Originally posted by Arhael
Emm, maybe because he got exhausted?
Maybe? (Not that Sidious seemed like he had much fight left in him either)
I still don't get why people are willing to jump to that conclusion and completely ignore the fact that by the time Yoda got back up there to face Sidious there most likely would have been a dozen+ clone troopers.
Yoda got unlucky taking that fall in the limited time span he had to kill the Emperor.
But as far as the direct combat between the 2 went the advantage was with Yoda.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Maybe? (Not that Sidious seemed like he had much fight left in him either)I still don't get why people are willing to jump to that conclusion and completely ignore the fact that by the time Yoda got back up there to face Sidious there most likely would have been a dozen+ clone troopers.
Yoda got unlucky taking that fall in the limited time span he had to kill the Emperor.
But as far as the direct combat between the 2 went the advantage was with Yoda.
lol
As entertaining as this is, let's not deviate from the point: you claimed that Yoda lost because of the Emperor's command of bureaucratic procedure and rhetoric prowess.
It's time you either support your claim through reason or concede to trolling and slink back from whence you came.
In a straight up battle Lord Sidious wasn't all that uber powerful!
In a battle with Mace Windu he had to rely on Anakin, in a battle against Yoda, his gaurds, to beat Plagueis, he had to incapacitate him with alcohol and electrocute the helpless Sith to death. In a battle with Galen Marek, he needed to rely on trickery and enragement. In a battle with an enlightened Luke Skywalker he had to rely on his Force Storm and Essence Transfer, which finally failed both times. In order to overthrow the Jedi Order itself Sidious had to rely in devious, opaque, trickery. And in dark Empire he lost that, he succumbed to the dependence on surrendering to the whimn of the dark side instead of trickery, but the dark side is treacherous...he was far deadlier as the known Emperor than some mysterious outcast who wished to regain that position.
And it is that very thing that makes the Sith Order survive, and it's what makes Sidious the most "capable Sith"; it's things like that which allowed for Meetra Surik to defeat Darth Nihilus, a being stronger in the dark side than Vitiate or perhaps even Abeloth.
Trickery, deciet, this is the true nature of the greatest Sith. Sidious was not only more innately talented at deception and subterfuge, he also became the most knowledgable master of the powers of the dark side in an esoteric and arcane sense as well. His alchemy, Force storms, were abilities that surpassed the likes of the greatest of the greats, Naga Sadow; Freedon Nadd; Exar Kun; Karness Muur. Sidious was so incredibly capable and dangerous it's not even funny.
This combination of a scheming mastermind and a deeper understanding of the dark side and a greater mastery of it's darkest techniques are far more valuable than the temporary command granted from repairing a spiritual wound with the souls of billions - wasting a powerful resource and feeding a debilitating reliance on that temporary power.
Of course without prep he gets overpowered here more easily than against Mace Windu.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
This must be a "do as I say, not as I do" sorta thing, right? Because your vision is about as keen as Stevie Wonder's.
To the contrary, dear Tempest: My vision is pretty keen in regard to that subject, but I'm not going to campaign against myself in debates. It is certainly not my task in a discussion, to do the job of my opposition. And in this case, it's a job that - and this is a rather interesting point - nobody has put much effort into within the boards of our good ol' versus forum. Almost every attempt, to verify / falsify sources and quotes here, comes exclusively from myself. But you apparently want to lay the blame on my doorstep for others being either inable or unwilling to do the job. Is there any higher moral obligation for me, to thoroughly examine every single quote that I might want to use, regarding its relieability? I think you're demanding a little too much, acting in an enviroment, where nobody wants to do the job - least of all the person who demands it from me. After all, persons like yourself have established "quote wars" as debating technique here and still point to the "myriads of quotes" supporting their opinion, whenever confronted with a piece of evidence that seems to contradict their ideas.
One would think, if that were true, you'd have found a way to practice it over the years. Hilariously, a cursory glance at your post history reveals that you're only ever interested in questioning sources pertaining to a single character.When Ragnos, Dooku, and now Vitiate are in play? You interpret them as the gospel.
One would think, that it is true, which a more than "cursory glance" at my posting history reveals quite nicely. You see. A 10 minute search through my posting history brings the following funny issues to daylight: A rather long text, culminating in the conclusion, that the Jedi in the PT era are superior to those that came before them, right here. Then you have me arguing that individuals from that earlier eras might be more powerful than Yoda just there. But maybe you think, that I should make a case for Yoda: Done. I've also defended Mauls superiority over Bastilla here. And pay special attention who did visit first to applaud my posting. You can follow my posting history and see the complete extent of my exploids. I've argued for and also against the likes of Ragnos, Exar Kun, Revan, Yoda, Dooku, at times even taking different stances in similar discussions. So what?
