic in comparison" he usually is trying to emphasize a point. Especially if he tries to compare a force user to a god (which does not happen for the later characters).
IKC, Janus' argument turns yours to dust. If Sadow fought Exar naked, he would lose, but he always has his armor and crystals with him, making his vastly more powerful.
I wouldn't even go that far. Sadow naked is a total unknown.
And Exar Kun didn't have one of Naga's amulets? He wore the most prominent one, anyway, and one I speculate may be his best. As well, Freedon Nadd was able to create his own amulet. He wasn't an ancient Sith. DE Sidious as well had another of Naga's amulets, as well as a Kaiburr crystal. Is it not rather hard to judge, then, which of these could be more powerful than the other?
You made the point. ONE of Sadow's amulets. Sadow has several, he has what looks to be enchanted gauntlets as as what looks to be enchanted armor.
And need I remind you that there is not a SINGLE panel with Sadow having a prominent amulet on his person. Obviously he didn't need it as much as you are trying to claim.
And how the hell does stating Kun wore an amulet help your case? You effectively just said that Kun has his powers boosted artificially too.
So if one creates a powerful artifact, one must therefore have imbued the artifact with one's own power? I see. Does that mean Exar Kun himself imbued the hundreds upon hundreds of temples on Yavin 4 with his own power? You know, those very same temples that allowed the padawan students of Luke Skywalker to throw back a Super Star Destroyer?
Does he wear the temples on his person? No? I didn't think so.
You forget, by the way, that Aleema's own meditation creates illusions much like Sadow's.
To nowhere near the scale. In fact, Sadow's illusions were quite literally a massive army in an of itself.
I was throwing that quote out as an example of subjective hyperbole.
I already conceded that Kun was the darkest guy in the galaxy, but it doesn't show he was the best and baddest mofo in the entire SWU.
You can't attempt to use the same quote to prove two different points.
Problem is, again, those are the only feats Sadow has performed in the stories. My question is this: What else is he capable of?And you're not getting my reasoning. They'd be all on the same level if they had a contest to see who could rip the core from a star, sure. But in raw force power, obviously Kun and Sadow are superior to Aleema. However, Kun has displayed feats that Sadow has never mirrored, whereas both of Sadow's feats are mirrored by Aleema. Ergo, Kun may be more powerful than Sadow.
It's the same argument again. Again you are claiming absence of proof. This is logical fallacy. I suggest you not use it again.
And the B'omaar monks kept themselves alive as brains. Yes, Simus' feat is impressive. So is Vader's feat of staying alive for the considerable time it took for Palpatine to reach him, even though it's obvious he cannot breathe.
Why's Vader's feat even mentioned? Vader was rolling in the dirt. Simus didn't even have LUNGS. And he still was respected enough to be a Sith Lord and he was still powerful enough to use the force. Not bad as an old head in a jar.
Tell me where it says Sith blades are made of cortosis, for one, and don't say KOTOR. Cortosis didn't exist as a mineral in the Star Wars mythos until Zahn's Hand of Thrawn series, I believe. That was a good time after the comics were penned.Either way, so? Immense strength is not a feat that's unmirrored elsewhere in Star Wars.
Are you claiming they're made of balsa? I also believe it's stated in the Essential Guide as well. Glentract has the book, ask him. And if it is stated there, it is not contradicted, ergo canon.
Also, since when is having your feat duplicated indicate you suck? The point remains. Has KUN demonstrated a feat of such physical strength?
And are not shown to be in the actual story. I could pen a story about a clown and constantly describe him as godlike in the narration, does that make him so? Obviously, the ancient Sith are not clowns, but the point stands.
They have feats of great power. Their techniques allowed others to tap into great power. They have artifacts of great power and knew how to use them. They have great physical strength and immense force power. (All of this is practically lifted from GAotS).
We have more reason than not to believe they are godlike.
And no, because if you said your clown is godlike when he isn't, it's sardonic, there is no reason, no real point, and no instance of being satirical when they brag about the Ancient Sith's power.
You operate under the assumption that the accumulation of all knowledge of the Force happened under the Sith Empire, and when the Empire fell all knowledge was lost forever, only to be picked up in traces by later, lesser men. You don't take into account that new techniques can be invented, or that progress can be made. You don't take into account that someone that was born thousands of years after the Ancients could possibly be naturally stronger in the Force. I find that narrow-minded.
How does this method work for characters like Kun, but they don't apply to someone like Yoda, whom you claim is weaker than Vodo?
