Project Holocron

Originally posted by Enyalus

...What? I hope you have proof of all of that, because I completely disagree. Palpatine took Maul as an apprentice even before he killed Darth Plagueis. And his reason for killing Plagueis is because he learned of Plagueis' experiments of trying to create life through the Force, assuming he wanted to replace Sidious with the aforementioned creation.

Sidious wasn't even aware that Plagueis' project succeeded (assuming that it is), and didn't know of Anakin's existence until The Phantom Menace. So, from everything we know about the Rule of Two, yes, Maul was Sidious' apprentice for keeps.

Also, this whole A>B>C logic regarding Bane's Order and assuming he's the weakest in it is plain incorrect. He intended that when the master taught the apprentice everything he knew, the apprentice would kill him/her and choose an apprentice of his own. This could be done through stealth, secrecy (both of which are skills Bane valued highly), or the fact that the apprentice would surpass the master in power. Not necessarily always the latter. Moreover, the apprentice could specialize in one area and surpass their master in only that particular area. Bane tells Zannah that she excels naturally in the area of Sith Sorcery, which Bane himself has no affinity for. That does not mean that fully trained, she would be superior to him in Force Lightning, Force Choke, lightsaber skills, et cetera.

That entire line of speculation involving Bane's Order and him being the weakest in it needs to be scrapped. It's extremely flawed. [/B]

While I'm not denying the Sith were big on treachery and deception, sheer logic would dictate they'd at least make sure they had a leg up on the Master in power, ability and knowledge before doing away with them. An unprepared apprentice is going to get themselves killed if they make even the smallest mistake. In Bane's order, cleverness and power went hand in hand

Originally posted by Gideon
Taming is synonymous with "mastering", Enyalus. Which is what we've been trying to point out to you all along.

Generally, I would agree. However, "mastered the Dark Side" is extremely vague. Why? Because, as already pointed out, the Dark Side energies he was using were actually decaying his body and killing (or crippling) him faster. If you've tamed something fully, it doesn't harm you. At all. The statement referring to him "taming the Dark Side" is therefore hyperbole, because it's directly contradicted by the evidence. If it had said, "Sidious had tamed/mastered every Dark Side technique," that wouldn't be hyperbole. Although, it would be totally false, given the fact that he cannot manipulate midi-chlorians at all, such as Darth Plagueis could (which Palpatine specifically tells Anakin is unnatural and of the Dark Side).

Originally posted by Gideon
"In self-exile for a thousand years, the Sith had not merely been waiting for an appopriate time to reemerge and exact revenge, but for the birth of one strong enough to embrace the dark side fully and become its dedicated instrument. This was Sidious: powerful enough to hide in plain sight. Powerful enough to instruct his apprentice, Dooku, to expose him, and still remain hidden from the Jedi."

-- Labyrinth of Evil, page 252.

So, erm... wrong?

No, not quite. After stating he was able to "embrace the dark side fully," he says he is powerful enough to [yadayadayada]. It doesn't give any indication that he is the most powerful or most able to do all of those things the best. So again, it is hyperbole.

Originally posted by Gideon
Palpatine didn't take on more than one Sith apprentice, Enyalus. The rest were dark side adepts. They don't count as a breach of the Rule of Two. For the record? Bane, Revan, Andeddu... accomplished nothing next to Palpatine. He's definitely the highest point of Sith history.

I covered myself this time. I said 'trounced.' Sort of...spat in the face of. But anyhow, "taking on more than one apprentice" isn't the only way to break the Rule of Two. He took Maul as his secret apprentice while his master, Darth Plagueis was still living. That's a breech. And he was aware and enthusiastic about Darth Vader, his apprentice, taking on his own apprentice. That's also a breech. The rest, dark side adepts, Emperors Hands and the like, are really just technicalities. You and I both know this.

And yes, I know Palpatine's reign was certainly a high point in Sith history. But that doesn't take away the fact that one of the founders of the original Sith Order (Andeddu) held the Rule of Two to be the Sith way, and the very founder of Palpatine's dynasty, Darth Bane, did as well. Other prominent Sith Lords such as Revan and Nihilus held this to be the best way of Sith philosophy and teaching, too. So again, saying that Palpatine was the epitome of Sith philosophy is hyperbole (and incorrect).

Originally posted by Gideon
And, uh, where did I accuse Nebaris of hyperbole? All I recall was him using that expression: it's one of his favorites.

Naw, I realized that Lightsnake accused Taven of hyperbole, but you didn't correct it, used the same hyperbole statement that Lightsnake did (taming the Dark Side), and added more to it. My mistake for making it sound like I was lumping you together.

