Originally posted by Brako Cott
Or, and as it would seem is more likely upon further examination of the quote, the statement was made not with prior knowledge of then as of yet unknown material, but the prior assumption of what the then as of yet unknown material could potentially entail with possibly a later retroactive establishment of the character in light of more up to date information in mind.
Or, and this is the most reasonable explanation, the writer did want to give the game master a carte blanche regarding Sidious abilities, hence putting the sentence in the (not canon) stat section of the entry about Sidious, instead of making it part of the narrative about the character of the Sith Lord...
[...]I find your interpretation of it as a detail regarding gameplay mechanics and not storyline dubious at best.
It is a part of the gameplay mechanics, which can be seen on the picture I have provided. So this isn't my "interpretation" but merely the way the source presents this quote to us - as an addendum to Sidious "Force Alter" stat.
Regarding RPG sourcebooks, you have yet to definitively establish that they are marketed entirely towards people who plan to use it solely as part of the game, and you have yet to explain how a significant, prevalent interactive element to the sourcebook prevents it from establishing canon fact in areas where no interactive element is present, such as with the aforementioned quote.
I've never proclaimed, that they are marketed entirely towards people playing the RPG. I've proclaimed that the target group are those people who do - otherwise introducing game stats for the protagonists would be rather senseless, correct?
Of course, sourcebooks can flesh out the stuff presented in the original sources in form of adding detail. They can't change the original source material. And retroactively equipping Sidious with a plethora of abilities, that would have come in handy in order to survive the DE storyline, doesn't make much sense. Neither does applying the blank statement to the force abilities in terms of discussions. Otherwise, we would need to do the same with Freedon Nadd and - by extension - the likes of Sadow, Ragnos, Kun, Simus, Vitiate.
Originally posted by ChainOfLove
I would agree, except that I disagree that the quote concerning Palpatine’s mastery of the Force is somehow invalid.
It is content of the N-Canon game stats within a sourcebook, put there as reference to a likewise N-Canon game stat. So there is, actually, not much to argue here, unlike you want to introduce RPG stats as canon material, under which circumstances we can decide discussions here with dices.
That said, I adamantly oppose the idea that canon quotes are to be disregarded solely because some believe that there is an expiration date to their validity. This isn’t milk, folks—though I would be hard pressed to deny the fact that there are moments where the reading or providing of a canon quote in one’s arguments is as wholesome and refreshing as a glass of milk before bed.
This is one of the most hilarious rhetorical stunts I've seen so far. No, quotes don't have expiration dates to their validity. However: SW authors, no matter how much you like them, can't see the future development of the franchise. Thus, they are incapable of writing stuff that is valid to eternity. If a quote written in time of the "Dark Empire" comics lists Sidious as most powerful Sith in history, it doesn't necessarily have to be accurate any longer, once another Sith Lord is introduced. This is logic and not some sort of arbitrariness, which you seem to imply.
I also love your attempt to defend the practice to simple put quotes in an argument without second thought. "Oh. There is a quote. This argument must be valid." I could ship in tons of sources denying that the Holocaust has happened. Fortunately, rhetorics don't overwrite hard facts and I'm on the winning side here. 🙂
A case could be made that the quote is invalid because of chronological concerns if there is more recent material to contradict it. But if such material exists, it has not been presented here.
Apparently, you're either blind or unwilling to accept facts.
I've demonstrated already, why the quote is invalid in general (because of being listed in the N-Canon part of the sourcebook). Then I've demonstrated that, even accepting it as part of the canon (which it isn't), it does just represents speculation regarding Sidious knowledge. The fact that its writer couldn't foresee the plethora of new force abilities popping up, with some being definitely inaccesible for Sidious, is just the icing on the cake.
Darth Sidious’s search for Force knowledge has been, as has already been said by my esteemed colleague and potential rival Mr. Cott, documented and detailed to be greater than any extant character.
I must have missed the source, that directly compares Sidious search for Force knowledge or his knowledge base, to that of other characters in the mythos. We have more details regarding his knowledge (and his means of archiving it), than for any other SW character (save for Luke maybe), but that doesn't mean his knowledge exceeds that of everyone else. I've even presented, how the "Tales of the Jedi Companion" sourcebook introduces a carte blanche for Freedon Nadd, when it comes to the knowledge of force abilities - pretty much overwriting the speculation handed in here for Sidious.
Disclaimer: I, of course, view both quotes (the one regarding Sidious and the one regarding Nadd) as not canon (for the same reason). But taking one of them and ignore the other - Gideon style - is just the usual application of double-standards in favor for the own oppinion.
A spectrum of sources [...] mention in passing or in detail that Palpatine thoroughly collected a vast wealth of Force knowledge and voraciously sought it.
Does one of those sources proclaim that he had access to most, if not all force abilities known and invented new ones at will? Does one of those sources state, that Sidious is the most knowledgeable force user in the mythos? If not, those are pretty much entirely irrelevant.
The resources with which he had to gather these sources is similarly unprecedented;
In short: Wrong.
The fact, that he had to gather the remains of previously existant knowledge instead of accessing that knowledge directly, marks the difference between Sidious and the Ancient Sith. The Ancient Sith had libraries filled with their knowledge and countless artifacts, both - by Sidious own words in "The Essential Guide through the Force" - destroyed by the Jedi and lost forever. So the Ancient Sith had knowledge that vanished from the Galaxy when their species was wiped out, giving them knowledge that Palpatine never had any access to.