The Jedi had a long period of prosperity, logic dictates they had opportunity to get stronger. The Sith were practically eradicated. Logic dictated they dropped off. If you want to argue AGAINST Logic, you must bring the proof. Burden of proof is on you.
My whole point is that your logic is faulty. And you have not addressed that.
Originally posted by IKC
Tell me where it says Sith blades are made of cortosis, for one, and don't say KOTOR. Cortosis didn't exist as a mineral in the Star Wars mythos until Zahn's Hand of Thrawn series, I believe. That was a good time after the comics were penned.
Illustrious pretty much wasted you on everything, but I felt I should reinforce this one point since I am re-reading the Thrawn Trilogy currently and whatever, I'm just going to do it.
The first GAotS Comic came out in July '96, while the Thrawn books came out in June '91. I'm sure glad you know your stuff.
I didn't see a specific statement saying that the blades were made of Cortosis.
So, IKC, because I couldn't find the direct quote, we'll assume they aren't made of Cortosis. The point remains, they could withstand repeated hits from LIGHTSABER BLADES!!! He crushed something that a lightsaber cannot destroy with his BARE HANDS!! Tell me, where has that feat EVER been replicated or even to a near degree.
Look IKC. I've actually been accused of being a Kun fanboy before because I said he stood a decent chance against Ulic, Yoda, Mace, and Dooku at the same time.
I like and respect the character; however, you are just taking it too far and forgot to bring your first order logic along with the ride.
It is LOGICAL to assume, since the narrator describes them with "immense," "godlike," "titanic," "infinite," and "frightening" as well as knowing the legacy they left for future generations, that they are extremely powerful.
You are however seizing on a comic that does not even depict the Ancient Sith and using irrelevent source material as if it's the law. You said it yourself about higher order of officiality. How is Kun's comic going to illustrate Sadow's power better than Sadow's own?
Sadow's ship blew up the star, ergo Sadow couldn't. Hardly true. This is an unknown. Sadow very well could have the capacity, but the ship be more efficient.
Oh, so you're going to assume the positive then? Why then didn't Sadow blow up the sun of Coruscant when he was losing the battle?
"Well, Exar Kun could very well have the capacity to form and control a massive black hole in the center of the galaxy. zOMG JUST BECAUSE WE DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE PANELS DOESN'T MEAN HE CAN'T!"
That's what I'd be saying if I denied logic. It's what you're saying in favor of the Ancient Sith.
Get it through your head. Sadow without his godly items is an unknown that's talked up by the narrator. And I give the narrator more precedence.
Nonsense. Sadow (and the rest of the Ancients) with his items is what is talked up by the narrator. You have no conclusive proof that Sadow is half as powerful without them.
As for why your narration doesn't count. When did I say that? I said it doesn't prove anything. I've shown your logic to be invalid numerous times. You just get defensive and try to cover up.
Oh, really? So I can just say that your narrator quote "doesn't prove anything" and instantly win the argument, hm? I've challenged you to provide evidence to the contrary numerous times. You just get defensive and change the subject.
"zOMG JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE DESCRIBED AS GODLIKE DOESN'T MEAN NOBODY ELSE IS!"
Have fun with that.
Kun's the darkest force of the galaxy. It never states Kun's the baddest mofo of all time. You shouldn't fling around additional modifiers that aren't in the text.
Again, the quote I threw out was an example. Never do your quotes state that the Ancients were, in your words, "the baddest mofos of all time." Ergo, own up and prove that they were.
For example, if Kun had no on-panel feats, and he blew up a star with the aid of technology, does that mean he is weak?
Provided that that is all we have of Kun, yes. He would certainly not be as powerful as we now rank him.
Sadow also pulled a solar flare with his bare hand.
Quote it, and is he in his ship?
Kressh shattered an enchanted cortosis sith sword with his bare hands.
Cortosis didn't exist as part of the mythos at the time the comic was penned, making this irrelevant. Stop describing it as cortosis, because it wasn't.
The fact of the matter is that the Golden Age of the Sith is about Gav and Jori, not Naga Sadow. Simply because they have an absence of on panel evidence does not mean they can not execute power.
Oh. Okay. So since the OT is about Vader and Luke Skywalker, can we say that OT Palpatine was out making Force Storms and teleporting people during ANH? "Waah, absence of proof isn't proof of absence, you can't prove he didn't! Nyah nyah! Simply because he didn't do it on screen and there's no evidence of him being able to do it doesn't mean he can't execute it!"
