The whole comparison to the Star Destroyer armada feat isn't all that relevant, but more on that later. This is what Exar Kun choked:
These Jedi, such as Kam:
Kam Solusar stood on the other side of the clearing and, using the Force, he, too, began hurling rocks at the remaining two TIE fighters. The boulders battered the Imperial ships, smashing through the cockpits.
- Star Wars: Darksaber
Such as Streen:
Streen, however, did not pick up rocks or other weapons with the Force. He used the air itself, moving molecules in the atmosphere to summon storm currents and scramble the air attack line with a wall of wind that achieved hurricane strength. The gusting currents buffeted the TIE fighters right and left, forcing the pilots to concentrate on simply flying and not allowing them to fire a single shot.
Streen looked up into the sky, his eyes wide and bloodshot, his hair wafting about his head. He held his trembling fingers outstretched and then brought his hands together symbolically, slamming his hands of wind so that the heavy crosscurrents smashed the four TIE fighters together. They crashed into a single knot of molten wreckage that tumbled out of the air.
- Star Wars: Darksaber
Such as Dorsk 81:
The second TIE bomber dropped a single missle and then, seeing the fate of his partner, shot off at top speed. Dorsk 81 used the Force to pick up a boulder, which he hurled with all his might. The flying rock closed the distance to the bomber, striking the second cockpit and damaging its altitude control.
- Star Wars: Darksaber
A wall of invisible force slammed into the AT-ST, flattening its cockpit and crushing the walker back into a tree. Kyp whirled to gawk back at the smash scout walker. Everything had happened in only a second.
- Star Wars: Darksaber
Such as Kirana Ti:
He recognized Kirana Ti, the warrior woman from Dathomir and the older, somewhat-confused hermit from Bespin, Streen, working to haul fallen rocks from a collapsed portion of the temple. They used Jedi powers to lift broken slabs out of the way, and to keep themselves safe from the pebbles that continued to shower down as they removed debris.
- Star Wars Darksaber
The warrior woman Kirana Ti stood out in the open near the piles of rubble the Jedi trainees had so meticulously removed from the ruins. The TIE fighters saw her and fired. Ignoring her own danger, she gestured with her hand and, using the Force as a sling, she snatched one of the squarish boulders cut by Massassi slaves thousands of years before--and hurled it with all her Jedi strength.
The stone flew through the air and smashed one of the TIE fighter's flat power arrays. It careened to one side, and the pilot could not regain control. The ship exploded in the trees on the far side of the temple.
- Star Wars: Darksaber
Not to mention Brakiss, Tionne and Cilghal, as well as Jaina and Jacen. They were achieving mastery of the Force techniques Luke could teach them:
Master Skywalker was proud of them. He said that the trainees were reaching the limits of the techniques he himself could teach them.
- Jedi Academy Trilogy Volume 3: Champions of the Force
They each amplified each other to become far stronger as a group:
As his eyes adjusted, Streen saw that all twelve of the Jedi candidates were limned with the faintest sheen of an iridescent blue glow that grew brighter as the new Jedi converged around Exar Kun.
- Jedi Academy Trilogy: Volume 3 Champions of the Force
"I felt empowered by the arrival of my fellow trainees, who included Kirana Ti, Kam Solusar, Tionne, Cilghal, Dorsk 81, and Brakiss. They’d been waiting for the right moment to enter the chamber and catch Exar Kun off guard. Present, too, were Jacen and Jaina, who stayed close to Cilghal’s side."
- Streen, Jedi vs Sith: The Essential Guide to the Force
"Some of you were there when we finally defeated Exar Kun. We pooled our strengths, we joined as one, as champions of the Force--and, united, we unlocked a greater reservoir of strength than any of us could have imagined."
- Dorsk 81, Star Wars: Darksaber
The spirits of Luke Skywalker and Vodo Siosk-Baas aided their meld as well:
During the Jedi academy’s battle with the spirit of Exar Kun, an apparition of Jedi Master Vodo-Siosk Baas—who was slain by Exar Kun on Coruscant—materialized on Yavin 4 and aided the Jedi in bringing an end to the ancient Sith Lord.