Hence I would be careful with proclaiming, that Sidious knowledge exceeds that of everyone else, mainly because we don't know what knowledge "everyone else" had. Even using common sense, it appears to be a rather huge stretch - at least to me - to assume that the Sith Emperor, living for more than a millenium and having access to that "lost" knowledge, should be less knowledgeable in terms of the Dark Side than Sidious. The same could be said about Exar Kun, Nadd (who had access to the "lost" knowledge) and the Ancient Sith (who besides having access to it, had centuries to study it).
Contextually, we know that Palpatine is presented as the out-of-universe authority on the dark side.
The next time an individual lists a SW character as "out of universe", I will personally declare him "idiot of the year". SW characters don't exists outside their universe and - as a consequence - can't serve as "out of universe" authorities on anything - especially not on stuff also just existing within their universe (the Dark Side). I can't believe, that I have to explain that to anybody capable of putting clothes on alone.
Critics often claim that this is solely because of his high-profile role in the mythos; but I can name at least one other Sith whose fame decidedly outstrips Palpatine’s own: Vader. And yet it is not Vader who is presented as the avatar of the dark side in The Jedi Path, nor The Book of Sith, nor even The Essential Guide to the Force—for some bizarre reason that clearly is not limited to out-of-universe fame, the authorities at Del Rey and LucasFilm selected Palpatine to give voice to the Sith perspective in essentially all of the major volumes related to the Force.If Borbarad exhorts us to consider out-of-universe chronological factors before assessing a canonical statement’s validity, then I urge him to consider that. Why Palpatine, if not other popular Sith Lords like Darth Revan, Darth Bane, or Exar Kun? Why Palpatine, if not Darth Vader himself?
Sidious is Vader's master. Vader is redeemed. It doesn't make any sense to introduce Vader as a spokesmen for the Dark Side, mainly because he doesn't belong to the Dark Side. But I suppose one could easily miss that little detail, given that it's the damn core of the entire saga. 🙄
And the other Sith aren't half as popular as Sidious. All people that have watched the movies know Sidious and Vader. Even Revan, the protagonist in one of the best selling SW games, is just known to a fraction of people that are familiar with the two movie Sith.
Where we all three reach a consensus is the claim that the quote from The Dark Empire Sourcebook is not in and of itself a proper reason to accept Palpatine’s superiority in the realm of Force knowledge, if only because of the obvious qualifier: “It is believed.”
Nope. It's because it doesn't belong to the canon contents of the sourcebook. 🙂
But could not the same thing be said here? I think so. All the immediate facts—the breadth of Palpatine’s knowledge base, his appetite for mastery—support this, as well as his out-of-universe position as the spokesman of the dark side; there is nothing that apparently contradicts the idea that Palpatine’s mastery was unparalleled; and the writer could be said to communicate vital information to the audience. As far as I know and as far as, at least, Wookieepedia’s page on the LucasFilm canon policy is concerned, information provided in the sourcebooks is perfectly canon (with the obvious exception of statistics).
The quote is part of the statistics and just placed their to explain one single stat. Fact. This renders the quote not canon by the take on canon published by Leland Chee on "The Holocron":
"Games and RPG sourcebooks are a special case; the stories and general background information are themselves fully C-canon, but the other elements such as character/item statistics and gameplay are, with few exceptions, N-canon." - Leland Chee, The Holocron, 2000.
Emphasis mine.
I am not advocating blind acceptance of that particular quote; but I see nothing that invalidates it by virtue of chronology or context.
With the exception of the fact, that it belongs to the n-canon stat part of the sourcebook? 🙂
Chronology and context don't "invalidate" the quote. They merely put it into the right perspective: a speculation, with "all power known" mentioned in it, being those known in 1993. 😉 The quote is invalidated by the fact, that it's part of the (n-canon) stat part of the sourcebook, just put there to explain one single (n-canon) game stat.
Allow me to begin by saying that your apparent ill-temper stimulates my genitalia in ways only matched by the suave and sophisticated Dr. McBeefington; I'm a staunch proponent of angry sex and you seem to be initiating what can only be described as blatant foreplay.
With that said, I'm unsure as to the source of your anger. Perhaps I can help dissipate some of it by reminding you that I am not seriously arguing that the quote from The Dark Empire Sourcebook should be held as the gospel. Why? As we have established, there is an obvious and critical qualifier attached to the claim: Even if Palpatine is the most learned Force user in the totality of Star Wars canon, that doesn't require that he mastered nearly all of the known Force powers.
That said, I find the other reasons you provided to be (as my colleague Mr. Cott insinuated) insufficient.
Borbarad
It is content of the N-Canon game stats within a sourcebook, put there as reference to a likewise N-Canon game stat. So there is, actually, not much to argue here, unlike you want to introduce RPG stats as canon material, under which circumstances we can decide discussions here with dices.
The beginning of the quote details Palpatine's historic efforts to gather and master Force knowledge; taking that into consideration, it qualifies just as much for background information—in that it directly describes a character's previous actions. In that context, I interpret the quote to remain in good canonical standing. And it seems that Mr. Chee would agree, given his specific allowance of background information into the realm of C-canon validity.
