Lord Vitiate vs Gauntlet

Started by S_W_LeGenD7 pages

Originally posted by Nephthys
Theres a reason why we don't treat hyperbole as solid proof or any kind of proof at all really, because its very hard to gauge in scale. What does 'unleashing the full power of the Force' actually mean? Nothing really. Its just a fanciful way of saying that the attack was 'powerful.' Great.

In other words, that you champion Vitiates hyperbole while dismissing Sidious being the Most Powerful Ever for being hyperbole is laughably two-faced of you.


No, I don't champion any hyperbole. I give these examples, when others resort to using hyperboles regarding Sidious and now even Plagueis to support their arguments. Your reasoning should extend to Rogue Gladiator too.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lord Vitiate vs Gauntlet

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Best theory? You are taking a hyperbolic statement very seriously. Star Wars and LOGIC don't complement each other very often. It is science fiction. Take it as such.

If such is fact, please stop your "debating" right now. After all, a universe in which logic cannot be taken into account clearly cannot be logically analyzed. Good day to you.


Now what has plagueis done that puts him above Vitiate? Any amazing combat feats?

I have not read the book yet. He was stated to be more powerful than any sith. Now it has been pointed out that such a statement cannot be taken as completely irrefutable fact, but it's still a canon statement. But wait, he cannot unleash the full power of the dark side against a defenseless droid!


Just watch the ownage Vitiate extends to 4 powerful Jedi simultaneously;

[link removed]

If I had the privledge, I could post a video of Palpatien owning three "powerful Jedi" within seconds. After all, we know that "powerful Jedi" is such a quantifiable turn. I can show you a video of Jango Fett owning a "powerful Jedi" in AotC with a few shots as well.


Genius, Everest is CONFIRMED as tallest mountain in the world. This is the difference. Their is no hyperbole in this statement.

So if you had never heard of Everest, and a reliable, intelligent person told you that it was "the tallest mountain in the world", your obvious response would be "ah, he's just exaggerating. Mount Rushmore is so much taller."

It gives you some 'reality check' about Vitiate' command of the Force.

...

...

Wait, what the fvk are you saying?


Listen genius, all of those sources are OLD. Plagueis novel is relatively new and he is claimed to be as such as well - hmm! I get the picture. So which source we should trust?

So I suppose that Darth Vader never killed Obi-Wan, because A New Hope is just so old.


Why do you think that their is no OFFICIAL ranking of Jedi and Sith on the OFFICIAL Star Wars website?

Hey, there is no official ranking of the shortest Jedi on the Council in RotS either; so Yoda cannot be stated as such. Additionally, in an interview on TFU.net, the answer to the question of the most powerful sith was "Palpatine at his peak". Next.


In SW-TCE; Yoda is still stated to be the strongest Jedi even when updated information of Luke is in it (up to LOTF period, I believe). Should we all accept that Yoda > Luke?

Which again brings up the question of whether "strongest" means "strongest in context" or "STRONGEST EVAR!!!! PAST AND FUTURE!" Funny thing is, your example simply lends credence to the interpretation that such statements are contextual, an interpretation that does not involve throwing away sources because they are "old".

Their was a time, when Sidious got the label of the strongest Sith Lord ever. However, now more are getting similar labels - this is not even funny.

The honest approach to this would be to rationalize the sources, rather than dismissing them as "old".


Then choice of words are wrong or hyperbolic, as I am pointing out.

Or, the word "EVER" perhaps has a different meaning than "PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE!!!!". Really, who in the galaxy uses this definition of the word?

Yes, POV of the narrator is the thing here. POV can differ from person to person. While POV of narrator has merit; we have to focus on the BIG PICTURE by ourselves.

Do you believe that when authors are writing novels, they take a good look at other materials? They don't usually. This is why we have contradictions in Star Wars mythos.

It should be made mandatory that if an author is writing a Star Wars novel, he or she should check all relevant materials properly. Unfortunately, this does not happens usually.

Ah, so you are breaking Suspension of Disbelief here. Tell me, do you think that the author fully considered the meaning of "full power of the dark side", or was he just coming up with (or copying) a metaphor from his arse? Does this really mean that Vitiate has the ability to summon the FULL POWER of the dark side (read: enough to make the Death Star "insignificant"😉, but only ever uses it once, against "the defenseless droid"?

Really, tell me now.


But Nyriss investigated Nathema. She can't dig out some information on her own? This is where you are wrong.

Of course she did. She even said it herself. My point being that your "she was on the Dark Council and had access to secrets!" point was completely irrelevant (again).

Not single but several parts of the account given by Nyriss have been validated by other sources.

For example:

- Marka Ragnos granted the title of Lord Vitiate to Tenebrae.
- Tenebrae became the ruler of Nathema.
- Revan' findings confirm that Vitiate killed Lord Dramath during his rise to power.
- Meetra Surik' investigation confirms that Tenebrae did invite many Sith Lords to Nathema.

The same thing can be applied to Achille's tale as well. After all, much archaeological evidence suggests that Troy really did exist. By your logic, it means that Apollo really did magically protect Hector's body from decay as he was dragged around by Achilles (who looked like Brad Pitt).


And you know the rest.

So if several parts of the account are being validated, then what is the issue here? Yes, not every bit of the account is confirmed but nonetheless, we have some information from Nyriss to consider (as she got that information from somewhere). It is logical fallacy to outright reject/dismiss her account.

No, the burden of proof lies on actually substantiating the claim. Could it be true? Yes, it could. But we don't know for sure, and to do what you are doing; to claim that the legend is fact, is...um, incorrect.

We don't know exactly what information Vitiate shared with Dark Council members. However, Nyriss investigated his past on her own. Being a member of the Dark Council, she would have access to sources that other individuals wouldn't unless they are members of the Dark Council too. Get the memo?