- Jedi vs Sith: The Essential Guide to the Force
Despite all this strength, Exar Kun managed this:
"Even joined together, you are too weak to fight me!" the shadowy man said.Streen felt his throat constrict, his windpipe close. He choked, unable to breathe. The black silhouette turned, staring at those who resisted him. The Jedi trainees grasped their throats, straining to breathe, their faces darkening with the effort._
- Jedi Academy Trilogy Volume 3: Champions of the Force
His spirit was very weakened at this point:
She supposes that the students have a chance of defeating him, since Kun no longer has his servants to draw power from.
- The Jedi Academy Sourcebook
The only vaguely positive explanation for Exar Kun's dormancy that I could come up with was that his effort to draw the Suncrusher from Yavin and to down Luke had tired him out. I had no way to determine how powerful Exar Kun could be, but it struck me as possible that he'd expended a lot of energy to defeat a Jedi Master.
- Corran Horn, Jedi vs Sith The Essential Guide to the Force
Originally posted by AncientPowerHolocrons haven't even been around for 100,000 years in the SW Universe, whether you use canon, or Legends.
Exar Kun used the most powerful Sith holocron in the mythos, thanks Wolf.
The Earliest Holocron was used by King Adas after the Rakata taught him how to make one.
His reign started in 28,000BBY.
So no, the Holocron did not cover 100,000 years, the sith weren't even a thing back then.
Sorry...I was on a short vacation in Windhoek and didn't have a real computer at hand in order to reply.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Nah, you're full of shit. You're here to wank the ancient Sith and proudly wave the antediluvian banner. That's it. You'll naturally reference the handful of instances where, by sheer cosmic accident, you've stumbled into something vaguely resembling an alternate viewpoint as though they mean anything. But two or three instances don't overwhelm a 10 year trend.
My dear Gideon.
You have brought forward those remarkably stupid "accusations" – and I’m putting that in quotation marks, because an accusation should really be more than presenting the idea, that somebody represents a certain opinion – often enough in the past. Each and every time you were beaten round the head with them, ducked off and crawled back into you hole, just to emerge with the same bullshit again a few months later. Hell. I’ve been trying to hammer the "advocatus diaboli" context into your brain since 2006 and you still don’t get it. You can't be that dense, can you?
The last time, Janus lectured you on that particular nonsense rather clearly and accurately diagnosed, what aim you follow by making them again and again:
The point of this particular crusade is rather opaque from my postion? Why? Well. Do tell me something – with a minimum of tinfoil hat words, if possible – where is the point anyway? I mean, seriously, why would I lie about whether or not my statements here are a reflection of my true opinions? What is there to gain for me? Aside from the fact, that you call me out for that supposed "opinion" anyway, the only possible aim one could archive with such a tactic would be to project an "objective" position to the outside (which you accused me off, so I assume this is your problem). I’ve never proclaimed my personal objectivity. To the contrary: That doesn’t fit my style of debating and – furthermore – I’ve pretty much told you that before (see link above), even in quite non-ambiguous terms:
So: What was it you wanted to call me out for / accuse me off? Ruining your day, by utilizing debating concepts, that you still don’t understand after ten years of explanation, because their fundamental principles are going over your head? Good job, Sherlock.
Furthermore, you may want to answer the question, why you dumbed that pile of snot disguised as an argument into a thread, were my first posting looked like this:
Just for you – and you may want to take notes at this point: Aside from the fact, that I was putting RotS Sidious and Yoda on a level with Exar Kun (without uttering a direct idea on the result of that confrontation[s]), I did also write, that the balance shift brought Plagueis on one level with the Ancient Sith. That would be, by the way, the same Plagueis, who is seemingly inferior to RotS Sidious and probably more so to the Dark Empire version of Sidious. One could draw certain conclusion from that. You see: Stupid thing reading only what you want to read is, that you ignore such things with your confirmation bias and then look like a blithering idiot. Nothing new for you there, but it even gets better:
Everyone here knows #teamswtor comprise the most consistently vocal members and in the greatest number: LeGenD, Neph, Ant, etc. One would think if you were really just playing the devil's advocate and you were really just interested in stirring debate, you'd actually cross swords with people who're young, hungry, and actively seeking that challenge.