Logical fallacy.
The logic that "Naga Sadow has powerful toys that a lesser force user can use means he sucks" is not valid. All you did was reduce him to an unknown, an unknown that the narrator STILL talks up.
Incorrect. "Naga Sadow has powerful toys to enhance his power, and has displayed feats matched perfectly by a much weaker force user. Other Force users that had less powerful toys have been shown to perform greater feats. Ergo, Naga Sadow is probably less powerful than them." And the narrator talks Sadow up with his artifacts.
Freezing a bunch of non-force users does not seem to be all that impressive, I'm sorry.
Need I remind you how many senators there are? Do I have to use the words, "tens of thousands" over and over? To keep them frozen, use the Chancellor as a literal hand puppet, and then curbstomp the Grandmaster of the Jedi Order is damned impressive.
Again, blowing up a star is a combination of Sith Magic and a ship, how does this prove anything?
Blowing up the star was a result of Sadow's ingenious invention. His ship was able to charge and channel the Force in that manner. The power did not come from the user. It proves that his single most impressive feat says precisely squat about his strength in the Force.
One of the quotes in the Golden Age is that their power was "immense" and "titanic" in comparison to the later Jedi. In fact, their abilities were even described as "frightening." In fact, the general modifier for Ragnos was that he was "the most powerful of the most powerful."Those aren't exactly phrases a narrator tosses around accidentally. When he writes "most powerful of the most powerful" or "titanic in comparison" he usually is trying to emphasize a point. Especially if he tries to compare a force user to a god (which does not happen for the later characters).
Again, evidence? The narrator would be a strong source if what he said was corraborated in any way by the story. Like I said, I could repeatedly describe an off-duty clown as godlike. That doesn't make it true.
You made the point. ONE of Sadow's amulets. Sadow has several, he has what looks to be enchanted gauntlets as as what looks to be enchanted armor.And need I remind you that there is not a SINGLE panel with Sadow having a prominent amulet on his person. Obviously he didn't need it as much as you are trying to claim.
And how the hell does stating Kun wore an amulet help your case? You effectively just said that Kun has his powers boosted artificially too.
Oh, really? Is that why I remember the last panel of The Fall of the Sith Empire showing Sadow with the very same amulet that Kun later wears prominently sitting on his hand and shoulder, among other baubles on his person? I can't even remember a single scan of Sadow without such artifacts. I submit that much, if not most, of his force power was enhanced by these amulets.
And actually, I help my case. Kun only has one. Sadow had many. Kun performs impressive feats with only one, letting his lackey perform Sadow's feats without any, one of which that Kun could also have performed since he taught Aleema how to use the ship.
Does he wear the temples on his person? No? I didn't think so.
Read the entire quote, in context, before asking something ridiculous. His assertion was that one had to be sufficiently strong in the Force to create objects of any power. That's ludicrous, as Kun would have been ridiculously powerful to have created the temples on Yavin.
To nowhere near the scale. In fact, Sadow's illusions were quite literally a massive army in an of itself.
I suggest you read up a little bit on Aleema's illusions. She was able to create an entire herd of giant Space Grazers during the battle of Koros Major, which literally grappled the Republic fleet, including capital ships, and fought against them.
Nowhere near the scale? Nonsense.
It's the same argument again. Again you are claiming absence of proof. This is logical fallacy. I suggest you not use it again.
I've already shown yours to be logical fallacy, have fun with it.
Why's Vader's feat even mentioned? Vader was rolling in the dirt. Simus didn't even have LUNGS. And he still was respected enough to be a Sith Lord and he was still powerful enough to use the force. Not bad as an old head in a jar.
Because Vader's feat is performed without a whit of Sith training and even less experience as a force user in general. They're comparable feats when judged in that way.
Are you claiming they're made of balsa? I also believe it's stated in the Essential Guide as well. Glentract has the book, ask him. And if it is stated there, it is not contradicted, ergo canon.
I'm claiming they're made of non-lightsaber-resistant metal, not cortosis. Elaboration above.
Also, since when is having your feat duplicated indicate you suck? The point remains. Has KUN demonstrated a feat of such physical strength?
Kun managed to break through a staff that was more powerful than a lightsaber. That's rather impressive, and a feat of strength.
They have feats of great power. Their techniques allowed others to tap into great power. They have artifacts of great power and knew how to use them. They have great physical strength and immense force power. (All of this is practically lifted from GAotS).
Again, you've yet to provide me with specific evidence proving me wrong. All the things you just wrote can be said for Kun, or Nadd, or many others that came after.