Apparently, unlike other persons, I'm not following a certain agenda regarding a single character or a set of characters, that would force me to interprete sources in a rather one-sided fashion and take quotes out of context to promote my personal opinion. But, meh, I'm not the person that drafted a 12 page essay with the single goal to convince the reader "beyond a shadow of a doubt that Emperor Palpatine is not just the most powerful Sith Lord in the mythos, but the most powerful Force user in general, bar none." So the only hilarious thing here is, that a person who has done nothing here but defending Sidious' supposed superiority over anybody else for years, dares to try and lecture me on only being (negatively) interested in a single character.
Which is, by the way, your own fault. You see: I'm here for debates and for those having opponents is kinda mandatory. Am I to side with the more popular opinion, making fools out of less gifted debaters, who dare to step forward to advocate an unpopular stance? Shall I take it up with the genius of S_W_LeGenD? I know, you would probably find that most entertaining, and - as seen with your great idol Gideon above - would be the first one to acclaim that action. But such deeds are pretty much beneath me at the moment. So I rather leave that for those among us, who are in desperate need for a daily ego boost.
And I would be delighted, if somebody would put the idea of examining sources and quotes to use here. After all, I've not only given every member of this very forum one tool to do so, with my posting regarding "focalization" here. I've also asked for this kind of analysis being performed before utilizing sources and single quotes right there. Apparently without avail. One might also notice that that little input from the field of literary studies was regarded by some as the end of Gideon's ways (Click). If my opinion was based on violating the basic principles of the field of study that I am operating in, I would probably recognize that I might be wrong - unlike other individuals.
Are you roleplaying as me, here?
No. I'm merely pointing out that, if one wants to spare himself the dreadful process of interpreting sources and, instead, take everything written as literal, one will find himself in a dead end, when somebody else does the same - with quotes stating something different. If the reflection isn't to your liking, don't blame the person holding the mirror.
Indeed. Why would power refer to combat prowess when the contest in question is a fight? Wouldn't make any sense at all, really. Yoda fled the fight by virtue of Sidious's command of Republic legislative procedure and rhetorical prowess.👆
Obviously, something is rather hard to understand for you. I chalk that up to the unnerving sound produced by the air flowing out of your overinflated ego. No problem, though. I will just explain it again.
There is no "contest in question", since the source isn't an in-depth analysis of the fight between Yoda and Sidious, but a historian talking about events that have occured 50 years in the past and that nobody has witnessed, if I may add that. So everything uttered by the historian is just bound to that context and not to the situational contentions of his writings. Meaning: He is always aware that Sidious was, in his hayday, the most powerful (political and military) Sith Lord in history and he can put that information in whereever he likes. The relative proximity of the utterings doesn't mean there is a causal connection. In order to archive that, the sentence would have needed a wording like this:
"Yoda couldn't defeat Sidious because he was the most powerful Sith Lord in history."
In such a case, their would have been a clear causal connection between Sidious being the most powerful and Yoda not being able to defeat him, which would have established the "most powerful" refering to Sidious command of the Force and / or his lightsaber ability. But even then, the statement would have been factually wrong since Sidious power wasn't the cause for Yoda's defeat (at least not from Yoda's perspective):
"The Sith had changed. The Sith had grown, had adapted, had invested a thousand years' intensive study into every aspect of not only the Force but Jedi lore itself, in preparation for exactly this day. The Sith had remade themselves.
They had become new. While the Jedi—
The Jedi had spent that same millennium training to refight the last war.
The new Sith could not be destroyed with a lightsaber; they could not be burned away by any torch of the Force. The brighter his light, the darker their shadow. How could one win awar against the dark, when war itself had become the dark's own weapon?
He knew, at that instant, that this insight held the hope ofthe galaxy. But if he fell here, that hope would die with him. Hmmm, Yoda thought. A problem this is..." - Revenge of the Sith novelization, Chapter 20.