Instead, you bother with the likes of me, whose opinions and abilities you consistently deride.Now why would that be, I wonder?
Spoiler:
Perhaps because you're full of shit. Also, I own your soul.
Maybe you want to stop huffing glue, son. It seems to interfere with your ability to get in touch with reality. Don't think so?
1)
In this thread alone, I've been arguing with SunRazer, Ellimist and Beniboybling that are more on your side of the fence. We could at Zoltan, Deronn and some more. To talk about a "greatest number" of the SWTOR-team here or elsewhere is pretty much laughable. Which you know quite well yourself, given whom you’ve listed: Neph (whom you have talked down in this very thread), LegenD (likewise) and Ant.
And its not, that I have not argued any of them recently, right? Like LegenD, Ant or even multiple SWTOR people (including Neph) combined. As I said: Confirmation bias is so damn tough.
2)
But now for the real fun part:
I’ve argued with SunRazer and Ellimist here, before you felt compelled to get involved, without any allusion to the debate whatsoever. In short: I have discussed with the "young" and "hungry" people who were "actively seeking that challenge" as you demanded, before you stepped in with your pointless intermission. And now you complain that while (not instead) arguing them, I comment on your interference.
Maybe you want to come back when you’ve established a connection to the reasonable part oft he universe again. The same, basically, applies to the notion of you owning my soul. I remember rather good, how I cave you the advise to drop political sciences and switch your field of study to social sciences.
What did you study, pal? I think that settles the "who owns who" game in my favor pretty solidly.
That's an extraordinarily weak excuse from someone who's had 10 years to come up with one.
Since there is still nothing I’d need to excuse myself for… *shrug*
To recap: you're saying that, all these years, you didn't have to prove your claims because you were most certainly not debating and, instead, merely expressing innocent opinions exempt from the rules of discourse.Just when I think you've hit rock bottom, you drop lower.
It is very kind of you, to grant us another demonstration of you (non-existant) reading comprehension. What I say is, that there isn’t any kind of factual prove in the environment of a speculative debate and that a final “victory” for one of the debating sides (in the sense of a disproval of the opposing position) is entire impossible.
Actually, I think Blax called you out because you're a dishonest hypocrite. mmm
Really? Could you again explain to me, where I’m dishonest and a hypocrite? I still don’t see any motivation to be dishonest when talking about my motives and the characterizing thing about a hypocrite is, that he does curry favor with his audience or to the cultivation of a positive image. And while that certainly doesn’t describe me, I know a person to whom that description applies perfectly. 🙂
PS: As far as the "ad hominems" are concerned, you're certainly no stranger to delivering them lol.
Quite funny, that you still can’t grasp the difference between an insult mixed into an argument and an ad hominem, which is attempting to insult instead of making an argument.
You and I are two people who are united in an open and mutual disrespect for one another. There's a refreshing clarity in that and we don't need to bother with what would otherwise be farcical civility. I think you're a moron and you think I'm one. I encourage you to find the integrity in that.
Oh really?
That always sounds so much differently in our private messages and mails, when you don’t have to follow your teenage urge to look cool in front of your "friends". So sweet. But no. I don’t think you’re a moron. I think you’re an egomaniac, who is so entrenched in his own views, that he can’t accept the idea, that the ideas of others could be equal or – god forbid – superior to his own. But stop. That isn’t what I think about you. That is me quoting your self-characterization over at Stardestroyer.net:
"For all of my life, I have demonstrated narcissistic and egocentric traits, and this has typically manifested itself when I debate with other people. […] And, a common fact for those who know me seems to be that I am undeniably stubborn and shackled by the strengths of my so-called convictions; by that, I mean, when I absolutely -- positively -- believe that I am right, and I am debating, there is no middle ground, and I have to convince the opposition that I am right. Now, obviously, this has not always worked; I've either been proven to be wrong, or people still refuse to accept what I consider to be an obvious truth.[…] Thus back to my original problem: I feel that I've failed somehow, and by not continuing to argue it, by "agreeing to disagree" (the failed tactic I tried here), I am conceding the argument itself, when I know I'm right."
