Is Palpatine a universe buster?

Originally posted by The_Tempest
New additions to the recap:
[list]
[*]Nai's long post history attacking Sheev and favoring ancient Sith isn't bias or an agenda, it's "enlightenment" {Even when the status quo favored the ancient Sith}
[*]A source can only be properly understood if we know the author's intent, unless you're Nai, who is psychic
[/list]
Also gotta say: I find it hilarious that a guy who made it his hobby for years of disregarding the 1993 DESB, disregarding it because of its age, now wants to cling to it as the gospel at the expense of newer sources that he doesn't like.

Like the time you argued that the fluff surrounding RPG items and stats was non-canon, anyway.

Aren't you using that RPG sourcebook fluff about Force storms at this very moment to undermine newer sources?

Thank God you're clearly above petty agendas.

ROFLMAO

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
@The_Ellimist

Nai have come-up with some valid points. I too found his interpretation a bit problematic earlier but his recent responses are very well done.

Twisting the space-time continuum leads to creation of the Force Storm. Of-course, a Force-user has to do the twisting part through his own abilities. The resultant Force Storm however is extremely dangerous and difficult to control. Some Force-users learned this fact the hard way.

Palpatine seems to have mastered the ability to create Force Storms but the level of control he could exercise upon one is open to debate. I'd say that Palpatine was able to control the Force Storm that he sent towards Coruscant but this manifestation was less powerful then the manifestation over Da Soocha.

And yes, the second Force Storm took time to dissipate even after its connection to Palpatine was severed. This is compatible with the assertion that twisting of space-time continuum leads to creation of Force Storm.

Moreover, if we assume that the potency of Force Storm depends upon the Force-user who summoned one, then it is becomes even more clear that Palpatine cannot summon a Force Storm so large and powerful that it could threaten all of space. Therefore, the Comics Companion revelation can be discarded.

Clearly there is more too it than that.

Originally posted by Nai
Urm? Last time I checked, I was dealing with this statement:

"Unleashing the full power of his hatred, he conjures a Force Storm that threatens to consume all of space, including the New Republic fleet."

Correct?
This is, after all, just the judgement of whatever author, who thinks that the Force storm could consume all of space. Not that Sidious could intentionally summon a force storm powerful enough to do so. I thought, that I explained why I made a point of questioning the linking of the destructive abilities of the storm to Sidious personal power...

Read what you just quoted, lmao. My point is that nobody here was interested in this question of whether the storm relates to his personal power or not. Whether it's technically "his" power or just power he's channeling/harnessing, there's no functional difference.

And now you're just trying to doubt the accuracy of the author's words, an accuracy that you no doubt hold sacrosanct whenever the source happens to support your position, double standard nicely unexplained.

You're still treating the author's statements as "claims" of the author, as opposed to factual fiats; this interpretation of the validity of the third person narrator runs explicitly against actual EU policy. And yet you continue to regard me actually abiding by these guidelines as lacking "critical thinking", rather than trying to base ideas on objective facts as opposed to Nai's personal feelings.

Urm. Since when do I need to prove a negative?
If you want Sidious to be capable to alter the size and power of a Force storm, you better come up with proof that he can. Until you do, I'm going to stick with the description of the Force storm ability, which makes it clear that size and strength have to be determined while summoning the storm and - going even one step father - grant those properties to the storm, even should the user fail to use the ability properly.

That aside, as you ignore that critique the first time around: The source in question talks about the force storm as it is and not some variation that might have been there after an alteration of the storm by Sidious.

The burden of proof point is addressed below:

An "official statement" that is - like all of fiction - subject to interpretation and falsification. If there is nothing to indicate, that the storm can destroy the universe (which is, in itself, an entirely ridiculous notion), than there is no reason to believe the quote. It's that easy. If you refuse to use your own mental faculties while reading the source material, you can just go back to kindergarten and bore the other kids to death with your lack of personal thoughts.

Seriously. One could just point out, that the supposed "all consuming" Force Storm is neither capable of destroying "space" (where it just appears and disappears without leaving any kind of damage), nor to destroy Sidious spirit, who must have been in the center of the storm after Sidious body was destroyed.

You still adhere to this entirely personal taste of yours, that official statements have some burden to be actively corroborated - precisely the opposite of what the actual EU canon policy was. When a source makes a claim, the onus shifts to us to fit our theories around those claims. In this case, just pointing out that Sidious can:

a) Alter the storms' size upon creation
b) Increase their destructive capacity exponentially

Create a theory that better fits the facts/evidence, including the official statement. Your competing theory, meanwhile, is inferior because it does not fit the evidence, even though it could be modified to do so, and just tosses a source out on its convenience.