Borbarad
No, quotes don't have expiration dates to their validity.
We are in agreement and this pleases me.
Borbarad
However: SW authors, no matter how much you like them, can't see the future development of the franchise. Thus, they are incapable of writing stuff that is valid to eternity.
Certainly.
But have you any evidence to indicate that the information concerning Palpatine's mastery of the Force has been contradicted by newer material?
Borbarad
If a quote written in time of the "Dark Empire" comics lists Sidious as most powerful Sith in history, it doesn't necessarily have to be accurate any longer, once another Sith Lord is introduced.
Certainly not if the recently introduced Sith Lord demonstrates enough power to cause us to reconsider the quote, which is the essential ingredient I have yet to find in your argument: the presence of a contradiction.
Borbarad
This is logic and not some sort of arbitrariness, which you seem to imply.
Without the introduction of a conflicting piece of newer material, to disregard the quote would be arbitrary.
Borbarad
I also love your attempt to defend the practice to simple put quotes in an argument without second thought. "Oh. There is a quote. This argument must be valid." I could ship in tons of sources denying that the Holocaust has happened. Fortunately, rhetorics don't overwrite hard facts and I'm on the winning side here. 🙂
I believe I have more than adequately defended the quote's accuracy (if not its absolute canon status) by pointing out the numerous sources that propagate the idea that Darth Sidious was an exceptionally learned Sith Lord.
Borbarad
I've demonstrated already, why the quote is invalid in general (because of being listed in the N-Canon part of the sourcebook).
Leland Chee does not mention information being non-canon because of its placement, but its content. And content-wise, the quote emphatically mentions material that qualifies as "background information" to the character in question.
Borbarad
Then I've demonstrated that, even accepting it as part of the canon (which it isn't), it does just represents speculation regarding Sidious knowledge.
The fact that the quote is speculative—which has been already acknowledged—is the reason why it is not unquestionably binding. Here, we are in agreement.
Borbarad
The fact that its writer couldn't foresee the plethora of new force abilities popping up, with some being definitely inaccesible for Sidious, is just the icing on the cake.
The quote does not claim that Palpatine mastered all of the Force, merely "nearly" all of it. The presence of powers that are potentially or definitively inaccessible to Sidious does not contradict the quote.
Borbarad
I must have missed the source, that directly compares Sidious search for Force knowledge or his knowledge base, to that of other characters in the mythos. We have more details regarding his knowledge (and his means of archiving it), than for any other SW character (save for Luke maybe), but that doesn't mean his knowledge exceeds that of everyone else.
Yet the evidence points to this being the case; unless you have evidence to introduce that another character's resources or knowledge of the dark side surpasses Sidious's?
Borbarad
I've even presented, how the "Tales of the Jedi Companion" sourcebook introduces a carte blanche for Freedon Nadd, when it comes to the knowledge of force abilities - pretty much overwriting the speculation handed in here for Sidious.Disclaimer: I, of course, view both quotes (the one regarding Sidious and the one regarding Nadd) as not canon (for the same reason). But taking one of them and ignore the other - Gideon style - is just the usual application of double-standards in favor for the own oppinion.
Would you care to illuminate where these double standardsare present or where I have disregarded the quote about Nadd?
Borbarad
Does one of those sources proclaim that he had access to most, if not all force abilities known and invented new ones at will? Does one of those sources state, that Sidious is the most knowledgeable force user in the mythos? If not, those are pretty much entirely irrelevant.
Corroboration can only come from a source that parrots another? I'm confused then: according to your post history, you have advocated that the likes of Marka Ragnos would defeat Sidious despite the suspicious lack of a source that confirms it. By your reckoning, given that there is no source that remotely implies Ragnos's superiority over Sidious, all the other evidence you introduced to support that theory must be irrelevant to the discussion.
Borbarad
In short: Wrong.The fact, that he had to gather the remains of previously existant knowledge instead of accessing that knowledge directly, marks the difference between Sidious and the Ancient Sith. The Ancient Sith had libraries filled with their knowledge and countless artifacts, both - by Sidious own words in "The Essential Guide through the Force" - destroyed by the Jedi and lost forever. So the Ancient Sith had knowledge that vanished from the Galaxy when their species was wiped out, giving them knowledge that Palpatine never had any access to.
The charge I support is that Palpatine is the single most learned Force user in the mythos. You seemingly oppose this by claiming that the ancient Sith—a collective group of Force users numbering in the thousands or potentially millions (when we account for the centuries and millennia of their reign)—had more knowledge. This is fallacious reasoning that woefully misses the point entirely. Even if the ancient Sith collectively possessed more knowledge than Sidious (which I haven't disputed), that does not contradict the argument that Sidious is the single most learned Force user in the mythos.
Borbarad
The next time an individual lists a SW character as "out of universe", I will personally declare him "idiot of the year".
Are you suggesting it takes one to know one? I'm not sure that the individual in question will be terribly perturbed by your declarations; he doesn't seem to be remotely fazed by them as of now.