For the record, there are plenty of other statements regarding Palpatine being the most powerful Sith Lord ever, that aren't hyperbole. And that I recognize to be true. So...this wasn't some anti-Sidious pro Bane rant. 😉

Also, I'll try to get my Vader analysis in late tonight or tomorrow. Might re-read Jedi Eclipse.

Originally posted by LS
You forget, though, Palpatine might very well have had prior apprentices before Maul and had no issue forcing Maul through life or death situations that far exceed the usual peril Sith apprentices are put in. Maul was raised as a weapon and nothing indicates that Palpatine intended Maul to unseat him eventually...he raised Maul to be absolutely loyal...heck, Maul almost worshiped him.

Bane also put Zannah into life and death situations. It's simple. If they were killed, they weren't worthy of the knowledge the master was going to pass along. And Bane did a lot of this to Zannah when she was only ten (poor girl). Moreover, Palpatine's final test for Maul was to make him angry enough to want to kill his master, which Maul passes after being beaten by Palpatine in a duel and casually telling him that he had a new apprentice he was training and that Maul was no longer needed. So by all accounts, Palpatine was teaching Maul the Sith tradition of the apprentice slaying the Master. He would not have if he wasn't planning on some day being betrayed by him.

Originally posted by LS
Since as far as we know, Zannah surpasses and kills Bane...

But we don't know that. Not at all. Bane could have died of natural causes, or a forest fire, or a spaceship crash, or any other number of things.

Originally posted by Enyalus

Bane also put Zannah into life and death situations. It's simple. If they were killed, they weren't worthy of the knowledge the master was going to pass along. And Bane did a lot of this to Zannah when she was only ten (poor girl). Moreover, Palpatine's final test for Maul was to make him angry enough to want to kill his master, which Maul passes after being beaten by Palpatine in a duel and casually telling him that he had a new apprentice he was training and that Maul was no longer needed. So by all accounts, Palpatine was teaching Maul the Sith tradition of the apprentice slaying the Master. He would not have if he wasn't planning on some day being betrayed by him.

But we don't know that. Not at all. Bane could have died of natural causes, or a forest fire, or a spaceship crash, or any other number of things.

Originally posted by Faunus
Agreed. Regardless of Bane's intentions, it's fairly clear that the chosen apprentices did not increase in potential every generation, although they were most likely all chosen on account of either a stand-out affinity for the Force or a natural inclination for the dark side.

Fairly clear? How so? Bane intended it to be, and Sidious is the exception in that he never intended to be replaced. Maul was raised from birth so as to eliminate the ambition and desire to slay his master. It was a success. Dooku was merely a tool to replace Maul and to facilitate his engineering of the war. Only with Anakin was Sidious willing to locate an apprentice worthy of the mantle and to perpetuate the legacy. That is, until Sidious learned to transfer his essence via the Force. Once he could overcome death, he no longer faced the inexorable dilemma of being replaced.

Hell, even Plagueis was concerned about getting a megauberpowerful apprentice, hence why he intended to Palpatine with a guy born from the Force itself.

Originally posted by LS
And Maul didn't 'beat' Palpatine mocked him, saying he'd taken another Apprentice, and a furious Maul assaulted him. Palpatine won the fight and Maul defiantly bit his hand and spat the blood at him....at no point was Palpatine at Maul's mercy

Originally posted by Me, beforehand
which Maul passes after being beaten by Palpatine in a duel

I think you misread what I said, lol. I know Palpatine beat Maul and was never at his mercy.

Originally posted by Enyalus
Generally, I would agree. However, "mastered the Dark Side" is extremely vague. Why? Because, as already pointed out, the Dark Side energies he was using were actually decaying his body and killing (or crippling) him faster. If you've tamed something fully, it doesn't harm you. At all. The statement referring to him "taming the Dark Side" is therefore hyperbole, because it's directly contradicted by the evidence. If it had said, "Sidious had tamed/mastered every Dark Side technique," that wouldn't be hyperbole. Although, it would be totally false, given the fact that he cannot manipulate midi-chlorians at all, such as Darth Plagueis could (which Palpatine specifically tells Anakin is unnatural and of the Dark Side).

"Mastered the dark side" is not vague, nor are you allowed to dismiss it because it doesn't list every damn technique or power. And no one said he "tamed the dark side fully", but that he "succeeded where all others failed in taming the dark side" -- surpassing the efforts of any other Sith before him in mastering it.