This is how the actual scientific method works; we don't just toss out data unless if it's outright inaccurate (analogous to a typo or something that has been explicitly discredited). We instead try to work our theories around them, not the other way around. That Nai happens to have a personal stake in the outcome of the analysis does not somehow change the epistemology of it.

------------

Your response to this is to point out the lack of active evidence that this size-changing ability exists. You once again miss the analogy to real-life empirical studies; when creating a theory to explain a set of evidence, it's OK to include assumptions that aren't actively observed if they're necessary to string together a cogent model. Of course, it's better to have fewer assumptions - hence occam's razor - but you haven't come up with one that has less, not without literally tossing out evidence you don't like. Since the idea of size-changing is neither affirmed nor falsified in the literature, it's superior to make assumptions regarding that than to actively contradict a claim (consume all of space) that has been actively affirmed.

False analogy.
The better one would be this: Lucas, in the RotS commentary, happily proclaims that Anakin got his scar by slipping in the bathtub, mentioning that he doesn't care about the stories outside of his movies. So did Anakin get the scar by slipping in the bathtub now, because Lucas said so?

Sure? How is that an unreasonable assertion, beyond appealing to your personal incredulity?

In either case, it's pretty absurd to compare a published, presumably proofread piece of literature with somebody answering a question on the spot in an interview.

Of course they weren't. What part of "utilizing your own modus operandi against you" was it you didn't understand?

No, you don't get it. Every piece of evidence that you've ever cited in any of your debates here, including those of your precious sex doll Exar Kun, also suffer from this problem, and you haven't provided any sort of distinction to justify your double standard.

What part of the differentiation between "narrative" and "discriptive" sources was it you didn't get?

Well, The Tempest has apparently thrown at you instances where you denied the canonicity of RPG's outright, so I'll await whatever string of convoluted explanations you have for that in your reply.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
New additions to the recap:
[list]
[*]Nai's long post history attacking Sheev and favoring ancient Sith isn't bias or an agenda, it's "enlightenment" {Even when the status quo favored the ancient Sith}

Just in order to have yourself doing a fact check on your rather reality-defying interpretation of SWVS-forum-history:

a)
Find me the various instances, in which people (specifically me) have argued in favor for the Ancient Sith based on quotes back in the day. You see: The only quote even coming close of giving the Ancient Sith any kind of status back in the day, was the line regarding Marka Ragnos on the backcover of "The Golden Age of the Sith". Pretty much everything else in favor for the Ancient Sith was material based on analysing and interpreting the source material. That didn't leave me much room for attacks regarding the modus operandi to handle quotes with blind faith. Correct?

b)
There never was a "status quo" favoring the "Ancient Sith" (read: Ragnos, Sadow, Kressh, Kun) here. Those kind of reasoning was defended by a rather small group against a vast majority of movie fans (favoring Sidious, Vader, Maul) and KotoR "fanboys" (arguing in favor for Revan, Malak and sometimes Tulak Hord). You may want to recall the fact, that the term "Antediluvian" (literal meaning "before the flood"😉 was coined to describe people, who were active in the forum before the flood of KotoR fanboys.

c)
While I have lectured you about this countless times, you keep ignoring the facts. Not only MY POSTING IN THIS VERY THREAD HERE, WHERE I EXTEND MY REASONING ON VITIATE, DUH! but also various other point of my posting history, that you always ignore out of convenience, when being confronted with them, even when third parties bring them to the table.

But, this is also old news, correct? I rather let other people speak:

As Janus told you:

Also Nai is right that he often came to blows with Illustrious and myself and others (*Cough*Sorgo*Cough*). Sometimes he disagreed for the sake of having a dissenting opinion, regardless of group affiliation.I don't see why you'd assert otherwise, except to discredit him indirectly without attacking his argument.

And look who attempts to discredit me indirectly without attacking my argument. Same idiot, same cheap tricks, same failure. 😂 But don't worry. You can always be a bad example. You're existance is not entirely without purpose.

For the time being, though, people could have a look at my posting history.

Me acknowledging the idea that Sidious is the most powerful Sith Lord might be correct back in 2006.

To quote myself:
"Out of the Orders of Jedi and Sith, I can only see rather few (Luke Skywalker, Exar Kun, perhabs Ragnos) standing up to the likes of Vitiate and Sidious. Outside those two orders, one might consider some other beings on the frontier to the realm of nigh godlike entities."

All that damnable "anti-Sheev" propaganda. I'm such a "heretic"... 😂

[*]A source can only be properly understood if we know the author's intent, unless you're Nai, who is psychic
[/list]

Author's intent is entirely irrelevant for my point of view. Derrida, Barthes, Death of the Author. Have fun using Google, pal.

Also gotta say: I find it hilarious that a guy who made it his hobby for years of disregarding the 1993 DESB, disregarding it because of its age, now wants to cling to it as the gospel at the expense of newer sources that he doesn't like.