Borbarad
SW characters don't exists outside their universe and - as a consequence - can't serve as "out of universe" authorities on anything - especially not on stuff also just existing within their universe (the Dark Side). I can't believe, that I have to explain that to anybody capable of putting clothes on alone.
What I meant is that Palpatine is consistently chosen by the Powers That Be to represent the dark side in many the various of the compilations and guides.
Borbarad
Sidious is Vader's master. Vader is redeemed. It doesn't make any sense to introduce Vader as a spokesmen for the Dark Side, mainly because he doesn't belong to the Dark Side. But I suppose one could easily miss that little detail, given that it's the damn core of the entire saga. 🙄
I'm not going to lie, this is news to me. I didn't know that Vader's redemption retroactively annulled his role as a Dark Lord of the Sith. The movies I watched depicted him swear allegiance to the reigning Sith Master, receive recognition by that Sith Master as the sole apprentice of the Sith ways (including a Sith title, red lightsaber, and all the trappings of the Sith), and engage in dark side practices for two decades.
Borbarad
And the other Sith aren't half as popular as Sidious. All people that have watched the movies know Sidious and Vader. Even Revan, the protagonist in one of the best selling SW games, is just known to a fraction of people that are familiar with the two movie Sith.
And I'd assert that Maul is more popular than Sidious in the public consciousness with Vader. He wasn't redeemed and was also a Sith Lord for at least two decades. Why Palpatine if not him?
Then again, the entire argument becomes moot when we consider the presence of low-profile Sith Lords and Jedi Knights in The Essential Guide to the Force, The Book of Sith, and The Jedi Path. In fact, the narrator of the vast majority of the essential guide is Tionne Solusar—who is a truly minor Jedi in the grand scheme of things, yet was chosen to archive and represent the essential guide to the Force.
With that in mind, I reject entirely the argument that the avatars were selected because of out-of-universe considerations like popularity.
Borbarad
Chronology and context don't "invalidate" the quote. They merely put it into the right perspective: a speculation, with "all power known" mentioned in it, being those known in 1993. 😉 The quote is invalidated by the fact, that it's part of the (n-canon) stat part of the sourcebook, just put there to explain one single (n-canon) game stat.
The Dark Empire Sourcebook
Palpatine has spent decades studying the most arcane and esoteric Jedi disciplines. It is believed that he has mastered nearly all the known powers, previously unknown powers, and devises new ones at his pleasure.
Leland Chee
Games and RPG sourcebooks are a special case; the stories and general background informationare themselves fully C-canon, but the other elements such as character/item statistics and gameplay are, with few exceptions, N-canon.
Forgive some of the pruning in your quote blocks, but I tried to trim down some of it and still ended up needing a second post. If you believe I failed to address any of your points, let me know.
Regards,
COL
Originally posted by Borbarad
Or, and this is the most reasonable explanation, the writer did want to give the game master a carte blanche regarding Sidious abilities, hence putting the sentence in the (not canon) stat section of the entry about Sidious, instead of making it part of the narrative about the character of the Sith Lord...
We were discussing the perspective of the statement, not whether or not it was included as a gameplay mechanic, which we cover further down the argument.
It is a part of the gameplay mechanics, which can be seen on the picture I have provided. So this isn't my "interpretation" but merely the way the source presents this quote to us - as an addendum to Sidious "Force Alter" stat.
It is within the gameplay mechanics section but that doesn't neccessarily mean that it is itself a gameplay mechanic, as it can be, and as it would seem given the context, be providing a storyline explanation to the designation of the stats.
I've never proclaimed, that they are marketed entirely towards people playing the RPG. I've proclaimed that the target group are those people who do - otherwise introducing game stats for the protagonists would be rather senseless, correct?
Correct, you identified those players as the target audience, but then proceeded to analyse the function of sourcebooks based entirely off of the characteristics of the target audience and not the entire target market. Once you understand that the sourcebook was partially marketed for non gameplay-purposes, you should be able to accept that the books also serve a storytelling purpose, at least as far as what the creators' intended, and even if that storytelling purpose were solely a catalogue of existing information, or presenting it from differing perspectives or with new insights.
Of course, sourcebooks can flesh out the stuff presented in the original sources in form of adding detail. They can't change the original source material. And retroactively equipping Sidious with a plethora of abilities, that would have come in handy in order to survive the DE storyline, doesn't make much sense.
I'm not sure you can say a direct contradiction has been established here. Not only have the extent to which Sidious has "nearly" mastered all of those abilities, nor have the specific abilities he has mastered not been defined by that statement alone, but I'm not sure you can neccessarily say it was a deficiency in knowledge that lead to Sidious' downfall in the DE comics.
Neither does applying the blank statement to the force abilities in terms of discussions. Otherwise, we would need to do the same with Freedon Nadd and - by extension - the likes of Sadow, Ragnos, Kun, Simus, Vitiate.
Again, I'd like to acknowledge the fact that the quote is clearly from a fallible perspective, is largely vague and may be of a dubious compatibility with newer, more prevalent, and more credible material, but what such statements are you referring to that exist for the other characters?
Originally posted by ChainOfLove
The beginning of the quote details Palpatine's historic efforts to gather and master Force knowledge;
Really?
"Palpatine has spent decades studying the most arcane and esoteric Jedi disciplines. It is believed that he has mastered nearly all the known powers, previously unknown powers and devises new ones at his pleasure" - Dark Empire Sourcebook, p.38.