We have more reason than not to believe they are godlike.
Such as? (How about some evidence from the comic that you claim will shut me up?)
And no, because if you said your clown is godlike when he isn't, it's sardonic, there is no reason, no real point, and no instance of being satirical when they brag about the Ancient Sith's power.
It is when the clown is a force user. I didn't mean it as satire.
"This man's a Dark Lord of the Sith with no equal in power. He moonlights as a children's entertainer. Meet Darth Bonzo."
How does this method work for characters like Kun, but they don't apply to someone like Yoda, whom you claim is weaker than Vodo?
Who said that new techniques weren't invented? Surely Vaapad was.
The problem with Jedi of the PT area is that they weren't inventing new ways to use the Force. They were stagnant, while the Sith were changing.
Continued:
The Jedi had a long period of prosperity, logic dictates they had opportunity to get stronger. The Sith were practically eradicated. Logic dictated they dropped off. If you want to argue AGAINST Logic, you must bring the proof. Burden of proof is on you.
What you write is in contrast to every civilization in history with long periods of prosperity. They continue unchallenged, become stagnant, and eventually die out or are eliminated by a new threat, which is exactly what happened to the Jedi. It is, in fact, you who are arguing against logic and history itself.
Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
Illustrious pretty much wasted you on everything, but I felt I should reinforce this one point since I am re-reading the Thrawn Trilogy currently and whatever, I'm just going to do it.The first GAotS Comic came out in July '96, while the Thrawn books came out in June '91. I'm sure glad you know your stuff.
I didn't see a specific statement saying that the blades were made of Cortosis.
So, IKC, because I couldn't find the direct quote, we'll assume they aren't made of Cortosis. The point remains, they could withstand repeated hits from [b]LIGHTSABER BLADES
!!! He crushed something that a lightsaber cannot destroy with his BARE HANDS!! Tell me, where has that feat EVER been replicated or even to a near degree. [/B]
That was the Thrawn trilogy, Glentract. The Hand of Thrawn series was a two-part series that begins with Specter of the Past (copyright 1997) and ends with Vision of the Future (copyright 1998). Cortosis makes its first appearance in Vision.
Good thing you know your stuff, isn't it? Wrong again. I ask again, aren't you tired of being wrong?
They cannot withstand hits from lightsabers, Glentract, because they had no lightsabers in the Sith Empire, and no contact with them for hundreds or thousands of years. That makes his feat much less impressive.
Originally posted by IKC
That was the Thrawn trilogy, Glentract. The Hand of Thrawn series was a two-part series that begins with Specter of the Past (copyright 1997) and ends with Vision of the Future (copyright 1998). Cortosis makes its first appearance in Vision.Good thing you know your stuff, isn't it? Wrong again. I ask again, aren't you tired of being wrong?
They cannot withstand hits from lightsabers, Glentract, because they had no lightsabers in the Sith Empire, and no contact with them for hundreds or thousands of years. That makes his feat much less impressive.
Oh god, I misread your post, it's the end of the world.
"Sith swords were weapons used by the Sith during the Sith Empire. Developed by the ancient Sith, it was adopted by the Dark Jedi when they arrived on Korriban. Sith swords were altered by Sith Alchemy to be harder and sharper. They were never dulled, could block blaster fire, and were even able to resist lightsabers."
They can resist lightsabers. Good thing you know your stuff, isn't it? Aren't you tired of being wrong?
Oh, so you're going to assume the positive then? Why then didn't Sadow blow up the sun of Coruscant when he was losing the battle?
When did I assume the positive? I said "Sadow's ship blew up the star, ergo Sadow couldn't. Hardly true. This is an unknown. Sadow very well could have the capacity, but the ship be more efficient."
"Well, Exar Kun could very well have the capacity to form and control a massive black hole in the center of the galaxy. zOMG JUST BECAUSE WE DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE PANELS DOESN'T MEAN HE CAN'T!"That's what I'd be saying if I denied logic. It's what you're saying in favor of the Ancient Sith.
No it isn't. Because the Ancient Sith are described as immensely powerful by the narrator. The burden of proof falls back on you since you're trying to contradict it. Learn that fact.
Nonsense. Sadow (and the rest of the Ancients) with his items is what is talked up by the narrator. You have no conclusive proof that Sadow is half as powerful without them.
Then it's the same with Kun, as he wasn't even able to get out from under Nadd's foot until he got a hold of an amulet.