That's not what you originally said. Again, you are backtracking. I don't understand what you are attempting to "prove" that Nyriss investigated Nathema herself when she quite obviously did. She stated it herself.

This;

You are clearly dismissing supportive material of Nyriss account - even if it only confirms a part of it.

And you have also dismissed the 'entire account' as unverified legend;

No, I misunderstood the purpose of your statement. I thought that you were trying to provide feats in Vitiate's name. But now, I realize that you are simply making completely irrelevant pieces of "information" to perpetuate the fallacy that a part of a story being true means that all of it is. Did you know that professional liars do exactly that; mix strands of truth into their lies? You would be a horrible interrogator.

This is what I find troublesome. Parts of her account have been verified through other sources. Their is equal likelihood that the remaining part of her account is also true. Nyriss is not sure but she shares what she knows. (Us) readers are not in the position to dismiss her account outright, when we can notice that parts of her account have been verified and we don't have any other source that contradicts or overrules Nyriss' findings as a whole. Get the point?

There is a likelihood that it is true, if not only for the (breaking SoD) common cliche that all legends in a fictional universe are true. But it still cannot be proven.


I have my share of lengthy debates on this subject.

...


Sidious has never demonstrated the capability to turn a powerful opponent in to his mental slave during combat situation. Period.

I already said; in sheer power, Vitiate is probably the most impressive telepath in the mythos. But unless if you can prove that such a technique would work on Palpatine, or Luke Skywalker, it's pretty irrelevant.


In contrast, Vitiate has.

Against pre KoTOR Revan and Malak, yes. But a redeemed Revan resisted it. And even Revan and Malak, although corrupted by the dark side, twisted his own orders into their own ends, and managed to purge his involvement from their memory. Ie, in the long run, they partially broke free of it, even if they were corrupted.

No, Sidious did not mind dominate Marek.

Sidious certainly has great command of mind tricks. On sheer scale, he may trump all others. However, his mind dominating capabilities have been mostly effective against weak individuals and not so on strong individuals.

Here is another evidence of Vitiate' mind domination:

YouTube video

Warren Sedoru is one of the 4 Jedi and that Vitiate overwhelmed with his powers (first video provided above). Vitiate mind dominated all of them in the process as well. [/B]

None of them have demonstrated anything putting them in the same tier as Palpatine.

Really, one would question why Vitiate does not simply mind control the entire Dark Council. He obviously does not, given that a large portion of it was secretly plotting against him.

(cont)

Really, nothing that you have said gives Vitiate the victory over RotS Sidious. Yes, he has powerful mind domination feats. No, this is not likely to work against Palpatine. No, he has never shown the prowess with a lightsaber to defeat three powerful Jedi in seconds, nor to match Yoda in a duel.

Against DE Palpatine, even Nyriss's legend, taken as complete fact, would not be enough to give him a victory. Palpatine could destroy fleets of NR ships capable of withstanding insane amounts of firepower, and render planets uninhabitable.

And against Luke... 🙄

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lord Vitiate vs Gauntlet

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
If such is fact, please stop your "debating" right now. After all, a universe in which logic cannot be taken into account clearly cannot be logically analyzed. Good day to you.

The debate will continue until you prove your point. Just relying on a single hyperbolic statement is not enough.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
I have not read the book yet. He was stated to be more powerful than any sith. Now it has been pointed out that such a statement cannot be taken as completely irrefutable fact, but it's still a canon statement. But wait, he cannot unleash the full power of the dark side against a defenseless droid!

Opinion of a character about himself is also canon, if it is mentioned in a canonical material. Does this makes any difference? It is important to focus on the context.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
If I had the privledge, I could post a video of Palpatien owning three "powerful Jedi" within seconds. After all, we know that "powerful Jedi" is such a quantifiable turn.

He accomplished that with a lightsaber.

I am talking about Force based domination. And among those 4 Jedi downed, one is a Champion of the Light like Yoda and Revan.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
I can show you a video of Jango Fett owning a "powerful Jedi" in AotC with a few shots as well.

That Jedi was powerful? 🙄

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
So if you had never heard of Everest, and a reliable, intelligent person told you that it was "the tallest mountain in the world", your obvious response would be "ah, he's just exaggerating. Mount Rushmore is so much taller."

No. I would focus on the established fact.

Don't try to judge me. It is you who needs to be corrected here.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator

...

...

Wait, what the fvk are you saying?


Clearly you are not intelligent enough to understand even simple english.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
So I suppose that Darth Vader never killed Obi-Wan, because A New Hope is just so old.

This is illogical example. I am not talking about validity of events. I am talking about validity of statements. The distinction is very clear.

Also, new information tends to override old information. Simple.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
Hey, there is no official ranking of the shortest Jedi on the Council in RotS either; so Yoda cannot be stated as such. Additionally, in an interview on TFU.net, the answer to the question of the most powerful sith was "Palpatine at his peak". Next.

I will not be surprised, if the response would be "Yoda at his peak" in case of similar question regarding Jedi, genius.

Point is that these topics are open to debate.

Also, how old is this interview?

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
Which again brings up the question of whether "strongest" means "strongest in context" or "STRONGEST EVAR!!!! PAST AND FUTURE!" Funny thing is, your example simply lends credence to the interpretation that such statements are contextual, an interpretation that does not involve throwing away sources because they are "old".

You completely missed the point. Why Yoda was stated to be the greatest practitioner of the Light when Luke Skywalker surpassed him? Answer this please.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
The honest approach to this would be to rationalize the sources, rather than dismissing them as "old".

Yes. Feats wise, Sidious > Plagueis. So he is more suitable candidate for the infamous title OR the latter?

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
Or, the word "EVER" perhaps has a different meaning than "PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE!!!!". Really, who in the galaxy uses this definition of the word?