Like the time you argued that the fluff surrounding RPG items and stats was non-canon, anyway.

Aren't you using that RPG sourcebook fluff about Force storms at this very moment to undermine newer sources?

Thank God you're clearly above petty agendas.

🙄

Same stupid move as above. No answer, indirect attempt to discredit my reasoning without attacking it. Boring, Tempest. Just get out, before you hurt yourself.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
[B]Nai as interesting as your anaylsis is your hypothesis doesn't quite support your conclusion (that the destructive potency of the Force storm is not linked to the power of its creator) and neither does your farm animal analogy work with the facts.

Now what you have provided proof for is the notion that once created, the Storm is self sustaining and independent of the Force wielder's power. Hence why the wielder is seemingly unable to affect its size and diameter after creation, can find himself turned upon by it, that it is described as an independent entity by some and finally because it eventually dissipates after the wielders death.

However, none of that refutes or alters the fact that it is described quite explicitly to be a product of the wielder's own power. As it is stated to be by Palpatine himself:

Answer two very simple questions:
Where do those "vast energies" come from?
What does Sidious do with them?

As I see it, there is nothing to contradict my theory. Sidious would need to channel "vast energies" in order to twist space-time which generates the Force storm. That doesn't mean he has to channel energies into the storm after that - or that he even can do something like that.

And by objective supplementary material:

Erm. How does that prove what you want it to prove?
The mere summoning of the Force storm is already proof for Sidious "vast power", but that doesn't mean the storm in its entirety is dependent on it. And it is unclear, wether the last "power" refers to Sidious personal Force abilities or the Force storm itself as the "dark power" that Sidious summoned.

Again: I do not see anything that contradicts my ideas.

And while claiming the source material to be in this case, inaccurate, can be under certain circumstances justified, doing so when the source material is reinforced by an explicit description from the creator himself is verging on absurdity, so excuse me while I refrain from doing so.

As you can see, it's rather easy to incorporate the both source above into my interpretation, if you read them objectively, instead of interpreting in they way you prefer. I'm, by the way, not saying that my interpretation is correct. I'm just saying that it is an alternative hypothesis.

And this is where I find your analogy to be flawed. You liken the Force Storm to a farm animal in the respect that it is an autonomous entity. But where does the farm animal come from? Not from the farmer for sure, it can from another farm animal, the farmer had no hand it it's creation whatsoever.

Whereas the Force storm is a direct product of the "vast energies" of the wielder. This leads me to propose another analogy that would reconcile with all the source material (as much as I see merit in your method, I personally prefer one that does this, as the former is too susceptible to personal inference and arbitrary assumptions imho - see Temp's response tbh 😉); instead lets liken it to a creation of Sith alchemy, a Sith spawn.

Now a Sith spawn, like a farm animal, is a wholly autonomous entity, but unlike a farm animal its being and indeed its capabilities, are directly attributable to the power of the one who created it. Just as the destructive capabilities of the Force storm, as evidently a product of the Force wielder's own power, has its destructive capability and other properties attributable to them.

Nonetheless a Sith spawn is autonomous, its no longer dependent on the creator's power after creation, the creator does not have the ability to alter its abilities or proportions, and the possibility of the creature turning on its master exists. Indeed something of that nature could at once be referred to as "a chaos monster even he cannot control" and "his own dark power creation."

While I find this pretty interesting, I also find that rather off in terms of a comparison.

Sith spawn, while more a creation of their user than a farm animal, are also not dependent on a force user in the making. They are often created from animals that were there in the first place and even when they are created ex nihilo (e.g. Vitiate's Monoliths), I don't see much reason to directly link them to their creator's power. That you can cook together stuff in your dark side laboratory doesn't make you the Chosen One, much like summoning a chaotic phenomenon from a rift in space-time doesn't make you a force god capable of destroying the universe.

Well. In that regard the comparison fits...

My understanding therefore would be that while the Force storm can be claimed to be autonomous once created i.e. no longer dependent on the creator's power, it remains an ultimate product of it, and its properties therefore relative to it.

Now this is really contradicting the source-material.
The Force storm is not directly summoned by the Force user in the first place. It is produced by twisting space-time with the Force. The strength of the Force user can, therefore, just influence the "twisting" with the resulting storm then being unchangeable in terms of size and strength (logically, because it is a product of the twisting an not directly created by the Force user). It still involves a lot of outside "power" in the form of the chaotic energies being unleashed via the tearing of space-time, with the "destructive effects" caused by the Force storm are more an effect of its nature (transdimensional wormhole or a "black hole"😉 then the force powers of its summoner.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
[B]That said, your argument for the Force storms autonomy post-creation still falters under scrutiny. To elaborate:

1. The practitioner cannot alter the dimensions of the storm post-creation according to DESB.

First off that's not actually what the source material says. Only that they must determine its proportions prior to creating it, this does not at all preclude them modifiying these parameters after its been formed.