I don't see much "details" given about Sidious "historic efforts" to gather and master force knowledge. Just some arbitrary statement, that tells us he can pretty much use all powers known, some that are unknown and can come up with new stuff at his will. This is a carte blanche in terms of gameplay, to equip him with all powers a gamemaster needs him to have.
taking that into consideration, it qualifies just as much for background information—in that it directly describes a character's previous actions. In that context, I interpret the quote to remain in good canonical standing. And it seems that Mr. Chee would agree, given his specific allowance of background information into the realm of C-canon validity.
Where is the background information? There is no story told, no actions described, no details given - especially none, that hadn't been introduced before. The quote justifies Sidious "Force alter" stat, and I'm not willing to ignore the way it is placed within the source (right in the n-canon game stat section).
But have you any evidence to indicate that the information concerning Palpatine's mastery of the Force has been contradicted by newer material?
Did the meaning of "all the known powers" change between 1993 and today? Did the possible time frame for Sidious study of the "most arcane and esoteric" Jedi disciplines change with the establishment of the PT era storyline? Did the amount of techniques previously unknown and of those Sidious could have invented change with the establishment of more force users and force using organisations that came before the Emperor?
To me, the answer to those questions is: Yes.
So can we apply the quote to the present day SW universe, without any modification? Does Sidious know nearly all force powers that we know today? Can he device "new" powers "at will" in a realm where much more force powers than originally exists? I doubt it.
I believe I have more than adequately defended the quote's accuracy (if not its absolute canon status) by pointing out the numerous sources that propagate the idea that Darth Sidious was an exceptionally learned Sith Lord.
I don't see how N-canon statements become canon, just because other (canon) sources make statements to a similar direction. There is a huge difference between having mastered nearly all known powers, previously unknown ones and being able to come up with new ones at will and having found a nice amount of knowledge.
Leland Chee does not mention information being non-canon because of its placement, but its content. And content-wise, the quote emphatically mentions material that qualifies as "background information" to the character in question.
Because a carte blanche in terms of in-game powers, placed in brackets behind a stat doesn't belong to the stats in your world? 🙄
The presence of powers that are potentially or definitively inaccessible to Sidious does not contradict the quote.
It does, in the very second those powers become known to the reader of the aforementioned quote, because of qualfying as "nearly all powers known" in that case. The same is true for the quote regarding Nadd: Once an ancient Sith power becomes known, Nadd would have access to it.
Yet the evidence points to this being the case; unless you have evidence to introduce that another character's resources or knowledge of the dark side surpasses Sidious's?
I'd say that having multiple worlds filled with knowledge of the Dark Side, established by a 2,000 year lasting civilization of Dark Side users [with access to Dark Side lore dating 100,000 years back] does surpass Sidious resources in terms of Dark Side knowledge. Which means that every member of the Ancient Sith Empire is potentially more knowledgeable in terms of Dark Side lore than Sidious.
You see...the pharaos would probably know more about Ancient Egypt than the best informed historian in our time, which is an accurate analogy for the relation between the Ancient Sith and Sidious, when it comes to Dark Side lore.
Would you care to illuminate where these double standardsare present or where I have disregarded the quote about Nadd?
I must have missed the part of your post, where you accept the quote about Nadd as accurate - with all consequences linked to such an acknowledgement. In fact, you're still calling Sidious the most knowledgeable Sith Lord, when applying the quote about Nadd would instantly give him access to all force powers that originated before his death and not just "nearly all" in form of speculation.
Corroboration can only come from a source that parrots another? I'm confused then: according to your post history, you have advocated that the likes of Marka Ragnos would defeat Sidious despite the suspicious lack of a source that confirms it. By your reckoning, given that there is no source that remotely implies Ragnos's superiority over Sidious, all the other evidence you introduced to support that theory must be irrelevant to the discussion.
I'm humoured by the fact, that you think my posting history is relevant to this debate (which it isn't) and your complete lack of ability to stay on topic. We're arguing the validity of a single source here and to validate it, it would be nice to have anything that says the same. This is what validation means. Attempting to missdirect the discussion to an entirely irrelevant topic (also known as red herring) doesn't change that fact. Nor does the cheap attempt at ad hominem (introducing my post history). 🙂
But since you've introduced it: I'm, just to state this once again, mainly here for debate and not to proof my opinion right. My personal view on certain issues is independant of the arguments I make here, which has led to situations in which I used one quote in debate A, while attacking it at the same time in debate B. I can remember that a certain individual complained a lot about this behavior, and I wonder how you could have missed that in your examination of my posting history.
For the Ragnos arguments: Most of them are based on deductive reasoning, that is logically sound. I've never seen anybody here proving it wrong. In fact, I haven't even seen somebody trying to attack it directly. That certain people aren't capable of grasping deductive logic and hence stick to inductive reasoning, thinking that, if they compile enough quotes pointing to a certain, speculative point, they have "proven" their oppinion, is neither my fault, nor do I give a damn about it. 🙂
The charge I support is that Palpatine is the single most learned Force user in the mythos. You seemingly oppose this by claiming that the ancient Sith—a collective group of Force users numbering in the thousands or potentially millions (when we account for the centuries and millennia of their reign)—had more knowledge. This is fallacious reasoning that woefully misses the point entirely. Even if the ancient Sith collectively possessed more knowledge than Sidious (which I haven't disputed), that does not contradict the argument that Sidious is the single most learned Force user in the mythos.