No, it does not. Ever is for 'any time'.

In contrast, 'Until now' is more suitable choice of phrase. And also the CORRECT one.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
Ah, so you are breaking Suspension of Disbelief here. Tell me, do you think that the author fully considered the meaning of "full power of the dark side", or was he just coming up with (or copying) a metaphor from his arse? Does this really mean that Vitiate has the ability to summon the FULL POWER of the dark side (read: enough to make the Death Star "insignificant"😉, but only ever uses it once, against "the defenseless droid"?

Really, tell me now.


You should consult Drew for this question. The intended message is that Vitiate had enormous command of the Force. This is how I perceive this statement.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
Of course she did. She even said it herself. My point being that your "she was on the Dark Council and had access to secrets!" point was completely irrelevant (again).

So what is the relevant point, genius?

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
The same thing can be applied to Achille's tale as well. After all, much archaeological evidence suggests that Troy really did exist. By your logic, it means that Apollo really did magically protect Hector's body from decay as he was dragged around by Achilles (who looked like Brad Pitt).

Trying to play smart with me here? Now relate the example of background account of Vitiate to this example and then explain your point.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
No, the burden of proof lies on actually substantiating the claim. Could it be true? Yes, it could. But we don't know for sure

Yes. This my point whole of the time. Your outright dismissal of the legend is the issue that I pointed out. And now I see you backtracking from your original stance.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
and to do what you are doing; to claim that the legend is fact, is...um, incorrect.

No, I did not claimed that the whole legend is proven. My point is that some parts of the whole legend have been verified, which lends credence to the information gathered by Nyriss. And it is possible that the non-verified parts are also true, given that not a single point of Nyriss has been proven wrong till now.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
I am not saying that the whole Legend
That's not what you originally said. Again, you are backtracking. I don't understand what you are attempting to "prove" that Nyriss investigated Nathema herself when she quite obviously did. She stated it herself.

I am not backtracking, genius. You are backtracking from your original stance; you dismissed the validity of the entire legend in the first place. And when I pointed out that parts of the legend have already been verified, you have dismissed them too by declaring them as 'irrelevant' and you are trying hard to diverge from the topic by giving silly examples.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
No, I misunderstood the purpose of your statement. I thought that you were trying to provide feats in Vitiate's name. But now, I realize that you are simply making completely irrelevant pieces of "information" to perpetuate the fallacy that a part of a story being true means that all of it is. Did you know that professional liars do exactly that; mix strands of truth into their lies? You would be a horrible interrogator.

I am posting relevant materials, dumb.

PARTS of the legend have already been verified through other sources. Revan' account is just one of them. These verifications lend credence to the account by Nyriss. It may not be perfect, but their is no dismissal from any other canonical source either till now. We should work with what we have got. Get the memo?

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
There is a likelihood that it is true, if not only for the (breaking SoD) common cliche that all legends in a fictional universe are true. But it still cannot be proven.

Doesn't matters. We should work with what we have got.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
I already said; in sheer power, Vitiate is probably the most impressive telepath in the mythos. But unless if you can prove that such a technique would work on Palpatine, or Luke Skywalker, it's pretty irrelevant.

If it can work on 4 powerful Jedi simultaneously (one of them arguably being on Yoda level), it can also work on single powerful individual.

Even Revan was not immune to his power. And he is also a Champion of the Light like Yoda.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
Against pre KoTOR Revan and Malak, yes. But a redeemed Revan resisted it.

He did not resisted it. He STOPPED Vitiate from continuing his assault.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
None of them have demonstrated anything putting them in the same tier as Palpatine.

Vitiate has some feats and well-developed abilities of his own.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
Really, one would question why Vitiate does not simply mind control the entire Dark Council. He obviously does not, given that a large portion of it was secretly plotting against him.

It is his choice. Dark Council members are his handpicked advisors. He will not want to turn them in to mindless zombies.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
Really, nothing that you have said gives Vitiate the victory over RotS Sidious. Yes, he has powerful mind domination feats. No, this is not likely to work against Palpatine.

And can you prove your assertion? Their is no guarantee that Palpatine would be able to successfully resist Vitiate' telepathic assault.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
No, he has never shown the prowess with a lightsaber to defeat three powerful Jedi in seconds, nor to match Yoda in a duel.

He did not needed it. Such was the level of his power.

Revan is also a very powerful Force-user. And he failed to get close enough to Vitiate to stab him with his lightsaber. This should be sufficient evidence.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
Against DE Palpatine, even Nyriss's legend, taken as complete fact, would not be enough to give him a victory. Palpatine could destroy fleets of NR ships capable of withstanding insane amounts of firepower, and render planets uninhabitable.

Palpatine will kill himself in the process too.

Also, Vitiate can destroy the clone body of Palpatine.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
And against Luke... 🙄

In your opinion only.

Vitiate can handle Luke with the Force. He destroyed 9 Dark Council members by himself (confirmed by Scourge).

Rogue_Gladiator
Additionally, in an interview on TFU.net, the answer to the question of the most powerful sith was "Palpatine at his peak". Next.

It was the Force.Net, which isn't a canonical source.

Vitiate can handle Luke with the Force.

Seriously?

Originally posted by Arhael
Seriously?

Yes, you think that Luke is untouchable?

I will not be surprised if DE Sidious can kill Luke too.

Lot of hype surrounds Luke these days. He is very powerful but not invincible. His duel with Caedus is sufficient evidence.

Yes, you think that Luke is untouchable?

No I don't think that he is untouchable. But what I know is that Luke displayed on multiple accounts that he can counter stronger Force manipulations with less effort. You said that he can handle Luke with the Force. But I say that you don't need to have equal power to counter someone's Force attack. And Luke himself proved it on multiple accounts.