What's your point? You have no conclusive point he's weak without his items.
Oh, really? So I can just say that your narrator quote "doesn't prove anything" and instantly win the argument, hm? I've challenged you to provide evidence to the contrary numerous times. You just get defensive and change the subject."zOMG JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE DESCRIBED AS GODLIKE DOESN'T MEAN NOBODY ELSE IS!"
Have fun with that.
Oh good, you can argue that absence of proof is proof of absence.
What else can you do? Jump through hoops?
Again, the quote I threw out was an example. Never do your quotes state that the Ancients were, in your words, "the baddest mofos of all time." Ergo, own up and prove that they were.
They were defined as "titanic" in comparison to the later Jedi. Where's your proof?
Provided that that is all we have of Kun, yes. He would certainly not be as powerful as we now rank him.
Again, absence of proof means proof of absence, which is again, completely false.
Quote it, and is he in his ship?
Yes, but that feat wasn't duplicated by Aleema, so it's not proven it was his ship. And secondly, even if it was his ship, it still doesn't show he is weak.
Cortosis didn't exist as part of the mythos at the time the comic was penned, making this irrelevant. Stop describing it as cortosis, because it wasn't.
It wasn't described as any metal. It was later filled in. How is that invalid? Later EU can fill in for earlier EU if it isn't contradictory. By that logic, the PT can't be canon since it fills in for canon established earlier.
Oh. Okay. So since the OT is about Vader and Luke Skywalker, can we say that OT Palpatine was out making Force Storms and teleporting people during ANH? "Waah, absence of proof isn't proof of absence, you can't prove he didn't! Nyah nyah! Simply because he didn't do it on screen and there's no evidence of him being able to do it doesn't mean he can't execute it!"Logical fallacy.
Now you're being daft. We see his lightning barely able to fry Luke, yet you're assuming he can make force storms.
And need I remind you Palpatine was never once described with anywhere near the grandiose language as the Ancient Sith.
You're the one with Logical Fallacy.
"If they aren't shown taking a shit, they clearly can't."
Incorrect. "Naga Sadow has powerful toys to enhance his power, and has displayed feats matched perfectly by a much weaker force user. Other Force users that had less powerful toys have been shown to perform greater feats. Ergo, Naga Sadow is probably less powerful than them." And the narrator talks Sadow up with his artifacts.
False. The narrator talks up the ENTIRE ANCIENT SITH of which only Sadow is shown with a bunch of toys.
Pick up the comics and read them. The trade paperback is pretty cheap and you can order it online.
And what 'greater' feats are you talking about? Freezing the Senate room of non-force users? Right.
Need I remind you how many senators there are? Do I have to use the words, "tens of thousands" over and over? To keep them frozen, use the Chancellor as a literal hand puppet, and then curbstomp the Grandmaster of the Jedi Order is damned impressive.
More semantics. Somehow doing what Kun did is impressive, but doing what Nadd did and conquering armies of Beast Riders or what Sadow did by creating armies out of illusions is not impressive.
Blowing up the star was a result of Sadow's ingenious invention. His ship was able to charge and channel the Force in that manner. The power did not come from the user. It proves that his single most impressive feat says precisely squat about his strength in the Force.
So the ship's power came from Sith Batteries? Unless you prove that Sadow didn't imbue sith powers into the ship or otherwise, you can't prove they didn't come from his person, at least originally.
Read the entire quote, in context, before asking something ridiculous. His assertion was that one had to be sufficiently strong in the Force to create objects of any power. That's ludicrous, as Kun would have been ridiculously powerful to have created the temples on Yavin.
You asked if Kun creating these temples made him more powerful than he was.
The simple answer is no, he's not exactly wearing them, now is he? And if you're nitpicking, you need to read my entire post, because you've failed to grasp at it.
Again, evidence? The narrator would be a strong source if what he said was corraborated in any way by the story. Like I said, I could repeatedly describe an off-duty clown as godlike. That doesn't make it true.
That's because there's a difference between sarcasm and narration. If you described your clown as godlike and you meant him as such, then he is. You will have to prove the narrator had no intention of meaning they were godlike through literary analysis.
Oh, really? Is that why I remember the last panel of The Fall of the Sith Empire showing Sadow with the very same amulet that Kun later wears prominently sitting on his hand and shoulder, among other baubles on his person? I can't even remember a single scan of Sadow without such artifacts. I submit that much, if not most, of his force power was enhanced by these amulets.
He was not depicted wearing them in the GAotS, and like you said, since it's the source, it's a higher level of canon.