Secondly its a game mechanic for an RPG, so could very well therefore be simple fluff to this end.

And finally it describes this in terms of a Jedi (which is dubious in itself as by its very nature, no Jedi should be capable of such a feat) not Palpatine. Who as the greatest known master of the ability would well be more proficient in this regard.

They must determine the proportions of the Storm before summoning it, because the actual storm is the result of a twisting of space-time. In order to generate the desired effect in terms of size and strength, this "twisting" obviously has to be done in a controlled and accurate fashion. So you need to know what you want before firing it off.

And I don't think that questioning the source does your case any good, provided that pretty much all you have are character statements.

2. It is possible for the practitioner to lose control of the Storm and be destroyed by it.

Which you seem to believe is irreconcilable with the idea that its sustained by the Force wielders power. But while it certainly indicates autonomy I do not feel it precludes it. All it means is as I said, additional power to required - on top of generating and subsequently fueling the storm - to control what has been unleashed. And it stands to reason if they failed to accomplish the last part they could potentially find themselves in the Storm's destructive path.

And seeing as we do not know the mechanics of the power, we cannot assuming cutting off its power source would be sufficient to immediately end its threat.

I can once more just point to the fact, that the Force storm is the result of a certain act: The twisting of space-time. This is what the force user does, according to the description of the ability before he assumes control over the resulting storm. The only thing that can go wrong is the "control" part. If it was just a manifestation of the users power, it should be a) within the abilities of the user to completely control the storm and b) within the abilities of the user to shut the storm off at will by stopping to channel power into it (which would what the Force user does based on your assumptions).

3. It is described by Luke as a seeming independent entity i.e. "a chaos even he cannot control."

This is a simple case of which you believe to be more accurate, Luke's words or the source material's description of it as "his own dark power". Certainly Palpatine doesn't see to agree with his assessment.

Well, yes. It is a question which you believe to be more accurate: Luke's words, based on Sidious words, backed by the description of the ability or Sidious' claim that he can control the storm completely.

4. The fact that the storm only dissipates minutes after the death of the creator.

This would be the biggest problem with your argument, for while the storm does take time to dissipate. It still does, which means the storm must be dependent on the wielder in some form in a manner you've yet to articulate.

Certainly it does not fit with your analogy, is a farmer dies the farm animal will not die with them. Will it?

If the user has to determine the size and strength of the storm before he summons it, it is given that it will run out of power at the time X, regardless of what happens to the user. According to your interpretation, the Force user must pretty much "store" a huge amount of energy into the storm in the act of summoning it, which is then "used up", even if the creator loses control and is killed by the storm.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Read what you just quoted, lmao. My point is that nobody here was interested in this question of whether the storm relates to his personal power or not. Whether it's technically "his" power or just power he's channeling/harnessing, there's no functional difference.

I find it rather pretentious of yourself to presume you can judge what interests people here. It was, obviously, in my interest to discuss the issue and I've found somebody who wants to discuss it with me. So your opinion on the issue is irrelevant, which it would be anyway.

And now you're just trying to doubt the accuracy of the author's words, an accuracy that you no doubt hold sacrosanct whenever the source happens to support your position, double standard nicely unexplained.

😂
Accusing people that they will, without doubt, commit a double standard at some point in the future, should the necessity arise and then asking them to explain why they would do so, is utterly ridiculous. It's the equivalent of asking you to explain, why you eat horseshit for breakfast.

See what I did there?

You're still treating the author's statements as "claims" of the author, as opposed to factual fiats; this interpretation of the validity of the third person narrator runs explicitly against actual EU policy. And yet you continue to regard me actually abiding by these guidelines as lacking "critical thinking", rather than trying to base ideas on objective facts as opposed to Nai's personal feelings.

Because, and here comes the inside scoop:

NARRATIVE SOURCES DON'T CONSIST OF FACTS!

And before you even attempt to point to some (non-existant) canon policy, let me make sure that you get this straigth into your head, with the words of Chris Cherasi:

"The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play. [...] The particular attributes of individual media also come into play. A comic book interpretation of an event will likely have less dialogue or different pacing than a novel version. A video game has to take an interactive approach that favors gameplay. [...] The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them. Like the great Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi said, 'many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view.' " - Chris Cherasi, Source.

So, to make this clear for you once again.

Every piece of published Star Wars fiction (with the exception of the movies) does contain interpretation and speculation. One needs to consider the different forms of media and acknowledge the idea that the sources aren't facts but interpretations of events as they happened in the SW universe.