Lot of hype surrounds Luke these days.

That's how it should be. After reading all books with him I am not surprised about it. 😄

He is very powerful but not invincible. His duel with Caedus is sufficient evidence.
Caedus himself is no ordinary foe. But there is much more evidence that he is not invincible and that is what makes the story interesting.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
The debate will continue until you prove your point. Just relying on a single hyperbolic statement is not enough.

This response has jack shit to do with my post, which was a response to your statement that logic does not apply to Star Wars. Yet you still attempt to debate logically. It does not take an intelligent person, even, to understand the grand stupidity in this.


Opinion of a character about himself is also canon, if it is mentioned in a canonical material. Does this makes any difference? It is important to focus on the context.

[b]That's my entire point. Jesus, you are a ****ing dumbass.


He accomplished that with a lightsaber.
I am talking about Force based domination. And among those 4 Jedi downed, one is a Champion of the Light like Yoda and Revan.

"one is a Champion of Light like Yoda and Revan".

(sigh). Do I need to explain how this vague, semantic-obsessed and irrelevant statement is stupid?


That Jedi was powerful? 🙄

Those Jedi of yours were powerful? 🙄


No. I would focus on the established fact.
Don't try to judge me. It is you who needs to be corrected here.

Good job, disciple of circular logic. And amazing comeback.

Clearly you are not intelligent enough to understand even simple english.

What? That it puts "reality" into Vitiate's powers? What kind of vague, semantical, flowery bullshit is that supposed to mean? How powerful does unleashing the "full power of the dark side against the defenseless droid" make him? Qui Gon? RotS Kenobi? Dooku? Palpatine? The Entire Dark Side?

How is the quote quantifiable in the slightest?


This is illogical example. I am not talking about validity of events. I am talking about validity of statements. The distinction is very clear.

Illogical? By your own decree, logic does not apply in Star Wars. Please, stop contradicting yourself.

And events in 3rd person limited (ie, the Revan novel) are statements of events that occured from a character's PoV. There's the same thing.


Also, new information tends to override old information. Simple.

Of course, you do have a canonical statement substantiating your claim. I just know that you wouldn't pull shit out of your arse, right?

I will not be surprised, if the response would be "Yoda at his peak" in case of similar question regarding Jedi, genius.

I will not be surprised, if you not being surprised at a hypothetical occurence is irrelevant.


Point is that these topics are open to debate.

No, really?

Also, how old is this interview?

Why does it matter? (BTW, Herbert, thank you, but I am fairly certain that TFU.net asked somebody with authority in Lucasfilms. I will try to find the source.)


You completely missed the point. Why Yoda was stated to be the greatest practitioner of the Light when Luke Skywalker surpassed him? Answer this please.

He was the greatest practitioner of light in his time. This isn't that hard to decipher; only if we use your ridiculous interpretation of the words "history" and "ever".


Yes. Feats wise, Sidious > Plagueis. So he is more suitable candidate for the infamous title OR the latter?

Of course he is more suitable for the title. That's my point. Plagueis is the most powerful sith of all time until Sidious. This interpretation fits together the various statements without any contradictions. Your "interpretation" involves dismissing these sources as "hyperbole". Basic principle, again: the best theory fits with the facts. End.

No, it does not. Ever is for 'any time'.
In contrast, 'Until now' is more suitable choice of phrase. And also the CORRECT one.

So again, feel free to explain why historians call the Mongolian Empire "the largest continuous land Empire in history (or ever)". Are they wrong? Should they say "in the past"? Or "until now" to satisfy your obsession with semantics?


You should consult Drew for this question. The intended message is that Vitiate had enormous command of the Force. This is how I perceive this statement.

No fvking shit!! Guess what? "enormous command of the Force" =/= beating Palpatine. You used the quote as evidence for calling him "TOPS" and that he could clear the gauntlet. How does enormous command of the Force equate to more enormous command of the Force than Palpatine, or even Dooku? Agen Kolar and Kit Fisto were among the most celebrated swordsmen in the order; can they outduel Palpatine? May-oh, wait.


So what is the relevant point, genius?

The relevant point is that your rebuttal stated a completely irrelevant fact. That Nyriss was on the Dark Council and privvy to secrets had no contribution to her knowledge of the Emperor's past; she found it herself, and would have been executed had she been caught.


Trying to play smart with me here? Now relate the example of background account of Vitiate to this example and then explain your point.

What, you seriously fail to understand such a simple analogy? Your logic is this:

a) Nyriss told a story she admitted was unverifiable.
b) Some of Nyriss's story was confirmed to be true.
c) Therefore, Nyriss's story is true.

Which can be applied in similar ways to Achilles:

a) Homer told a story about Achilles and the Battle of Troy.
b) There is evidence that Troy and Achilles really did exist.
c) Therefore, the Illiad is pure truth!.

a) The internet makes numerous claims.
b) Some of these claims are true.
c) The internet is pure truth.


Yes. This my point whole of the time. Your outright dismissal of the legend is the issue that I pointed out. And now I see you backtracking from your original stance.

I don't outright dismiss the legend. I have admitted that it could very well be true multiple times in this debate, but your reading skills are extremely selective.


No, I did not claimed that the whole legend is proven. My point is that some parts of the whole legend have been verified, which lends credence to the information gathered by Nyriss. And it is possible that the non-verified parts are also true, given that not a single point of Nyriss has been proven wrong till now.

Proven wrong? It has to be proven wrong? When there is nothing to prove it right, it is unsubstantiated.

I am not backtracking, genius. You are backtracking from your original stance; you dismissed the validity of the entire legend in the first place. And when I pointed out that parts of the legend have already been verified, you have dismissed them too by declaring them as 'irrelevant' and you are trying hard to diverge from the topic by giving silly examples.