And actually, I help my case. Kun only has one. Sadow had many. Kun performs impressive feats with only one, letting his lackey perform Sadow's feats without any, one of which that Kun could also have performed since he taught Aleema how to use the ship.
Not really. So suddenly Sadow has "many" when he isn't even depicted as wearing one. He sure wasn't wearing one while arguing with Kressh, who was his biggest rival.
I suggest you read up a little bit on Aleema's illusions. She was able to create an entire herd of giant Space Grazers during the battle of Koros Major, which literally grappled the Republic fleet, including capital ships, and fought against them.Nowhere near the scale? Nonsense.
And Sadow's army was up to 90% illusions. The other 10% were able to drive back the main Republic forces. Yes, I'll say it's not on the same scale.
I've already shown yours to be logical fallacy, have fun with it.
Really? Care to repoint it out? I believe I already took care of it. You're arguing against the source while proving a negative. Logical fallacy on you man.
I'm claiming they're made of non-lightsaber-resistant metal, not cortosis. Elaboration above.
non-lightsaber-resistant? Where does it show a lightsaber cutting through a sith sword?
Kun managed to break through a staff that was more powerful than a lightsaber. That's rather impressive, and a feat of strength.
With his bare hands?
Again, you've yet to provide me with specific evidence proving me wrong. All the things you just wrote can be said for Kun, or Nadd, or many others that came after.
By that logic, Nadd is more impressive because he conquered an entire warlike planet (of more persons than the Senate, btw).
Joruus is more impressive because he was literally able to control tens of thousands of individuals.
Your reasoning doesn't hold any water.
Such as? (How about some evidence from the comic that you claim will shut me up?)
You argue absence of proof is proof of absence, and you argue descriptive narrative holds no water.
Like I said, you would argue Yoda is blue if it helps Kun.
It is when the clown is a force user. I didn't mean it as satire."This man's a Dark Lord of the Sith with no equal in power. He moonlights as a children's entertainer. Meet Darth Bonzo."
If you have full creative license and you mean it seriously, then it is serious.
Simple as that.
Who said that new techniques weren't invented? Surely Vaapad was.The problem with Jedi of the PT area is that they weren't inventing new ways to use the Force. They were stagnant, while the Sith were changing.
Yet somehow this change from an "wealthy empire" to a rule of two indicates improvement? Substantiate.
What you write is in contrast to every civilization in history with long periods of prosperity. They continue unchallenged, become stagnant, and eventually die out or are eliminated by a new threat, which is exactly what happened to the Jedi. It is, in fact, you who are arguing against logic and history itself.
I argue against History?
I'm pretty sure the Romans didn't exactly develop anything for oh.... a thousand years after they were wiped off the MAP in 476.
Oh... I'm pretty sure the Macedonias splintered and never returned to power after Alexander died.
Oh... I'm pretty sure the Persian Empire never made a cultural or scientific revolution since Darius was pwned.
Oh... I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union stopped making Nukes after it COLLAPSED.
Contradicting history? Please.
Bottom line is this:
You have not been able to show with any level of certainty that the narrator is not being sincere, greatly exaggerating, or otherwise being dishonest with the audience. In fact, he seems to keep a relatively unbiased third party view of the entire situation.
Until you can prove the narrator is wrong, there is no reason for the readers to believe Sadow is not godlike, is not immense compared to later generations, and is not as powerful as he is described.
Your clown analogy is pointless, it doesn't add anything to your argument. If you genuinely mean for the clown to be godlike, and you have full creative license, that clown is godlike. In DC 1Million, The Joker inherited Mr. Mxy's power and was a threat to the universe, but it was done in earnest and there was no reason to doubt otherwise, same here.
So you're effectively telling me that your word as IKC holds more merit than the author of the comics.
Additionally, you have shown to defy first order logic because you do not deem it fit. Somehow, after the Sith Empire is fragmented, shattered, and pretty much disjointed, you claim that an individual scouring the remnants is both more immersed and more powerful than those same Sith titans; you back this up with the almighty power of IKC's opinion.
I'm sorry if I'm not convinced. In fact, I think I'll continue believing the author, just like I'll continue believing Yoda is green, Mace uses a purple lightsaber, and Anakin skywalker had the potential to be 10 times that of Sidious (as GL says).
You can continue to believe the sky is maroon, Yoda is blue, and Sadow is a weakling all you want. As far as I'm concerned, I'm done going around in circles with an individual who can't even substantiate their logic.