In case you still didn't get it, let me just elaborate it for our example here:

The summoning of Force storms is something that happened within the Star Wars universe. The "Dark Empire" comics give us an interpretation of what happened. Sidious words (e.g. from the DESB and TEGF) give us his interpretation of what happens when he summons Force storms. The DESB with the description of the ability attempts to explain the interpretation that we see in the comics. Then the Comics Companion gives us a summary (or interpretation) of the interpretation (the comics) of events as the actually happened within the SW universe. How, pray tell, do you confuse this with "facts", pal?

In case you still don't get it, let me make it clear with an example that might be easier for you to grasp.

Event: You trip and fall flat on your face. This is what happened.
Interpretation A: "Apparently, the Ellimist is so stupid that he can't even walk straight."
Interpretation B (follwoing Interpretation A): "I have proof that Ellimist is a moron, because he can't even walk straigth."

Is "interpretation B" a "fact" now, according to your precious views? If no, you may want to check your handling of the SW source material. If yes, you probably can't walk straigth and should not continue posting here.

You still adhere to this entirely personal taste of yours, that official statements have some burden to be actively corroborated - precisely the opposite of what the actual EU canon policy was. When a source makes a claim, the onus shifts to us to fit our theories around those claims. In this case, just pointing out that Sidious can:

a) Alter the storms' size upon creation
b) Increase their destructive capacity exponentially

Create a theory that better fits the facts/evidence, including the official statement. Your competing theory, meanwhile, is inferior because it does not fit the evidence, even though it could be modified to do so, and just tosses a source out on its convenience.

This is how the actual scientific method works; we don't just toss out data unless if it's outright inaccurate (analogous to a typo or something that has been explicitly discredited). We instead try to work our theories around them, not the other way around. That Nai happens to have a personal stake in the outcome of the analysis does not somehow change the epistemology of it.

Well, pal. The glaring mistake of yours is still hidden in the fact that you assume SW sources contain only facts, which clearly isn't the case. They contain interpretations of facts. As such, they do need to make some sense in the light of previous released material, in order to be trusted. So when a quote makes a claim that does pretty much contradict all other evidence regarding a certain event in the SW universe, it either needs to explain that differences or is to be questioned.

And when a source describes a force ability that is impressive, but - on a universal scale - rather small, rather slow moving and even fails to destroy Sidious spirit, which was just hid right in the face by it, as "threat to all of space", then I will rather assume that the author was drunk when writing it than accepting it as "fact" (which would be stupid anyway, no matter what opinion you personally have).

Your response to this is to point out the lack of active evidence that this size-changing ability exists. You once again miss the analogy to real-life empirical studies; when creating a theory to explain a set of evidence, it's OK to include assumptions that aren't actively observed if they're necessary to string together a cogent model. Of course, it's better to have fewer assumptions - hence occam's razor - but you haven't come up with one that has less, not without literally tossing out evidence you don't like. Since the idea of size-changing is neither affirmed nor falsified in the literature, it's superior to make assumptions regarding that than to actively contradict a claim (consume all of space) that has been actively affirmed.

Once more you - falsely - assume that the SW source material consists of facts.

Secondly, you even ignore it outright. The ability is just there to twist space-time. This is what the ability does. From that twist the Force storm is generated. And this explains perfectly, why the Force user needs to determine the strength and size of the storm before attempting the twisting: Since the storm is a product of the act. In short: You need to know how much or how hard to twist in order to get the Force storm with the size and strength you wanted.

This also neatly explains, why we didn't seen any alterations of the ability after fired (because all properties are determined by the "twisting"😉, why a user can lose control over those storms (because the storm is defined by the "twisting" process at the start, not by direct influence of the user) and why the storm doesn't instantly dissipate, when the user is killed (because the strength and duration have been previously determined in the act of creating the storm).

Furthermore have you failed to adress a very specific point I made, and keep arguing, despite of that simple refutation totally torpeding your stance: The source does still describe the Force storm as it is. It is, therefore, entirely irrelevant wether or not Sidious could make it bigger or stronger, since the storm as shown needs to be a threat to all of space.

Sure? How is that an unreasonable assertion, beyond appealing to your personal incredulity?

In either case, it's pretty absurd to compare a published, presumably proofread piece of literature with somebody answering a question on the spot in an interview.

It is an unreasonable assertion because we do have an alternative explanation for the scar, which Lucas does implicitly handle as fact, but just doesn't care about.

In the same regard: If those publishers and proofreaders follow the idea, that every single piece of SW fiction contains "interpretation" and "speculation", then they don't need to edit such sentences out, because an author can happily speculate that the Force Storm could destroy the universe, but that doesn't make it "true".