I already explained my dismissal of them, dumbass. To borrow an analogy I read from this board, the fact that babies exist does not lend credence to the theory that storks delivered them.


I am posting relevant materials, dumb.

PARTS of the legend have already been verified through other sources. Revan' account is just one of them. These verifications lend credence to the account by Nyriss. It may not be perfect, but their is no dismissal from any other canonical source either till now. We should work with what we have got. Get the memo?

We should work with what we have got? Even if it is unverified legend? Even when there is a host of (pretty impressive) feats in Vitiate's name that are verifiable?


Doesn't matters. We should work with what we have got.

Crap logic. Being the only evidence does not magically give something validity.


If it can work on 4 powerful Jedi simultaneously (one of them arguably being on Yoda level), it can also work on single powerful individual.

More crap logic. Because Sidious can fry 50 (relatively) weak clonetroopers, it must be able to work on a single powerful individual. After all, no need to quantify how powerful "powerful" is and how it relates to the single powerful individual. Because Palpatine can saber-kill 3 powerful jedi in seconds, he can obviously do it to a single powerful sith. It's not like as if "powerful" is relative or anything.


Even Revan was not immune to his power. And he is also a Champion of the Light like Yoda.

You can't be serious with using "champion of light" as an argument, can you?


He did not resisted it. He STOPPED Vitiate from continuing his assault.

Yes, and he also stated before the fight his confidence of being able to resist Vitiate.


Vitiate has some feats and well-developed abilities of his own.

Ah. "some feats and well-developed abilities" is obviously enough to defeat Palpatine.


It is his choice. Dark Council members are his handpicked advisors. He will not want to turn them in to mindless zombies. [/B]

Mindless? Revan didn't lose his tactical genius when he was enslaved did he? I remember him nearly conquering the Republic. Hardly seems mindless to me.

Even Revan was not immune to his power. And he is also a Champion of the Light like Yoda

Revan champion of light? YOUMAD? he was using darkside powers. Weren't you making a big argument about him achieving equilibrium between light and dark???

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
And can you prove your assertion? Their is no guarantee that Palpatine would be able to successfully resist Vitiate' telepathic assault.

You would be the one who would have to prove the contrary. His mind domination only partially worked on Revan and Malak, and failed against a more powerful Revan. Sidious is in the top three among the most powerful telepaths in Canon. By your own admission, the sheer scale of his mind-control surpasses even Vitiate's.

He did not needed it. Such was the level of his power.

You mean that he didn't need it when Revan put him on his ass from his own attack? Or when Vitiate [b]would have been killed had Exile aimed for him instead of his lightsaber? He didn't need it, yet uncertainty showed for a moment on his face when he was disarmed? Really?


Revan is also a very powerful Force-user. And he failed to get close enough to Vitiate to stab him with his lightsaber. This should be sufficient evidence.

Stop it with this "very powerful" vague nonsense. Revan is more powerful, but he is not as powerful as Sidious. An analysis of the fight would indicate that Revan could possibly have gotten to Vitiate had he made some better tactical decisions. I don't have the book with me now. When I do, I can explain it to you.

But, for example, Luke Skywalker has displayed speed feats far superior to Vitiate's (well, because he has none). In as early as The Shadows of Mindor, he ran 2 kilometers in 2 minutes.

Palpatine will kill himself in the process too.

Blantant lie. He could do it fine in Dark Empire without dying.


Also, Vitiate can destroy the clone body of Palpatine.

WTF is this shit? He could destroy the clone body of Palpatine? Yeah, and Skywalker could destroy the body of Vitiate, you moron.

In your opinion only.

Vitiate can handle Luke with the Force. He destroyed 9 Dark Council members by himself (confirmed by Scourge). [/B]

I actually read the novel, so there is no need to Make Shit Up. They entered the Emperor's citadel and never returned. No indication that Vitiate encountered them personally, rather than trapping them in a room and gassing them to death. Nor have the members of the dark council ever shown themselves to be particularly powerful.

Skywalker, on the other hand, killed a thousand Yuuzhan Vong warriors and, as I recall and defeated half a dozen Vong slayers (one, infected with the Alpha Red virus, fought Kyp Durron to a standstill) right after this. When he was fighting his way to the palace, he was described as looking though he were wielding twenty lightsabers at once. So in sabers, Skywalker is clearly the superior, especially given that Vitiate, by your own admission, is not the saber expert.

In the Force, Luke Skywalker has knocked over a crippled AT-AT in the force (superior TK). He has instantly killed a slayer through its lightsaber resistant armor (superior lightning). He has rooted himself in the Force so that a supermassive black hole could not move him, and thereby defeated a person with the combined Force potential of an entire species.

And...how the **** does Vitiate defeat Abeloth?

Originally posted by Arhael
No I don't think that he is untouchable. But what I know is that Luke displayed on multiple accounts that he can counter stronger Force manipulations with less effort. You said that he can handle Luke with the Force. But I say that you don't need to have equal power to counter someone's Force attack. And Luke himself proved it on multiple accounts.

Any examples?

Originally posted by Arhael
That's how it should be. After reading all books with him I am not surprised about it. 😄

No, their should be a limit to hype. It distracts from facts and logical reasoning.

Originally posted by Arhael
Caedus himself is no ordinary foe. But there is much more evidence that he is not invincible and that is what makes the story interesting.

I did not said that Caedus is an ordinary foe. He exposed the limits of Luke. A more powerful opponent (for Luke) will logically and relatively pose greater challenge and danger to him. 🙂

Rogue Gladiator
Why does it matter? (BTW, Herbert, thank you, but I am fairly certain that TFU.net asked somebody with authority in Lucasfilms. I will try to find the source.)

My skepticism aside, good luck. That "source" has been floating around the internet for many years and no one has actually found it.