Am I to assume that the statement of Marka Ragnos being "the most powerful of the most powerful" is also hyperbole? I don't tolerate double standards. Stick to one or none at all.

No, not quite. After stating he was able to "embrace the dark side fully," he says he is powerful enough to [yadayadayada]. It doesn't give any indication that he is the most powerful or most able to do all of those things the best. So again, it is hyperbole.

Incorrect. It said that the Sith had been waiting for someone to embrace the dark side fully. Quite simply, that means no other Sith embraced the dark side fully. Because if they had, they wouldn't have had to wait for Palpatine. They equate "embracing the dark side fully" to power. Simply pasting HYPERBOLE after these statements doesn't make it so. You'll need far more substance.

I covered myself this time. I said 'trounced.' Sort of...spat in the face of. But anyhow, "taking on more than one apprentice" isn't the only way to break the Rule of Two. He took Maul as his secret apprentice while his master, Darth Plagueis was still living. That's a breech. And he was aware and enthusiastic about Darth Vader, his apprentice, taking on his own apprentice. That's also a breech. The rest, dark side adepts, Emperors Hands and the like, are really just technicalities. You and I both know this.

Wrong. With Maul, you have a point. Though he corrected this by killing his master and then formally gave him the title of apprentice. Secondly, Vader's "secret apprentice" is no different from the Emperor's Hands or dark side adepts. You have to be legitimately claimed by the reigning Dark Lord to be considered a Sith Apprentice. In order for that to happen, the current one must die. The Rule of Two was only "breached" when Darth Krayt "abolished" it. None of them were trained as formal Sith apprentices. Perhaps some of them were intended to be, but it never happened.

I agree with Enyalus and Faunus in regards to the order getting more power generation after generation. In the ideal situation the apprentice becomes more powerful and slays his master. Sidious an exception for 2 reasons, one. he never intended for Maul to succeed him as he notes in "Jedi vs Sith" that "it was never Maul's destiny to burn the jedi temple" or something similar to this, Sidious even foresaw Maul's death and didn't warn him. Two Sidious kills Plagueis in his sleep not in a fair fight like Bane intended for. Then what aret he odds that of an apprentice killing the master on "any given sunday" in the hundreds of years prior to Sidious.

Actually Sidious is an exception for a third reason because he willingly withheld techniques from his apprentice's and I somehow doubt he was the only one to do so. Plus what should happen if the master killed the apprentice in self diffence and was forced to take a weaker apprentice? Then what should happen if the master dies from someone else other then apprentice and the apprentice must become the dark lord prematurely?(take not of Bane vs the assassins and his dialog with Zannah of him being unfit to rule if he should have died vs them) It's all speculation but there is a huge gap between Bane's time and Sidious's so anything could happen.

Originally posted by Elite Hunter
I agree with Enyalus and Faunus in regards to the order getting more power generation after generation. In the ideal situation the apprentice becomes more powerful and slays his master. Sidious an exception for 2 reasons, one. he never intended for Maul to succeed him as he notes in "Jedi vs Sith" that "it was never Maul's destiny to burn the jedi temple" or something similar to this, Sidious even foresaw Maul's death and didn't warn him.

Erm, Elite? You label Sidious as the "exception" and yet, throughout the remaining post, treat him as the rule. You can't have both.

Two Sidious kills Plagueis in his sleep not in a fair fight like Bane intended for. Then what aret he odds that of an apprentice killing the master on "any given sunday" in the hundreds of years prior to Sidious.

I'm not certain what you mean. According to the official databank, Palpatine killed Plagueis upon "achieving the power and skill to do so." That he killed him in his sleep merely comports with the Emperor's behavior: he doesn't like to take risks unless necessary.

Actually Sidious is an exception for a third reason because he willingly withheld techniques from his apprentice's and I somehow doubt he was the only one to do so.

Palpatine willingly held back techniques from his apprentices because he never planned to be replaced by any of them. Maul, Dooku, and Vader were all disposable tools. Can you prove that the other Sith masters acted similarly? Only Sidious, throughout the whole of the saga, displays the narcissism and selfishness seen and even he, initially, intended for Vader to replace him. Bane, Revan, Wyyrlock. All intended to be replaced.

I'm willing to say that there's not enough to prove it, but there certainly isn't enough to refute the idea, either.

on the topic of the rule of 2, as it's been stated it's hard to say that Bane for sure would have been the weakest of the order, we have to take into account that he was known for having a particularly strong connection to the force, among the highest of his time. and it also seems unlikely that, as the sith had to operate in complete secrecy, they would be able to grab the best of the best every time while there were still jedi flying back and forth through the galaxy.