No, you don't get it. Every piece of evidence that you've ever cited in any of your debates here, including those of your precious sex doll Exar Kun, also suffer from this problem, and you haven't provided any sort of distinction to justify your double standard.

You still don't get it.

I'm very well aware of the fact, that my line of reasoning is applicable to every single source. The point is that nobody does apply that reasoning to every single source which I was critcizing. And since "blind faith in quotes" is your modus operandi, I will just provide quotes until you find one that you don't want to accept and start arguing.

If you then prove "my" quotes wrong is, ultimately, entirely irrelevant for me, because I'm still not arguing my personal convictions with the people here, since there is no common level to start from and nothing to gain for me.

Well, The Tempest has apparently thrown at you instances where you denied the canonicity of RPG's outright, so I'll await whatever string of convoluted explanations you have for that in your reply.

I denied the canonicity of stats within the RPGs (which are explicitly referenced as N-Canon material) and contested the idea, that a quote written in 1993 still has the same meaning today as it had back then.

That aside, this entirely irrelevant for this debate, unless you want to perform an "ad hominem" argument, that tries to descredit my reasoning by attacking me as a person because you're incapable of actually debating me without looking like a fool, Tempest style.

Nah, you were also attacking the DESB text on the "basis" (always a loose term with you) that it pertained to stats. You weren't just disputing arbitrary numbers. It's relevant here because as a guy who claims to have absolutely no agenda in play, your arguments sure do employ a wealth of double standards.

I won't have a PC on me til tomorrow, but I'm not sure what the hell you were trying to prove to me lol.

You quoted a thread where you offhandedly acknowledge the possibility of Sheev being the most powerful Sith based on quotes and then spend the rest of the post attacking him. THAT's evidence of your untarnished objectivity? 😂

If you take a gander at the Ellimist's signature, you'll see a truly cringe-worthy quote from Gideon where he denounces Sheev in favor of Kas'im, of all people. Guess Gideon was absolutely objective by your standards too! 👆

Besides which, it's nothing more than a strawman on your part. No one ever claimed you never disagreed with the rest of the Antediluvians. But if you honestly believe the notion that your posting history doesn't reveal a pretty heavy tendency to favor ancient Sith going on 11 years, you're either irretrievably deluded or a moron beyond repair.

I'd like to dedicate a big LOL to Antediluvian conclusions being derived from "analysis" and "interpretation of the source material," especially with regards to Ragnos. Dude's only ever appeared in like 3 sources anyway... And as a corpse or spirit. Truly bountiful source material for analysis and interpretation! Unless by those terms you refer to the house of cards you all cobbled together from ignorance, assumptions, and implications.

The long and short of it is that, while you may claim to be merely playing the devil's advocate, your 11 year career here at KMC and posting history reveal an overwhelming agenda to the contrary. An offhanded dissenting remark here and there doesn't balance the scales and it's genuinely hilarious that you think it does. haermm

Such a breathtaking lack of self-awareness coupled with a pathological flair for deceit. No wonder LeGenD looks up to you. 👆

Spoiler:
Here's a wacky idea: since you're like so totes objective and stuff with no agenda at all, you should consider crossing swords with him! Especially since the Sheevites clearly aren't worth your time... 😂

Sure, you can interpret scenes and statements. You are not "interpreting" the Comic Companions quote. You're tossing it out. The closest thing to an interpretation is the laughable sophistry that, well, technically even Dooku's lightning would destroy the universe given enough time. 🙄

So pending a genuine attempt to interpret this quote, we'll stick with the most obvious reading - that Palpatine can consume all of space. This requires us to assume that he can make storms bigger. You disagree with this because you have this notion that when you twist space-time you can't twist it more while the thing you're using to twist it with already exists - lol?

So, let's look at the comparative:

Tempest/my theory: we have to make some leaps of faith regarding the ability to control and expand Force storms, which are apparently in contradiction to some weird pesudoscience about how Force storms twist space.

Your theory: you have to toss out a piece of literature in its entirety, or reduce it to a useless and sophistic definition of "threaten".

I'd take ours. 👆

----------------

On a related note, your attempt to make a distinction between "facts" and "interpretation" sources is just hilariously nonsensical.

Let's use a physics analogy again and consider Palpatine's actions in the form of states. The comic books establish the states (muddled somewhat through the art medium of a comic) of Palpatine's look, his words, his poses, and what the storm is visibly doing at the time from a particular angle.

Well, the Comic Companion adds in the new states of the potential power of the Storm.

Your notion that, say, showing what color shirt Palpatine was wearing, or whether he said this or that to Luke/Leia, is more of a "fact" whereas a statement regarding his potential power is "speculation" is just a distinction based on your gut feeling and convenience rather than anything substantial.