Yeah. Who would have thought that? Bonus points for that self-reflection. You just need to work based on that insights now. Additional bonus points for recognizing the Antedeluvians as “highly intelligent”, kind of contradicting your current accessment of myself. And now, by all means, continue your personality-deficit-driven crusade against me and see if I care. And don’t be afraid:
I take it you're the thing I flushed down it? haermm
What is it with you and that reading comprehension thing? This is – literally – an entire article about toilets not being used and your reply is the question if they were used to flush me down. Which is, essentially, ten years of your forum activity summarized with a reaction: Developing a thought, getting it thrown right back in your face, ignore that, proceed with the original thought anyway. 👆
Originally posted by Beniboybling
It's not specific, but considering Plagueis only notes his apprentice's increment in power after he returns to Sojourn 8 years later, as opposed to straight after the ritual, it evidently was not instantaneous.
Plagueis wasn't even considering the power of his apprentice, because he was "drunk with [his own] newfound power" according to the text. And that text makes it pretty clear that there was an instant increase of power thanks to the ritual and I don't know why anybody would even argue that.
And Maul perhaps? I don't recall any mention of him growing more powerful in the Force in the entire novel, and indeed he only notes on the imbalance in the Force after his return over a decade later.
Because, once again, the entire novel is told from the perspective of Plagueis, who doesn't give a damn about Maul, who is just a "tool" for him. Why would he make comments about his force mastery?
Instead much like when Plagueis died, causing the dark side of the Force coalesce around Sidious; I would assume that Plagueis and Sidious causing the dark side to ascend would too result in it cosmically aligning with those responsible for its ascendance, rather every two-bit dark sider in the galaxy. Once again supported by Plagueis' repeated observations that they and they alone had gained sovereignty over the Force.
Of course the balance shift itself is linked to the duo. But it is still a general effect according to Plagueis' own words regarding the effects of the change. The entire Force was unbalanced in favor for the Dark Side and that should affect anything, beyond the two individuals who were responsible.
In fact this is the express purpose of the Rule of Two, to concentrate the power of the dark side in a few, rather than many. And the fact that it was (supposedly) felt by everyone proves nothing in this regard.
Which is more an argument for the selfcentered thinking of the Sith, rather than an actual argument for the [Dark Side of] the Force just serving two individuals. And of course a universally senseable shift of the entire Force towards the Dark Side proves that it was, you know, universally.
Is it? Or is it a result of the midichlorians in Venamis simply becoming more compliant? Considering that Plagueis describes the difficulty in manipulating midichlorians to be consequence of their attempts to resist his actions:
And that the Force was indeed "won over" when they tipped the balance, it stands to reason that Venamis' midi-chlorians "which should have been inert and unresponsive", became suddenly pliable not because Plagueis has grown more powerful in the Force, but simply because they were no longer resisting his efforts to control them.
And how does that not make him "more powerful", exactly? 😉
By that logic you'd have to argue that a sufficient level of dark side potency should be required to sustain their respective midichlorian counts; and yet we know that even more powerful dark side entities, such as Abeloth and the Son, existed prior to this shift. So no, there is no reason to assume the dark side receding would cause them to abruptly die off, when they should be capable of sustaining themselves in its absence.
You are forgetting that neither Abeloth nor the Sons abilities were the product of a universal shift of the Force towards the Dark Side. But it might very well be true that their abilities were affected as well, which is pretty much demonstrated in case of the Son during the Mortis storyarc. He was equal to the Daughter and inferior to the Father. During the storyline, he is definitely more powerful than his sister and can even challenge the Father, which illustrates a shift towards the Dark Side of the Force pretty well.
Real life problems being largely irrelevant to in-universe continuity unless they take the form of a retcon - and I'm familiar with none regarding the fulfilment of the prophecy of the Chosen One - so we can dismiss that point.On the other hand I feel you'd be hard-pressed to argue that Palpatine reading up on his Sith books would outweigh a gravitonic shift in the Force.