And now we can add a straw man to the list of logical fallacies commited so far.
I said that the collective of the Ancient Sith had more resources in terms of Dark Side lore than Sidious has (in the shape of entire worlds filled with it - see Malachor V). This, of course, means, that the same applies to each individual that belonged to said "collective", because each of them had access to that amount of knowledge, with just tiny fractions of it making it into Sidious time.
Are you suggesting it takes one to know one? I'm not sure that the individual in question will be terribly perturbed by your declarations; he doesn't seem to be remotely fazed by them as of now.
Apparently, the individual in question is fazed enough to instantly correct his previous statement... 🙄
What I meant is that Palpatine is consistently chosen by the Powers That Be to represent the dark side in many the various of the compilations and guides.
I think, I've made it overly clear, why Sidious is the only logical choice for that role. As you haven't contradicted my reasoning in that regard, I will simple accept your concession and move on. 🙂
I'm not going to lie, this is news to me. I didn't know that Vader's redemption retroactively annulled his role as a Dark Lord of the Sith. The movies I watched depicted him swear allegiance to the reigning Sith Master, receive recognition by that Sith Master as the sole apprentice of the Sith ways (including a Sith title, red lightsaber, and all the trappings of the Sith), and engage in dark side practices for two decades. [/B]
🙄
It does annull the possibility, to use him as source for Dark Side lore before his fall to the Dark Side or after him being redeemed, with him being kind of overshadowed by his Sith Master in the remaining time period between those events. Frankly, there is no reason to pick Vader for the role of a "Dark Side guide". Much like there is no reason to assume, Sidious is the most knowledgeable, just because he is chosen for it.
Originally posted by Brako Cott
It is within the gameplay mechanics section but that doesn't neccessarily mean that it is itself a gameplay mechanic, as it can be, and as it would seem given the context, be providing a storyline explanation to the designation of the stats.
*sigh*
Would the quote be there without the corresponding stat? The quote is there to explain the stat. So how can we seperate the quote from the gameplay section? That's stripping the quote from its context, which was my general critique in the first place.
Correct, you identified those players as the target audience, but then proceeded to analyse the function of sourcebooks based entirely off of the characteristics of the target audience and not the entire target market. Once you understand that the sourcebook was partially marketed for non gameplay-purposes, you should be able to accept that the books also serve a storytelling purpose, at least as far as what the creators' intended, and even if that storytelling purpose were solely a catalogue of existing information, or presenting it from differing perspectives or with new insights.
The SW sourcebooks are clear niche products, even among SW fans. With the books and comics to the saga already being niche products, in comparison to the movies. There is a reason why WotC actually cancelled the series.
That being said, I find your argumentation rather weak. Of course, I see the RPG players as main audience, especially when discussing a quote that is part of the game statistics. Because those serve the single purpose of role-playing. In that regard, the quote has to be understand as carte blanche for gamemasters regarding Sidious abilities. If that was information for the "casual reader", we would have found it in the "storytelling" part of the book and not as a kind of commentary to one of the gameplay stats.
I'm not sure you can say a direct contradiction has been established here. Not only have the extent to which Sidious has "nearly" mastered all of those abilities, nor have the specific abilities he has mastered not been defined by that statement alone, but I'm not sure you can neccessarily say it was a deficiency in knowledge that lead to Sidious' downfall in the DE comics.
If I write that somebody has nearly mastered all known force powers, and then introduce a plethora of new force powers, either "nearly all" isn't the correct qualifier any longer, or - suddenly - the individual is equipped with much more knowledge than I had in mind when making that statement.
And I can imagine a lot of "known powers" that would have better suited Sidious in the attempt to kill Luke and Leia, than trying to get rid of them by summoning a force storm. The various insta-kills and crippling manouvers added to the line of force powers would have been a good choice.
Again, I'd like to acknowledge the fact that the quote is clearly from a fallible perspective, is largely vague and may be of a dubious compatibility with newer, more prevalent, and more credible material, but what such statements are you referring to that exist for the other characters?
I have provided the corresponding quote for Nadd. But here again:
"Freedon Nadd has knowledge of all Jedi and Sith Force powers presented herein as well as those abilities still hidden in ancient Holocrons and tomes" - Tales of the Jedi Companion, p.70.
For the sake of space, I'm going to trim some of the fat from your quote blocks.
Borbarad
I don't see much "details" given about Sidious "historic efforts" to gather and master force knowledge.
Borbarad
Where is the background information? There is no story told, no actions described, no details given - especially none, that hadn't been introduced before.
The quote explains what he studied, how long he spent studying it, and it dovetails perfectly into earlier remarks made by The Dark Empire Sourcebook that elaborate, referencing the Heresiarchs and other Force using cults.
Borbarad
The quote justifies Sidious "Force alter" stat, and I'm not willing to ignore the way it is placed within the source (right in the n-canon game stat section).
Mr. Chee makes no reference to the placement of information being grounds to disregard it, only the content.