You might argue that Palpatine doesn't actually consume all of space, and so the Companion is being speculative - this is nonsense, since the question of what the Storm's potential power was could likely be deduced systematically from starting conditions such as Palpatine's power, his rage, etc. - so it's still just as factual as anything else.

So, what's the remaining distinction? That the comic book was published first? That the Comic Companion has the name "companion" in it? 🙄

If you're going to toss out the Companion for being "speculative", there's no reason why we can't toss out the twins' names being Jacen and Jaina for being equally speculative. 👆

More or less. 👍

send nudes temp?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
send nudes temp?

Shut down. 🙂

Originally posted by Nai
The Force storm is not directly summoned by the Force user in the first place. It is produced by twisting space-time with the Force. The strength of the Force user can, therefore, just influence the "twisting" with the resulting storm then being unchangeable in terms of size and strength (logically, because it is a product of the twisting an not directly created by the Force user). It still involves a lot of outside "power" in the form of the chaotic energies being unleashed via the tearing of space-time, with the "destructive effects" caused by the Force storm are more an effect of its nature (transdimensional wormhole or a "black hole"😉 then the force powers of its summoner.

Getting straight to the point its problematic for two reasons:
[list=1][*]"Twists" in the space-time continuum have been formed without creating Force storms or possessing destructive properties of any kind.

[*]Force storms are, as the name suggests, Force based, not the made up of some transdimensional energy - something that couldn't possibly be generated a wormhole or similar phenomena, only a Force user.[/list]To begin with #1 we have two sources in this regard, the first is the fact that Palpatine himself created a rift in space using the Force storm technique without conjuring an energy storm:

Taken from The Emperor's Pawns, Star Wars Gamer #5

The moment the Emperor "died" at the Battle of Endor, Droga fell into an inexplicable insanity, butchering his crew and causing the Emperor's Shadow to plunge into Kaal's oceans. Even as he perished, Palpatine used the dark side knowledge the Sith Lords had granted him years earlier to rend space itself and transmigrate his essence across lightyears to Droga's body.

Taken from The Glove of Darth Vader

The intense gravity of black holes and other interstellar forces cause warps, folds, and buckles in space. Asteroids and spaceships have tumbled into these space warps and have suddenly reappeared millions of miles away.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For #2 we have Palpatine's own description of the Force storm:

Taken from The Book of Anger, in Book of Sith

The churning energy mass of a Force storm can consume everything it touches, for at its eye is pure hate. Just as a black hole devours a star, this storm can swallow armies and fold space.

FYI: Rifts in the space-time continuum cannot created pure hate. Only Force users can. 👆

To add to this Palpatine also describes the Force storm as preceded by the Force maelstrom:

Taken from The Book of Anger, in Book of Sith

Already I have a perfected the Force maelstrom, which creates an invulnerable energy sphere to block incoming attacks while bombarding enemies with debris and electrifying them with bolts of lightning.

This technique can be increased into a Force storm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now as far as this aligns with other sources that have been raised, let's look at them. First we have the Dark Empire Sourcebook that describes Force storms as thus:

According to the DESB the Force storm "allows the Jedi to twist the space-time continuum to create vast storms of force", but I would point out that nowhere is explicit that the "twist" is that which creates the storm, only that it is a necessary step in its creation.

That would only be the case if it said which create vast storms of force.

Instead we are told that "When the Force user attempts to create the Force storm, the Jedi must determine the diameter and the amount of damage", which would not be possible if the practitioner did not have direct control over the Force storm's creation.

Next we have the description of the ability in the Jedi Path:

Which describes the Force storm as a "truly awe-inspiring demonstration of pure natural energy", from which you might infer that the Force storm is not Force-based (I again stress the capitalisation of Force, which suggests the exact opposite). However I would remind you that the Force fundamentally natural, the DESB itself describing the Dark Side as such:

Making the dark side "natural energy" by definition.

It is also the energy of the Star Wars universe therefore we should really assume, in the absence of explicit proof to the contrary, it is energy of the Force that is being described.

Finally I'd draw your attention to the fact that the Dark Side is described as "chaos" and "rage", attributes ascribed to the Force storm is itself in Dark Empire:

Any other interpretation of course being in contradiction with Palpatine's own words that "at its eye is pure hate" - so don't try it. 🙂

(Though as an addendum I would note that these descriptions refer to its practice - if at all really possible - by Jedi, we therefore cannot assume the properties and methods would be the same for a Sith. Its description in the Book of Sith by Palpatine himself being the most accurate in this regard.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion: it is not enough to simply twist space-time in order to generate a Force storm, instead additional effort is required on the behalf of the practitioner; and at the heart of the generated storm is Force energy channelled by the wielder, not trans-dimensional energy, which are responsible for its destructive properties.