Any examples?

Luke vs C'baot clone.
Luke vs reborn Palpatine.
Luke vs Lord Nyax.
Luke vs Unu'thul and Lumi Plo empowered by millions of killiks.
Luke vs Abeloth
In all above examples enemies had much more power, than Luke, yet, non of them managed to Force handle him.

Luke vs Baron Do master - this is the brightest example. Of course the master wasn't more powerful but Luke used much less Force exertions to counter him, in other words much more wisely.

One time Abeloth managed to wrap around him. She was multiple times more powerful, yet, he was able to resist.

After encounter with Abeloth, while being Force exhausted, fought together with Ben and Vestara against 20+ sith sabers attacking them with Force and lightsabers simultaneously.

No, their should be a limit to hype. It distracts from facts and logical reasoning.
The hype was born because of all the facts and logical conclusions. 😄

A more powerful opponent (for Luke) will logically and relatively pose greater challenge and danger to him. 🙂
Not really. No one else managed to make Luke as reckless as Jacen during fight. And no one else managed to fight as cleverly as Jacen, imho it was the best opponent EU could offer combat wise.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
This response has jack shit to do with my post, which was a response to your statement that logic does not apply to Star Wars. Yet you still attempt to debate logically. It does not take an intelligent person, even, to understand the grand stupidity in this.

Here is my original statement:

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
Star Wars and LOGIC don't complement each other very often.

This is simply my observation regarding Star Wars lore. However, I am not saying that the debate on Star Wars related stuff should not be based on logical reasoning and facts either.

It seems like you are arguing here just for the sake of argument. Try to grasp the intended point instead. If you are not capable of doing so, then simply ask me to elaborate.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
That's my entire point. Jesus, you are a ****ing dumbass.

Your assumptions indicate otherwise.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
"one is a Champion of Light like Yoda and Revan".

(sigh). Do I need to explain how this vague, semantic-obsessed and irrelevant statement is stupid?


Here is a hint: This Jedi impressed even Revan when they met.

In addition, Revan' (centuries earlier) prophesy: It is inevitable that a champion of the light will one day rise to oppose him.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
Those Jedi of yours were powerful? 🙄

They were experienced Jedi Masters.

One of them - Tol Braga - stalemated a Dark Council member in a duel.

Another one - Warren Sedoru - posed some challenge to the main Jedi hero (whom we play in the game).

Don't know much about the 3rd one.

However, none of them sucked as much as Coleman Trebor, who could not even deflect blaster fire from such a close distance.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
Good job, disciple of circular logic. And amazing comeback.

I base my assumptions on logical reasoning and established facts.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
What? That it puts "reality" into Vitiate's powers? What kind of vague, semantical, flowery bullshit is that supposed to mean? How powerful does unleashing the "full power of the dark side against the defenseless droid" make him? Qui Gon? RotS Kenobi? Dooku? Palpatine? The Entire Dark Side?

That attack shattered the droid in to a million pieces. Sounds better now?

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
How is the quote quantifiable in the slightest?

The disturbance (in the air) and the damage it caused to the opponent.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
Illogical? By your own decree, logic does not apply in Star Wars. Please, stop contradicting yourself.

Covered above. Stop embarracing yourself.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
And events in 3rd person limited (ie, the Revan novel) are statements of events that occured from a character's PoV. There's the same thing.

The (most powerful Sith Lord ever) statement is part of the written story of the Plagueis novel? Or on the back cover?

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
Of course, you do have a canonical statement substantiating your claim. I just know that you wouldn't pull shit out of your arse, right?

Your point is?

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
I will not be surprised, if you not being surprised at a hypothetical occurence is irrelevant.

Another example of arguing just for the sake of argument from you. Your point is?

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
No, really?

Are they not?

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
Why does it matter? (BTW, Herbert, thank you, but I am fairly certain that TFU.net asked somebody with authority in Lucasfilms. I will try to find the source.)

Yes, it matters. And when you present an authoritarian example like this one, make sure that it is not misleading or you have full knowledge of it.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
He was the greatest practitioner of light in his time. This isn't that hard to decipher; only if we use your ridiculous interpretation of the words "history" and "ever".

Dumb person;

In Star Wars The Complete Encylopedia - Yoda is still stated to be the strongest Jedi regardless of updated information of Luke Skywalker in it (up to Legacy of the Force based content). Why is this? Luke supposedly surpassed Yoda by New Jedi Order based content, correct?

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
Of course he is more suitable for the title. That's my point. Plagueis is the most powerful sith of all time until Sidious. This interpretation fits together the various statements without any contradictions. Your "interpretation" involves dismissing these sources as "hyperbole". Basic principle, again: the best theory fits with the facts. End.

This is how you perceive the meaning of that quote. It has not been explicitly stated that Plagueis is the most powerful Sith Lord until Sidious. Get the memo?

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
So again, feel free to explain why historians call the Mongolian Empire "the largest continuous land Empire in history (or ever)". Are they wrong? Should they say "in the past"? Or "until now" to satisfy your obsession with semantics?

No real historian would say that. British Empire is considered to be largest in size and rightfully so. You need to revisit history lessons too.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
No fvking shit!! Guess what? "enormous command of the Force" =/= beating Palpatine. You used the quote as evidence for calling him "TOPS" and that he could clear the gauntlet. How does enormous command of the Force equate to more enormous command of the Force than Palpatine, or even Dooku? Agen Kolar and Kit Fisto were among the most celebrated swordsmen in the order; can they outduel Palpatine? May-oh, wait.

The sentence - full power of the Force - is canonical and is presented in 3rd party narration form. Deal with it.

The power of Count Dooku and others have not been described with this kind of narration. Your point is moot.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
The relevant point is that your rebuttal stated a completely irrelevant fact. That Nyriss was on the Dark Council and privvy to secrets had no contribution to her knowledge of the Emperor's past; she found it herself, and would have been executed had she been caught.