Borbarad
Did the meaning of "all the known powers" change between 1993 and today? Did the possible time frame for Sidious study of the "most arcane and esoteric" [b]Jedi disciplines change with the establishment of the PT era storyline? Did the amount of techniques previously unknown and of those Sidious could have invented change with the establishment of more force users and force using organisations that came before the Emperor?To me, the answer to those questions is: Yes.
So can we apply the quote to the present day SW universe, without any modification? Does Sidious know nearly all force powers that we know today? Can he device "new" powers "at will" in a realm where much more force powers than originally exists? I doubt it.[/b]
Given the breadth of his knowledge and the resources at his disposal, I see no reason to doubt Sidious's knowledge of the Force or question his knowledge of the majority of its techniques, even with the additions to canon since 1993.
Borbarad
I don't see how N-canon statements become canon, just because other (canon) sources make statements to a similar direction. There is a huge difference between having mastered nearly all known powers, previously unknown ones and being able to come up with new ones at will and having found a nice amount of knowledge.
But if there is the presence of an immediate contradiction, you have yet to provide it. So you're either holding out on me, sly devil that you are, or you actually don't know of any. Which is what I mean: the sources that mention Sidious's enormous wealth of Force knowledge would point towards validating the quote from The Dark Empire Sourcebook than invalidating it.
Borbarad
Because a carte blanche in terms of in-game powers, placed in brackets behind a stat doesn't belong to the stats in your world? 🙄
Not when the quote provides background information critical to Sidious's biography and references more elaborate information detailed in the same sourcebook, to say nothing of the suspicious lack of a true mathematical value attributed to Palpatine's knowledge.
Borbarad
It does, in the very second those powers become known to the reader of the aforementioned quote, because of qualfying as "nearly all powers known" in that case. The same is true for the quote regarding Nadd: Once an ancient Sith power becomes known, Nadd would have access to it.
The quote you provided makes no reference to Nadd having access to all the powers known, merely all the powers referenced in that particular sourcebook.
Borbarad
I'd say that having multiple worlds filled with knowledge of the Dark Side, established by a 2,000 year lasting civilization of Dark Side users [with access to Dark Side lore dating 100,000 years back] does surpass Sidious resources in terms of Dark Side knowledge. Which means that every member of the Ancient Sith Empire is potentially more knowledgeable in terms of Dark Side lore than Sidious.
Which supposes that all members of the ancient Sith Empire had access to the collective knowledge or the same voracious appetite to master the Force. Have you some source to indicate that Sith Lords of that time shared their knowledge so openly with one another?
Borbarad
You see...the pharaos would probably know more about Ancient Egypt than the best informed historian in our time, which is an accurate analogy for the relation between the Ancient Sith and Sidious, when it comes to Dark Side lore.
Ancient Egypt, for the purposes of this discussion, is a society. I'm not claiming Palpatine's knowledge of the ancient Sith empire transcends an actual ancient Sith, but that his knowledge of the Force transcends any individual's.
Borbarad
I must have missed the part of your post, where you accept the quote about Nadd as accurate - with all consequences linked to such an acknowledgement. In fact, you're still calling Sidious the most knowledgeable Sith Lord, when applying the quote about Nadd would instantly give him access to all force powers that originated before his death and not just "nearly all" in form of speculation.
I have no problem at all accepting the idea that Nadd has knowledge of the Force techniques depicted within that sourcebook or knowledge hidden in ancient tomes and Holocrons. Knowledge and mastery aren't synonymous and it would still leave Nadd subordinate to Darth Sidious.
Borbarad
I'm humoured by the fact, that you think my posting history is relevant to this debate (which it isn't) and your complete lack of ability to stay on topic. We're arguing the validity of a single source here and to validate it, it would be nice to have anything that says the same. This is what validation means. Attempting to missdirect the discussion to an entirely irrelevant topic (also known as red herring) doesn't change that fact.
I apologize if I injured your sensitivities, I'm merely doing my best to hold you accountable to a single standard. Unless you'd prefer me to think of you as a hypocrite?
Borbarad
Nor does the cheap attempt at ad hominem (introducing my post history). 🙂
you, earlier
But taking one of them and ignore the other - Gideon style - is just the usual application of double-standards in favor for the own oppinion.
As you can see, I thought things like this were fair game, given the precedent established by you. You have no reason to be offended and, if you are, it might be best that you confine yourself to the point and not tangents.
Borbarad
I said that the collective of the Ancient Sith had more resources in terms of Dark Side lore than Sidious has (in the shape of entire worlds filled with it - see Malachor V). This, of course, means, that the same applies to each individual that belonged to said "collective", because each of them had access to that amount of knowledge, with just tiny fractions of it making it into Sidious time.
You have proof to indicate that every Sith in the ancient Sith Empire had access to the entire empire's knowledge?
Borbarad
I think, I've made it overly clear, why Sidious is the only logical choice for that role. As you haven't contradicted my reasoning in that regard, I will simple accept your concession and move on. 🙂
I contradicted your reasoning by pointing out the flaws in the belief that Vader wasn't Sith enough to qualify; by introducing Maul as another candidate; and then by pointing out that Tionne Solusar was selected to be the in-universe guide to The Essential Guide to the Force, despite her insignificance next to Luke Skywalker and the like. Popularity clearly wasn't a role in determining who represented the dark side.
