The "chosen one" didn't really bring balance to the force

Started by Eminence7 pages

Caedus probably could have been.

Originally posted by Eminence
Caedus probably could have been.

based on

Potential. He'd barely broken thirty and was already more powerful than Vader, who himself was 80% as powerful as the OT Emperor.

Originally posted by Eminence
Potential. He'd barely broken thirty and was already more powerful than Vader, who himself was 80% as powerful as the OT Emperor.

Which means what exactly? How do you know he won't peak at 95% of OT Emperor? And how does this have any relation to DE Sidious, who was more powerful than OT Sidious?

Not to mention Caedus was trained practically from birth, whereas Luke and Vader weren't. I'm not sure how potential plays into this since you can't really substantiate it.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Which means what exactly?
That at thirty one Caedus was already more than 80% as powerful as the OT Emperor.

How do you know he won't peak at 95% of OT Emperor?
That's highly unlikely. One, he was very, very young, a little over a third the age of the OT Emperor. Two, he'd declared himself a Sith, what, a year before his death? He'd hardly had any time to study or train in lore, especially considering he'd been managing part of a galactic war on the side.

And how does this have any relation to DE Sidious, who was more powerful than OT Sidious?
Point right there.

Like Caedus, Palpatine was [presumably] trained from a very young age. As of ROTS he'd been a Sith for at least sixty years, twice as long as Caedus had even been alive. And in the twenty two year gap between ROTS and ROTJ he grew notably more powerful through his studies. He did it again, in the six year gap between ROTJ and DE; he's been a Sith for a little under a century by that point.

So to reason that Caedus had neared his maximum potential when he was less than a third of "peak" Palpatine's age is more than a little ridiculous.

Originally posted by Eminence
That at thirty one Caedus was already more than 80% as powerful as the OT Emperor.

Except that you're using that assertion for this conclusion:
Caedus probably could have been.

Where potential is very hard to gauge.

That's highly unlikely. One, he was very, very young, a little over a third the age of the OT Emperor. Two, he'd declared himself a Sith, what, a year before his death? He'd hardly had any time to study or train in lore, especially considering he'd been managing part of a galactic war on the side.

He's also had the luxury of learning random esoteric techniques on his 5 year sabbatical. There's no indication that he was on track to learn nearly as much as the Emperor in terms of force knowledge, and dark side knowledge. So while it's possible he COULD have been more powerful than Sidious, there's no conclusive argument for it.

Like Caedus, Palpatine was [presumably] trained from a very young age. As of ROTS he'd been a Sith for at least sixty years, twice as long as Caedus had even been alive. And in the twenty two year gap between ROTS and ROTJ he grew notably more powerful through his studies. He did it again, in the six year gap between ROTJ and DE; he's been a Sith for a little under a century by that point.

So to reason that Caedus had neared his maximum potential when he was less than a third of "peak" Palpatine's age is more than a little ridiculous.


To reason that Caedus COULD have been more powerful than Sidious is a stretch.
Lebron James is better at 24 than Michael Jordan was at 24. Does that mean he's goin to be better than Michael Jordan when his career is over?

It is reasonable to assume that Caedus, under proper circumstances, could have become more powerful than Palpatine.

But that strongly depends on the quality of that which he is studying.

DS
So while it's possible he COULD have been more powerful than Sidious [...]
Eminence
Caedus probably could have been [more powerful than Sidious].
Are you just arguing for the hell of it?

Originally posted by Eminence
That at thirty one Caedus was already more than 80% as powerful as the OT Emperor.

That was what your conclusion was based on.

It's a reason conclusion or assumption to go on. Skywalkers have a tendency to learn faster than average Jedi/Sith...

Anakin was barely on par with Obi-Wan in RotS, Luke was barely on par with Vader (perhaps not as much as Anakin to Obi-Wan) in RotJ. I'm not very knowledgeable with Skywalkers before Cade and after Luke, but Cade was better than 2 jedi knight level sith and barely parred on level with a weak and dying Krayt, with very little training and a huge gap between training and picking up the saber again...

i don't see why, with the right amount of time and training, Caedus couldn't have been as if not more powerful than Sidious

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
That was what your conclusion was based on.

Internal flap of Invincible
It’s a plan that will be as difficult and dangerous to execute as it is daring. For Caedus is a scion of both the Skywalker and Solo bloodlines whose command of the Force surpasses even that of his grandfather Darth Vader.

Originally posted by CadoAngelus Anakin was barely on par with Obi-Wan in RotS, Luke was barely on par with Vader (perhaps not as much as Anakin to Obi-Wan) in RotJ.

Anakin was more than "barely on par with Obiwan in ROTS," there duel was a virtual stalemate till he made an arrogant decision, plus you have to take into account what they have done vs other high caliber opponents. (though im no CW era expert)

And Luke was not on par with Vader at all. In a the "Courtship of Princess Leia," while being hit by FL from a force witch Luke says something along the lines of "so this is what it would have been like if Vader had tried to kill him...." Luke originally got the advantage on Vader (knocking him down the stairs) by using his anger, and the fact that Vader had no reason to go all out. Then he used even more aggression(dark side) the second time he attacked Vader. Luke in a normal state would not do nowhere near as well vs Vader.

that's another trait skywalkers are renowned for, using the dark side momentarily to aid in sticky situations

Back to topic or thread ic closed, folks. Question has more or less been answered anyway; imbalance = Sith, destroying Sith brought Balance.

You mean palpatine=imbalance?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You mean palpatine=imbalance?

Both.

The Sith, specifically Palpatine, were causing the Force to be out of balance.

too many of one thing makes something imbalanced. it would have been the jedi that were imbalancing the force. anakin simply thinned their numbers in order to bring some sort of balance.

then in turn, luke "destroys" the sith, and rebuilds the jedi order...

That's not it at all.

is there any visible evidence that this isn't a reasonable assumption to go on? it makes sense, does it not?

surely, given the amount of assumptions in the SW universe due to lack of continuity or many loose ends, people aren't just arguing personal opinion over logical conclusion...

Originally posted by CadoAngelus
is there any visible evidence that this isn't a reasonable assumption to go on? it makes sense, does it not?

surely, given the amount of assumptions in the SW universe due to lack of continuity or many loose ends, people aren't just arguing personal opinion over logical conclusion...

Every single source that mentions the prophecy of the Chosen One, including George Lucas himself, has made it abundantly clear: to balance the Force, you must destroy the Sith Order (specifically Palpatine). They are the cause of the imbalance.

Wasn't the sith order destroyed around 3500 BBY? Or rather, after the Exile? I'm using 3500 BBY because of the new SW game.