The whole argument is about the validity of Nyriss' account. My argument is that parts of her account have already been verified by other sources and I mentioned them. This suggests that Nyriss' account (as a whole) is not unsubstantiated legend, as you originally claimed. Nothing is irrelevant in my argument.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
What, you seriously fail to understand such a simple analogy? Your logic is this:

a) Nyriss told a story she admitted was unverifiable.
b) Some of Nyriss's story was confirmed to be true.
c) Therefore, Nyriss's story is true.

Which can be applied in similar ways to Achilles:

a) Homer told a story about Achilles and the Battle of Troy.
b) There is evidence that Troy and Achilles really did exist.
c) Therefore, the Illiad is pure truth!.

a) The internet makes numerous claims.
b) Some of these claims are true.
c) The internet is pure truth.


Read this: "Those who witnessed the events no longer live to verify them. But if you had ever met the Emperor in person, you would not be so hesitant to accept the tale as fact."

Critics typically ignore this part. Not surprised.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
I don't outright dismiss the legend. I have admitted that it could very well be true multiple times in this debate, but your reading skills are extremely selective.

Good. And my reading is not extremely selective.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
Proven wrong? It has to be proven wrong? When there is nothing to prove it right, it is unsubstantiated.

This is Nyriss' point of view. Their can be ways to verify the legend. Vitiate' own writings is one method. 😉

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
I already explained my dismissal of them, dumbass. To borrow an analogy I read from this board, the fact that babies exist does not lend credence to the theory that storks delivered them.

Can you please focus on explaining your original points instead of adding more silly examples in to the equation?

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
We should work with what we have got? Even if it is unverified legend? Even when there is a host of (pretty impressive) feats in Vitiate's name that are verifiable?

Then don't bring the legend part in to the debate. If you are not willing to believe in it. Simple.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
Crap logic. Being the only evidence does not magically give something validity.

It is not crap logic. Nyriss' account is the most detailed we have for the background history of Vitiate thus far. Their is no valid reason to dismiss it she herself did not made all of that up regardless of what she said about its validity.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
More crap logic. Because Sidious can fry 50 (relatively) weak clonetroopers, it must be able to work on a single powerful individual. After all, no need to quantify how powerful "powerful" is and how it relates to the single powerful individual. Because Palpatine can saber-kill 3 powerful jedi in seconds, he can obviously do it to a single powerful sith. It's not like as if "powerful" is relative or anything.

Those 4 Jedi were not like clonetroopers. Each had different strengths and weaknesses. Two of them were very strong at least. None of them could resist Vitiate' mind dominating powers regardless of personal strength. And simultaneously dominating them would have required more effort on part of Vitiate. Get the memo?

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
You can't be serious with using "champion of light" as an argument, can you?

This is how he is perceived by others.

For example:

The Revan I know is a hero. A champion of the light. (Bastilla Shan)

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
Yes, and he also stated before the fight his confidence of being able to resist Vitiate.

Because he knew what he could do this time.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
Ah. "some feats and well-developed abilities" is obviously enough to defeat Palpatine.

Yes.

Originally posted by Rogue Gladiator
Mindless? Revan didn't lose his tactical genius when he was enslaved did he? I remember him nearly conquering the Republic. Hardly seems mindless to me.

Revan was very powerful and managed to overcome his mental grip.

However, look at the case of Warren Sedoru.

Originally posted by Arhael
Luke vs C'baot clone.
Luke vs reborn Palpatine.
Luke vs Lord Nyax.
Luke vs Unu'thul and Lumi Plo empowered by millions of killiks.
Luke vs Abeloth

By phrase; Force manipulation - do you assume 'mind domination' or 'Force powers'?

Originally posted by Arhael
In all above examples enemies had much more power, than Luke, yet, non of them managed to Force handle him.

C'boath; Luke was stronger then him.

Palpatine; Luke succeeded in defeating Palpatine in a lightsaber duel once and this two with aid from Leia via 'Force harmony' technique. In terms of Force powers, their was no comparison. Palpatine had much greater command of the Force. In short, circumstances favored Luke.

Nyax; Luke did not killed this individual or am I missing something? 😕

Unu'Thul; while this individual was no ordinary Force-user; he is still an overhyped piece of shit. Luke is considerably stronger then him.

Abeloth; this is the only decent opponent besides Sidious and Caedus for Luke. And abeloth is far more powerful then him. She actually made a joke out of him in combat situations. Her greatest limitation is the bodies which she possesses. She can kill Luke, if she wants to but wastes chances.

Originally posted by Arhael
Luke vs Baron Do master - this is the brightest example. Of course the master wasn't more powerful but Luke used much less Force exertions to counter him, in other words much more wisely.

Interesting.

Originally posted by Arhael
One time Abeloth managed to wrap around him. She was multiple times more powerful, yet, he was able to resist.

He did resisted to the best of his efforts but succeeded on few occasions. Abeloth got ample opportunity to kill him too. But this did not happen because of the story arc. In one of such cases, Vestara helped Luke. 😉

Originally posted by Arhael
After encounter with Abeloth, while being Force exhausted, fought together with Ben and Vestara against 20+ sith sabers attacking them with Force and lightsabers simultaneously.

They faced some guards who were killed by StealthX aircraft. Correct me, if I am reading another incident.

Originally posted by Arhael
The hype was born because of all the facts and logical conclusions. 😄

No. They were born out of fanboyism and misleading information presented by fanboys. Not accusing you of anything though.

Originally posted by Arhael
Not really. No one else managed to make Luke as reckless as Jacen during fight. And no one else managed to fight as cleverly as Jacen, imho it was the best opponent EU could offer combat wise. [/B]

Being clever is not enough. This is one of Solo' methods for overcoming his shortcomings.