Yoda himself, ultimately, chalks up his inability to overcome Sidious to the fact, that the Sith have turned war itself into a weapon for the Dark Side. The movie shows, that Yoda is - at the very least - on par with Sidious in both lightsaber ability (according to the script he even disarms the Sith Lord) and Force use (he is pushing Sidious back in their final force contest). But even if Yoda would have been able to kill Sidious, the Galaxy would still have been lost, because of the machinations the Sith have put into action.
What machinations? First: The CIS leadership had been eliminated, sending the confederacy into chaos, which included some of the most powerful corporations in the galaxy. The only being capable of stopping that process and reuniting the CIS systems with the Republic was - Sidious. Secondly: The Republic itself would have ended up in a situation, in which its leader would have been assassinated by those who were thought of as serving as protectors of the Republic for a thousand years (or even a thousand generations). The result? Chaos, disorder and a Clone army as only military in the hands of the likes of Tarkin, without anybody to sieze control, as all Jedi would be outlawed and hunted. The only person to prevent that chaos from happening? Sidious.
1/2
So, ultimately, it was the realization, that he could not defeat the Sith as a group (not Sidious as an individual) that made Yoda flee the scene. He could have jumped back up from the bottom of the rotunda again (where he found his lightsaber, if I may remind you). He could have attempted to continue the fight and there is at least the possibility, that he could have defeated the Sith Lord. An unlikely possibility, because the Clones were almost there (which is demonstrated by movie and novel alike). But even had he done so, he would just have won a battle to lose the war. Why? Because of the military power and political influence Sidious had in his hands.
And thanks for dodging the fact that, even if Voran Na'al was to cast a judgement regarding Sidious lightsaber abilities and Force feats, he lacks knowledge about "all other Sith Lords", since most of them are totally unknown. So, at the very least, there should have been some limiting statement in that "opinion" if it was uttered in regards to Sidious force powers and lightsaber skill. Something that I would demand from all EU sources that make such wonderful statement. But, you see, when you don't want to accept that kind of reasoning, we're back at "Voran Na'al vs The Official Star Wars Fact File" - a case that your big idol Gideon has lost in the past and that you will lose whenever I decide to throw it into a discussion.
I hope you also notice, that there is the inconvenient fact that the NEC was released before nice parts of the EU, including (but not limited to) the entire cast of the ToR game (including Vitiate) were conceived, rendering that statment entirely useless anyway - at least for this particular discussion. Just saying.
I could also simple site Leland Chee on the very issue:
"There's always going to be room for interpretation and debate. Is the power being measured referring to his mastery over the dark side of the Force, the governmental powers he wields as Emperor, or some combination of both?" Leland Chee, Tasty Taste, 2007
Need more?
Except, of course, when it undermines a characteryouone doesn't like. [/B]
For the actual accusation found here: You're wrong. See above.
That aside: The Star Wars universe is one pretty much devided into black and white, which extents to the characters living within, who are more often than not paragons of good or evil. That being said, there is a lot of SW characters that I don't like - in fact most of them. The EU writers haven't graced us with the witty likes of Alan Shore, Sebastian Stark or Tyrion Lannister. Nor have they produced many characters that are somewhat "torn" on whatever level (e.g. Jamie Lannister, Brienne of Tarth) or that need to cope with special problems (physically or mentally) that make them interesting. For me, just as example, the most interesting (though not necessarily most entertaining) character of Boston Legal wasn't Alan Shore but Jerry Espenson.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
The problem is whenNaisome people are willing to use in-universe sources when it favors their argument and not at other times.
Am I the person that contradicts the "Official Star Wars Fact File" because my opinion differs from what is, apparently, seen as official fact? And I wonder at what "other times" I should make use of sources. When they don't favor my argument? I wonder how you imagine that to happen. Oh, wait. Shall I modify my personal opinion when new information become available. A few links above demonstrate rather clearly, that I'm not defending my personal convictions here or - and here is the funny point - change them rather often. I bet the same can be said about you certain other guys, correct?
Originally posted by The_Tempest
I sense the phantom menace of a certain German at work. You should know better, my Texan son.
It actually speaks volumes, that, according to your opinion, recognizing a 20 year old sourcebook as "outdated" can just be my (sinister) work. 🙄
Originally posted by The_Tempest
My genuine question posed to no one in particular is, why is he not lightyears ahead of everyone? [/B]
And my genuine question for you in particular is: How can you know that Vitiate is not lightyears ahead of everyone?
@-kV
Originally posted by -kV-
This is your opinion of how sources should be interpreted[...]