However I do believe it's safe to say that the knowledge, dark side techniques and such, could only grow as each successive master added to it either through their own studies or through the discovery of ancient sith artifacts.

So even if there was more than a single case of an apprentice killing his master in secrecy rather than in a straight up fight, they would not have done so until they had learned all they needed to, so the next in line would not have suffered for it.

Originally posted by Enyalus

I think you misread what I said, lol. I know Palpatine beat Maul and was never at his mercy. [/B]

Originally posted by Gideon
Am I to assume that the statement of Marka Ragnos being "the most powerful of the most powerful" is also hyperbole? I don't tolerate double standards. Stick to one or none at all.

Not at all. I consider "most powerful of the powerful" rather clear cut and not up for much debate. Ditto with the quotes of Palpatine regarding him as being "the most powerful Sith Lord in history." Those are obvious and precise fairly. The ones that were quoted, though, are not the case. It's flowery and ambiguous language.

And...Jesus H. Christ. I really used the wrong word. Breach. Gah, I'm retiring. Lol.

I have to make this fast.

Originally posted by Gideon
Erm, Elite? You label Sidious as the "exception" and yet, throughout the remaining post, treat him as the rule. You can't have both.

Fair enough, another exception can be said about Vader since he needed help if he wanted someone to help him(Starkiller and Luke) take down Sidious because he wasn't strong enough to do so, so if they(vader and his apprentice combined) should have succeeded then the order would have had a weaker master.

Darth Millenial left his master(Darth Cognus) to form the Prophets of the Darkside, Cognus originally chose Milleniall as her successor well she may not have found a stronger apprentice.

I'm not certain what you mean. According to the official databank, Palpatine killed Plagueis upon "achieving the power and skill to do so." That he killed him in his sleep merely comports with the Emperor's behavior: he doesn't like to take risks unless necessary.

It is part of Sidious's mindset not to take unnecessary risks, so he killed his master in way that any other apprentice could have. The sith lie,crave power, and would do anything to achieve their goals. Do you think that Sidious was the only apprentice in history who would try to kill his master by having an unfair advantage that doesn't necessarily mean the strongest will survive?

Palpatine willingly held back techniques from his apprentices because he never planned to be replaced by any of them. Maul, Dooku, and Vader were all disposable tools. Can you prove that the other Sith masters acted similarly? Only Sidious, throughout the whole of the saga, displays the narcissism and selfishness seen and even he, initially, intended for Vader to replace him. Bane, Revan, Wyyrlock. All intended to be replaced.

I'm willing to say that there's not enough to prove it, but there certainly isn't enough to refute the idea, either.

I agree with this, aren't we suppose to be talking about Vader? I'll respond later tonight.

Ok enough with sidious please, on to vader. He just seems so underrated sometimes.

Originally posted by truejedi
actually, its a safe assumption considering he failed repeatedly before he recieved further instruction in creating them.

1. Even if it is a safe assumption (it's not), stating your assumptions as facts is also what would qualify as "stupid."

2. That he failed repeatedly had nothing to do with how well the crystalline strands were fitted into the matrix, but the fact that he hadn't been trapping the cognitive network within the capstone before he had started making them. There's no relation between the two points whatsoever, I don't even know what you're trying to argue here.

instruction he recieved from another sith, who had also made one.

Instructions having nothing to do with how precise his adjustments had been, yes. Your point?

He was using someone elses template, that's pretty obvious.

I don't remember denying as much. The point being, that following the same procedure in creating a holocron as someone before him doesn't mean that he can't take further measures to make absolutely sure that it works as smoothly as possible. That he followed someone's instructions doesn't mean that every single action he took had to have come from those instructions.

Again, your argument is stupid. Bane only ever made the subatomic alterations to ensure that the crystalline strands fitted in properly; that in no way serves as indication that such a practise was common holocron making, and as it stands, Bane is the only one that can be said to possess such a level of control. Nobody else can even be said to come close.

Originally posted by Taven

1. Even if it is a safe assumption (it's not), stating your assumptions as facts is also what would qualify as "stupid."

[QUOTE=11047309]Originally posted by Taven

I don't remember denying as much. The point being, that following the same procedure in creating a holocron as someone before him doesn't mean that he can't take further measures to make absolutely sure that it works as smoothly as possible. That he followed someone's instructions doesn't mean that every single action he took had to have come from those instructions.