Originally posted by Nai
Answer two very simple questions:
Where do those "vast energies" come from?
What does Sidious do with them?

As I see it, there is nothing to contradict my theory. Sidious would need to channel "vast energies" in order to twist space-time which generates the Force storm. That doesn't mean he has to channel energies into the storm after that - or that he even can do something like that.

2. Create Force storms, as the title would suggest. 😉

And as I said, your analysis doesn't support the idea that the Force storm is birthed from his own power, only that it is self-sustaining once created. Which would still make its destructive properties relative to Sheev's power, as any creation is relative to the abilities of the creator.

Erm. How does that prove what you want it to prove?
The mere summoning of the Force storm is already proof for Sidious "vast power", but that doesn't mean the storm in its entirety is dependent on it. And it is unclear, wether the last "power" refers to Sidious personal Force abilities or the Force storm itself as the "dark power" that Sidious summoned.

Again: I do not see anything that contradicts my ideas.

As you can see, it's rather easy to incorporate the both source above into my interpretation, if you read them objectively, instead of interpreting in they way you prefer. I'm, by the way, not saying that my interpretation is correct. I'm just saying that it is an alternative hypothesis.

While I find this pretty interesting, I also find that rather off in terms of a comparison.

Sith spawn, while more a creation of their user than a farm animal, are also not dependent on a force user in the making. They are often created from animals that were there in the first place and even when they are created ex nihilo (e.g. Vitiate's Monoliths), I don't see much reason to directly link them to their creator's power. That you can cook together stuff in your dark side laboratory doesn't make you the Chosen One, much like summoning a chaotic phenomenon from a rift in space-time doesn't make you a force god capable of destroying the universe.

Well. In that regard the comparison fits...

"plainly illustrate the immeasurable power of their creator".

https://swtor.jedipedia.net/en/cdx/monolith

As does anything entirely birthed from one's own power. 👆

Does that make Palpatine a universe buster? Not necessarily. Extending the analogy, if this monolith went on to wreck a city that couldn't be directly attributed to Vitiate, yet at the same time in would remain to an extent, a testament to his abilities.

Likewise, if we were to assume Palpatine could create a Force storm capable of consume the universe, that would certainly "plainly illustrate the immeasurable power of their creator" - even if he were only indirectly involved in its destruction.

Originally posted by Nai
They must determine the proportions of the Storm before summoning it, because the actual storm is the result of a twisting of space-time. In order to generate the desired effect in terms of size and strength, this "twisting" obviously has to be done in a controlled and accurate fashion. So you need to know what you want before firing it off.

And I don't think that questioning the source does your case any good, provided that pretty much all you have are character statements.

And my sources are the creator himself, far more reliable than an RPG supplement.

I can once more just point to the fact, that the Force storm is the result of a certain act: The twisting of space-time. This is what the force user does, according to the description of the ability before he assumes control over the resulting storm. The only thing that can go wrong is the "control" part. If it was just a manifestation of the users power, it should be a) within the abilities of the user to completely control the storm and b) within the abilities of the user to shut the storm off at will by stopping to channel power into it (which would what the Force user does based on your assumptions).

Well, yes. It is a question which you believe to be more accurate: Luke's words, based on Sidious words, backed by the description of the ability or Sidious' claim that he can control the storm completely.

Given that nowhere as of DE did Sidious say or scribe that he cannot control the Force storm, I lean towards the latter. And his refined application of the power certainly suggests as much.

If the user has to determine the size and strength of the storm before he summons it, it is given that it will run out of power at the time X, regardless of what happens to the user. According to your interpretation, the Force user must pretty much "store" a huge amount of energy into the storm in the act of summoning it, which is then "used up", even if the creator loses control and is killed by the storm.

It also stands to reason that a storm of sufficient size could last longer than that, certainly it took more than a few minutes to transport Luke to Byss.

From the moment you think that Palpatine's wanky storms occured on Byss(dark side nexus) and his Eclipse(another dark side nexus evidenced by Leia's words when she boards the ship) It makes it all clear what Nai said. Also Palpatine using a Force storm to get to Jeng Droga after he perished at the Endor Battle was retconned(instead Palpatine just travelled the galaxy to reach there)
Also add the fact again that Palpatine knew that technique before the Dark Empire series and never used it; makes it even more feasible that you need outer dark energies to unleash a Force storm.
Also Palpatine's description of Force storms makes no sense. First, he says you do it through your own dark energies which you release; and then he says you need to manipulate the dark energies around you to do that.
No offence; but I prefer an objective source regarding the Force storm's description instead of Palpatine's own nonsense explanation.
He was sure high(with the dark side) when he wrote that in his Dark Side Compendium.

Bump 🙂

He's sub Piccolo@Raditz by a significant margin. 🙂

👆

nah