In short: nope. It's not my personal opinion of how to interprete sources. It's the only way of interpreting them. You simple can't accept a statement, that proclaims character X as "most powerful", when it was made before the invention of also quite powerful character Y, because even Science Fiction writers aren't gifted with accurate forsight abilities.
I can't accept the Dark Empire Sourcebook, when it states that there wasn't a long lasting organisation of Dark Side practioners, when we have at least three of them (Ancient Sith Empire, Vitiate's Sith Empire, Bane's Sith Order). How am I to accept that Sidious had to mine millions of planets for Dark Side lore, when the novel about Darth Plagueis reveals, that he, pretty much, just needed to walk into that immense library of his own master?
If new information becomes available, one has to check if the current beliefs can still be true after having checked the information. The way Gideon, and many others - on various topics - have argued here, is the exact opposite: When new information becomes available, opinions are not modified according to the new information - the new information is modified according to the opinion.
@S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
However, he will slam you for not slamming me, Nai, and others who are on the same page.
Let me make this very clear: We are certainly not on the same page. I would heavily contradict even the notion, that we are in the same book and seriously doubt, that we are even in the same library. In fact, I'm not entirely sure that you and me a living on the same planet.
So if you are so deperately craving for backup, go seek it elsewhere. Because the next time you dare to direct another implied appeal for support in my general direction, I'm gonna break you down into so many little pieces that my grandmother, who can do a thousand piece puzzle of clear blue sky in less than an hour, will never be able to finish putting you back together again, even if she does go back in time to when her vision was perfect.
Originally posted by Arhael
You say that. Yet, in Palpatine and Vitiate in that huge post in Palpatine and Vitiate you use quotes from Nyriss' hyperbolic legend like it is reliable information.
Aside from my immediate urge to applaud your repitition of a point already brought to the table six pages earlier - which undermines your usefulness as a parrot - I can just repeat myself:
Have I, at any given point in time, forbid a thorouhly conducted analysis and critique of the quotes I've brought to the debate? No, Sir. Is it my right to shove anything that might advance my stance in a debate across the table to see how my oposition might deal with it? Yes, Sir. So, let me just ask this question once more: What is your point?
Shall I, rather than using the very easily questionable opinion of character Nyriss, submit the - somewhat less questionable - account of that "hyperbolic tale" The Old Republic Encyclopedia offers to the discussion. It is, by the way, an almost word-for-word adaption of the story Darth Nyriss tells, yet not so easily rejected. Would you like that better? Or shall I just use 100 percent relieable sources, which - and here is the inside scoop - do not exist?
2/2
One thing is for sure, Sidious is the best Sith, if even his Force Storm doesn't make up for a lack of talent and mastery over arcane capabilities, even outside of his inferior connection to the Force, than Vitiate..Sidious is still the better Sith Lord, purely because he is smarter, more cunning, and more manipulative. Qualities of a Sith.
Vitiate's mastery of arcane abilities and sorcerery may be greater than that of Darth Nihilus, but that means nothing in a direct confrontation when they're in their primes...as Nihilus' connection dwarfs the Sith Emperor's, and he will overpower him.
In the same way Sidious could scheme a plot to weaken Vitiate and destroy him.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
facepalmWhat was I debating, DP?
You facepalming is always pretty laughable.
Only you and Tempest could stick like glue to a quote saying "Sidious was the most powerful"
Originally posted by The_Tempest
lolAs entertaining as this is, let's not deviate from the point: you claimed that Yoda lost because of the Emperor's command of bureaucratic procedure and rhetoric prowess.
First of all I never claimed Yoda lost. I claimed he fled the scene.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
It's time you either support your claim through reason or concede to trolling and slink back from whence you came.
You were the one making an argument that he fled because the Emperor was so powerful (in combat) when you know very well the Emperor never overpowered Yoda in combat.
You even know the script and the movie together show that if anyone was doing the overpowering in combat it was Yoda.
Yes I "claimed" he fled due to Sidious having an Empire. Could also be that he took the harder fall after a force contest which Yoda seemed to be winning. Could have been a combination of both especially after his "realization."
Either way it's you whose claiming it was because Sidious was so powerful combat wise. Your making out he was superior to Yoda in this regard with nothing to back that up (obviously since no evidence like that exists). So leave the trolling remarks for a time when you yourself are not trolling.