Again, your argument is stupid. Bane only ever made the subatomic alterations to ensure that the crystalline strands fitted in properly; that in no way serves as indication that such a practise was common holocron making, and as it stands, Bane is the only one that can be said to possess such a level of control. Nobody else can even be said to come close. [/B]

It seems to me that you're making some pretty big assumption yourself here. What do you have to back up that only Bane made subatomic adjustments, it seems that if such adjustments are necessary then anyone who made a holocron would have to know how to do that, unless you have an alternative theory as to how they got everything to fit.

As someone who so often evokes occam's razor, than you should make as few assumption as possible, thus if we know Bane was following a template, and he had to use the force to make the strands fit, then logically so did anyone else who made a holocron.

Originally posted by Taven

1. Even if it is a safe assumption (it's not), stating your assumptions as facts is also what would qualify as "stupid."

2. That he failed repeatedly had nothing to do with how well the crystalline strands were fitted into the matrix, but the fact that he hadn't been trapping the cognitive network within the capstone before he had started making them. There's no relation between the two points whatsoever, I don't even know what you're trying to argue here.

Instructions having nothing to do with how precise his adjustments had been, yes. Your point?

I don't remember denying as much. The point being, that following the same procedure in creating a holocron as someone before him doesn't mean that he can't take further measures to make absolutely sure that it works as smoothly as possible.

That he followed someone's instructions doesn't mean that every single action he took had to have come from those instructions.

Again, your argument is stupid. Bane only ever made the subatomic alterations to ensure that the crystalline strands fitted in properly; that in no way serves as indication that such a practise was common holocron making,

and as it stands, Bane is the only one that can be said to possess such a level of control. Nobody else can even be said to come close. [/B]

The bias you're attempting to argue from is ludicrous

Could I offer you a cup of VADER, PLEASE?! 😐

Originally posted by Taven

1. Even if it is a safe assumption (it's not), stating your assumptions as facts is also what would qualify as "stupid."

2. That he failed repeatedly had nothing to do with how well the crystalline strands were fitted into the matrix, but the fact that he hadn't been trapping the cognitive network within the capstone before he had started making them. There's no relation between the two points whatsoever, I don't even know what you're trying to argue here.

Instructions having nothing to do with how precise his adjustments had been, yes. Your point?

I don't remember denying as much. The point being, that following the same procedure in creating a holocron as someone before him doesn't mean that he can't take further measures to make absolutely sure that it works as smoothly as possible. That he followed someone's instructions doesn't mean that every single action he took had to have come from those instructions.

Again, your argument is stupid. Bane only ever made the subatomic alterations to ensure that the crystalline strands fitted in properly; that in no way serves as indication that such a practise was common holocron making, and as it stands, Bane is the only one that can be said to possess such a level of control. Nobody else can even be said to come close. [/B]

OMG... just... OMG.... words do not describe... 😛 i'm not even going to reply to that idiocy. Lightsnake's answer will suffice, thanks LS.

in response to vader, i'm not really sure where to start. I would make the argument that ROTJ vader is maybe stronger than ROTJ sidious, or at least more aware, because he beat sidious without a hand, and without a lightsaber.... He also had the ability to hide his feelings from sidious about overthrowing him for over 20 years. The second controversial thing i'll say is perhaps vader DID NOT want to overthrow the emperor as much as he claimed he did. He never did make the attempt, and given several chances, he did not make the attempt with marek. (there is an interesting Vs. thread btw, Marek and vader vs. sidious (all TFU) In fact, in ROTS novelization, it states that vader DID NOT WANT to kill sidious, because he was all he had left. So him hating sidious for 20 years is not as cut and dried as we often assume.
How limited was vader by the armor? 80% of sidious was the number given by lucas. How powerful would he have become without Obi Wan's intervention?
Finally: let's say vader kills obi-wan, instead of being injured, how is the story changed? we assume he gets Padme back to medical droids. She either has the babies with them, and then dies, or has them and lives. How does this affect the history of the galaxy (and which is it? would she live or die? )
All those questions must be looked at to answer how much the death and loss of padme CHANGED vader. Vader thought he was doing the right thing in ROTS. He was ending the war, (he thought) because the jedi were traitors(he thought) besides the death of the Jedi order, if a healthy vader had killed sids with padme supporting him, How would the rule of the galaxy have been different than the galactic empire?

Okay, that's enough hypotheticals for now, but i think they are legitimate questions in figuring out exactly who vader was. (in order to answer the question, was there really any good left inside of him?)

also: for another day: how significant is it that NJO jedi go the darkside and come back all the time, while vader was the FIRST jedi in history (other than revan) to return to the light from the dark. Is the way the NJO is ran more conducive to vader? would he ever have fallen to the darkness if he had served in that order instead?