However, Vitiate is more powerful and dangerous then Caedus. He can exploit Luke' mental condition in a manner that no other can do. He can use this to his advantage.

Oh my god...


No real historian would say that. British Empire is considered to be largest in size and rightfully so. You need to revisit history lessons too.

The British Empire is the largest continuous land empire in history? You are a brilliant example of the failure of our public schools.

Here is a hint: This Jedi impressed even Revan when they met.

In addition, Revan' (centuries earlier) prophesy: It is inevitable that a champion of the light will one day rise to oppose him.

Oh my god! A Jedi impressed Revan! This somehow matters! Did you know that Yoda "holds you [Obi-Wan] in such high esteem". This must mean that AotC Obi-Wan is superior to Palpatine. Or, Luke Skywalker was impressed how Vestara Khai's bladework in Backlash, so this must put the 16 year old sith girl above Darth Sidious as well.


That attack shattered the droid in to a million pieces. Sounds better now?

Assuming that you take "million pieces" literally (despite being one of the most common figure of speeches in the English language, and despite the dubious assumption that Revan, whose PoV it was from, could instantly recognize a droid in millions of pieces from thousands), this means that Lord Vitiate can destroy the defenseless droid!

...

(Responding to: No fvking shit!! Guess what? "enormous command of the Force" =/= beating Palpatine. You used the quote as evidence for calling him "TOPS" and that he could clear the gauntlet. How does enormous command of the Force equate to more enormous command of the Force than Palpatine, or even Dooku? Agen Kolar and Kit Fisto were among the most celebrated swordsmen in the order; can they outduel Palpatine? May-oh, wait.)

The sentence - full power of the Force - is canonical and is presented in 3rd party narration form. Deal with it.

The power of Count Dooku and others have not been described with this kind of narration. Your point is moot.

You don't think that Count Dooku has been described in the same flowery language? What about Yoda "most devastatingly powerful foe the darkness had ever known?" The statement "enormous command of the Force" is no more descriptive or relevant than your rebuttal. Agen Kolar was also described as a celebrated swordsman; could he beat Vitiate in a lightsaber duel?


Those 4 Jedi were not like clonetroopers. Each had different strengths and weaknesses. Two of them were very strong at least. None of them could resist Vitiate' mind dominating powers regardless of personal strength. And simultaneously dominating them would have required more effort on part of Vitiate. Get the memo?

So the conclusion that you get from this reasoning is that Vitiate can mind dominate Sidious. Really, this train of thought is so unbelievably stupid, I can scarcely believe you are being serious.

1. Vitiate mind dominated four powerful Jedi.
2. "Each had different strengths and weaknesses"
3. "Two of them were very strong at least"
4. He dominated them at once, so that's impressive.
...
5. Therefore, he could dominate Sidious!

Where did you get to point five? How powerful in relation to Sidious are these four jedi? 50%? 60%? How powerful is "powerful"? By this same logic...

1. Sidious defeated three of the greatest duelists in the Order in a matter of seconds
2. Each of these swordsmen had "different strengths and weaknesses.
3. They were all "very strong", at least.
4. Sidious did them to all of them sequentially, effectively at once.
...
5. Therefore, Sidious could pwn Vitiate within seconds!

...

(responding to:
Ah. "some feats and well-developed abilities" is obviously enough to defeat Palpatine.

Yes.

So anybody with "some feats" and "well-developed abilities" can defeat Palpatine. Let's see...AotC Anakin has "some feats" (jumping off of a moving airspeeder, falling thousands of meters and grabbing onto another, timing it exactly, and not dying, for one), and "well-developed abilities (we see plenty of screen time with him, plus we have the novels and various EU sources around that time).

So, obviously, Anakin in Attack of the Clones can defeat Palpatine.

In case if this isn't getting through to you, my point is that "very powerful" and "enormously powerful" are not good indicators of power relative to other powerful beings. "Powerful" could range from an above average Jedi Master to Luke Skywalker. All you have proven in all of your various flowery quotes is that Lord Vitiate is one powerful mother. But never do you explain how this allows him to defeat RotS Sidious, or DE Sidious, or Luke, or Abeloth.


(Responding to: Of course, you do have a canonical statement substantiating your claim. I just know that you wouldn't pull shit out of your arse, right?)

Your point is?

Ah, what do we have you? I not so subtly ask you to substantiate your claim that newer sources override older ones, and you completely miss the ridiculously simplistic question, and answer with your point is?

I'll take this as a concession that you don't have evidence to support your claim, and that you were just pulling shit out of your arse. The alternative is that your reading comprehension is terrible enough so that you can't read into implied questions to even the slightest extent.


(Responding to: How is the quote quantifiable in the slightest?)

The disturbance (in the air) and the damage it caused to the opponent.

Hey look; I ask you to quantify a statement, and you respond by...mentioning that there is a "disturbance (in the air)" and the "damage it caused to the opponent". Funny how making a "disturbance (in the air)" puts you above Palpatine, who turned an entire planet into a dark side infested wasteland, or how causing "damage" satisfies the request of quantifying the quote.

Just among some of the stupid shit in your response. I'll respond to the rest later. And you feel the need to flame somebody who just joined the board yesterday, without cause. How welcoming of you. What's more, I didn't really nitpick most of these. I literally chose random statements you made, and they were all stupid. Amazing.

Rogue Gladiator
I'll respond to the rest later.

Dear God, why?
I know some of this must be because I'm ancient in KMC-years, but your tenacity is exhausting to even me, the reader.

If you keep this up, you'll blow your load on SWL and end up jaded and embittered and flirting with Nephthys.

Do not make the mistakes of others, my son. You have conquered your adversary, that much is obvious.