Let's run through the list of claims I didn't make here:
[list]
[1] Sidious is superior to Yoda
[2] Yoda lost the fight
[3] Sidious is the most powerful because of a quote
[/list]
You, on the other hand, claimed Yoda fled because of Sidious's rhetorical prowess and command of Republic legislation. Feel free to cease your b1tching and whining (the only communicative areas in which you have any discernible skill) and try your hand at, you know, actually assembling a cogent argument.
But I already laid the terms bare for you earlier. You elected to misrepresent my argument in order to conceal the tragically glaring holes in yours rather than make your case.
Stick to flogging the hell out of question marks and exclamation points. You have no place among anyone here but S_W_LeGenD.
I accept your concession. Be a good sport and never directly address me again.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Let's run through the list of claims I didn't make here:
[list]
[1] Sidious is superior to Yoda
[2] Yoda lost the fight
[3] Sidious is the most powerful because of a quote
[/list]You, on the other hand, claimed Yoda fled because of Sidious's rhetorical prowess and command of Republic legislation.
Let's see what I actually said
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Well he kind of did.. I mean it's not like Yoda fled because Sidious just outright beat him in combat. And I'm sure the fact that Sidious had his own Empire whilst Yoda was on his lonesome, had a material effect on the decision to flee at the point that he did.
To which of course you claimed the fact that Sidious had an Empire clearly had absolutely nothing to do with Yoda's retreat.
And then you just go nuts coming out with crap like this:
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Feel free to cease your b1tching and whining (the only communicative areas in which you have any discernible skill) and try your hand at, you know, actually assembling a cogent argument.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
But I already laid the terms bare for you earlier. You elected to misrepresent my argument in order to conceal the tragically glaring holes in yours rather than make your case.
Actually your the one who clearly misrepresented mine. Which wasn't even an argument, just a point.
But it's ok, we all know just how objective and not at all sensitive you and S66 are when concerning any argument revolving around Sidious.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Stick to flogging the hell out of question marks and exclamation points. You have no place among anyone here but S_W_LeGenD.
Urm excuse me, but who are you to tell me that I don't belong here Mr. I've been banned like what? 7 times is it now?
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
I accept your concession. Be a good sport and never directly address me again.
Oh yes the old I'm above talking to you routine.
Like you did to Nai in the past every time he called you out on your shit!
Oh and while we're on the topic of how ridiculously biased and full of crap you and S66 are regarding Sidious, I've got Shadow Conspiracy now, and as far as the novel version of events go, at no point does Sidious Saber stomp Maul and Opress together.
He does however Saber stomp them individually after he uses the Force to seperate Maul from Opress.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Feel free to cease your b1tching and whining (the only communicative areas in which you have any discernible skill) and try your hand at, you know, actually assembling a cogent argument.But I already laid the terms bare for you earlier. You elected to misrepresent my argument in order to conceal the tragically glaring holes in yours rather than make your case.
Stick to flogging the hell out of question marks and exclamation points. You have no place among anyone here but S_W_LeGenD.
^
He's got ya there, DP. 😮💨
Originally posted by Rookwood
^He's got ya there, DP. 😮💨
Doesn't really mean much when he consistently sticks up for people who embody the words "whining and b1tching" as long as they're pro-Sidious.
He can be reasonable sometimes but also has a history of playing the "I'm above you" card every time he's got something stuck up his ass.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
You facepalming is always pretty laughable.
Yeah, I know. Your posts are almost always one big facepalm, which is laughable.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Only you and Tempest could stick like glue to a quote saying "Sidious was the most powerful"
This is not answering my question. How did you assume that I was "not winning" a debate about something that I wasn't even debating?
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
You were the one making an argument that he fled because the Emperor was so powerful (in combat) when you know very well the Emperor never overpowered Yoda in combat.
Like The_Tempest already said, he didn't say that Sidious was Yoda's superior, if that's what you're accusing him of. He said that Yoda fled because he was unarmed and unable to defeat Sidious.
"Obi Wan and Vader duel on Mustafar while Yoda and Palpatine duel on Coruscant. Palpatine is too strong for the aging Yoda, who escapes with Bail Organa." (SW Comics Companion)
^It seems to me that Yoda not being able to defeat Sidious had something to do with, ya know, not being powerful enough to do so. Not because Sidious had an empire.
Nai, if you see this, and if you have a counter-argument for it, please give DARTH POWER a chance first. I'm wondering what illogical argument he comes up with this time.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Feel free to cease your b1tching and whining (the only communicative areas in which you have any discernible skill)
😆
Too true.