Borbarad
It does annull the possibility, to use him as source for Dark Side lore before his fall to the Dark Side or after him being redeemed, with him being kind of overshadowed by his Sith Master in the remaining time period between those events. Frankly, there is no reason to pick Vader for the role of a "Dark Side guide". Much like there is no reason to assume, Sidious is the most knowledgeable, just because he is chosen for it.
No, they could have used Vader to represent the dark side during his reign as a Sith Lord, by way of holocron or compendium. The fact that Vader actually has a role in the collection of the Telos Holocron indicates that the authors thought him perfectly Sith enough; Tionne even references Vader as an "inspiration" for those who follow the dark side. He is more popular than Sidious and clearly made efforts to study the dark side independent of his Master's wishes (his experimentation with Toydarians and those species immune to the Force are detailed in the essential guide). So why not him, if popularity was the concern?
There is no reason to conclude that Sidious was selected because of popularity or chronological concerns. The essential guide was compiled during the events of The Legacy of the Force: Lumiya or Caedus would have been sufficient candidates to provide narration on the dark side, as would have Darth Krayt and his ilk who are referenced in the guide's epilogue (as the guide, in terms of Star Wars' in-universe chronology, exists during the Legacy period).
Thus the only logical conclusion is that Sidious was selected because of his knowledge of the Force, which speaks to why the various quotes about his knowledge and mastery of it detailed in various sources remain valid.
Originally posted by Borbarad
*sigh*
Would the quote be there without the corresponding stat? The quote is there to explain the stat. So how can we seperate the quote from the gameplay section? That's stripping the quote from its context, which was my general critique in the first place.
The quote isn't being stripped from its gameplay context by detailing a piece of the storyline if that same piece of storyline can be considered to act as an explanation for the designation of the given gameplay statistics. It's not so much that the quote is being seperated from the gameplay section as it is that it doesn't entirely serve the same function as the statistics that encompass the rest of the section - it still serves a purpose within the section but at the same time it speaks entirely truly for the storytelling aspect of the sourcebook.
The SW sourcebooks are clear niche products, even among SW fans. With the books and comics to the saga already being niche products, in comparison to the movies. There is a reason why WotC actually cancelled the series.
Your point being?
That being said, I find your argumentation rather weak. Of course, I see the RPG players as main audience,
Naturally the RPG players are the main audience but we were discussing the entire market and every function the sourcebook was intended to, and does in fact, serve.
especially when discussing a quote that is part of the game statistics. Because those serve the single purpose of role-playing. In that regard, the quote has to be understand as carte blanche for gamemasters regarding Sidious abilities. If that was information for the "casual reader", we would have found it in the "storytelling" part of the book and not as a kind of commentary to one of the gameplay stats.
As has already been established the statement details information immaterial to the mechanics of the gameplay, and where the information is relavent it's left entirely vague and undefined for it to be of any use within the game, so the idea that it can be used as some kind of indication to what players can do is simply foolish. The different sections, for the most part serve a general storytelling or gameplay purpose but at the same time nothing states that they have to follow that general purpose to the entirety of its contents. The information in the gameplay section may not have been presented with what you identify as the casual reader in mind, or in other words people only interested in the storyline, but at the same time it's entirely likely that it would have been catered for those who both play the game and are interested in the storyline presented, and to that end the statement wouldn't in any way be out of place in the section it was included.
If I write that somebody has nearly mastered all known force powers, and then introduce a plethora of new force powers, either "nearly all" isn't the correct qualifier any longer, or - suddenly - the individual is equipped with much more knowledge than I had in mind when making that statement.
If you're again arguing out-of-universe standards vs in-universe considerations as it would seem, we've already covered that part of the argument elsewhere. To reiterate, in the face of the unknown such statements could be made with future predictions/assumptions in mind that we cannot say weren't necessarily met, or with the intention of setting a universal standard regardless of any future changes that future material would have to be accessed with respect towards. As I've already expanded upon, not only is a sense of scale not present at that point in time heavily implied in the given statement, but mentions are made of elements entirely absent up to that point in time, which would pretty much require an alternative interpretation than the one you've presented us with.
And I can imagine a lot of "known powers" that would have better suited Sidious in the attempt to kill Luke and Leia, than trying to get rid of them by summoning a force storm. The various insta-kills and crippling manouvers added to the line of force powers would have been a good choice.
1. I'm sure you could imagine stuff that Sidious had already been demonstrated to know of in the very same source that would have been better suited for that purpose, such as force lightning or telekinesis, so there's no real inconsistency or any such deficiency in knowledge established here.
2. Nothing indicates that he intended to use the Force Storm against Luke and Leia IIRC; the only mention made is that he was readying it against the surrounding fleet.
I have provided the corresponding quote for Nadd. But here again:"Freedon Nadd has knowledge of all Jedi and Sith Force powers presented herein as well as those abilities still hidden in ancient Holocrons and tomes" - Tales of the Jedi Companion, p.70.
Well that's just Nadd and that is still just the abilities present in the book as well as an almost entirely unquantified set of other abilities. The quote doesn't have the same sense of totality, or rather the closeness to totality, as does the one with Sidious.