Nope, I'm afraid. We can't dismiss that point, because you're attempting to amalgamate two versions of the Star Wars universe in order to make a point. DE is entirely irrelevant to current SW canon and was absolutely irrelevant to movie canon, with TFA making that pretty clear. So why would they consider it?
When you want to take DE into consideration, you have to assume that the action that ended the balance shift (Sidious death) has never occured. Thus the Force is still unbalanced in DE and doesn't get back into balance until Sidious' final demise in the series.
Which is probably why the knowledge was lost. A good point.As for your question 1. it wouldn't, and that's not what Plagueis was considering, rather their knowledge of the secrets of immortality; 2. because he is considering two different means of achieving the same result, via a) power or b) knowledge.
On the other hand yes, contrasting personal power to what essentially amounts to personal power, as you're suggesting, would be rather redundant. Whereas contrasting power to knowledge makes a lot more sense.
Again: Nope.
He is not referring to any kind of dark side studies or knowledge, he is mentioning the Dark Side directly, asking wether "the Dark Side was more prominent" or the individual Sith were more powerful to accomplish what they did. He is contrasting personal power to the power of the Dark Side and that is not redundant.
Exactly, it wouldn't make sense so you've evidently misinterpreted what he said. Fact being fact, not "if" or "maybe." He's not speculating at all, your reading is just wrong.
Nice strawmanning there.
What he speculates about, is not whether people benefitted from a more powerful Dark Side. He is speculating about if the Dark Side has been more powerful or if the individuals have been more powerful without a boost from a stronger Dark Side. That's it.
The point of his statement is that he believes himself capable of everything he knows the Sith to be capable of i.e. there is nothing he knows them to have accomplished which he himself could not replicate. Which given the number of holocrons he has access to, and his knowledge of Sith lore, should be quite considerable (likely including the feats performed by Exar Kun, and the legends surrounding Emperor Vitiate, including his feat on Nathema).
Yes.
The point, my dear Beni, is, that he believes he is capable of that. Which doesn't mean that he really is. Which is very debateable, provided that he didn't demonstrate any abilities compareable to the more extreme feats of the Ancient Sith, where some of them would certainly have come in handy to archive his plans. Hell. Why even go through the entire trouble of political manipulation and the Clone Wars to archive your means, when you could just turn each and every Senator into one of your puppets with the Force?
Especially when we consider that most if not all of the major feats the ancient Sith accomplished are documented by several in-universe historians. And yes, considering he is in a position to accurately assess his own abilities, should be considered a valid claim.
That, is pretty much, laughable as an argument.
The documentation of Ancient Sith feats by historians is fragmentary at best. And then you really want to sell us the notion, that Plagueis, the guy who thinks for almost a decade that he is close to finding the key to eternal life, can accurately access his own abilities? 😄
And are we talking about abilities like manifesting as spirit after death and keep influencing events like Nadd, Ragnos and especially Vitiate did? Plagueis seems incapable of performing that.
Granted that leaves Plagueis as limited as we are in assessing the powers of "long dead Sith Lords" based on what they achieved alone, but in that respect he has us checkmated. As far as a feats-based argument is concerned, any evidence of their accomplishments we could use as evidence Plagueis would be feasibly aware of too (and by his claim, able to replicate). While any case made on whatever unknown powers the ancient Sith might possess, would be categorically founded in conjecture.
Again: Wrong.
You make the assumption, that the quality and depth in terms of knowledge available to us is the same, that Plagueis has access to, which is utter nonsense. This is already demonstrated, when he views the accomplishments of the Ancient Sith (which we know as "facts"😉 as merely exaggerated legends. If he doesn't accept that as "historical" knowledge, then it stands to reason historical sources regarding the time-frame in question are pretty thin inside the SW universe, which precludes the idea, that Plagueis is aware of all of them.
And furthermore is his idea that he would be capable of replicating their feats just that: His idea. Until he demonstrates the ability to do so.
And yes, the novel blurb states Plagueis to be the most powerful Sith in history (prior to his death at the hands of Palpatine):Which is essentially what good Hego claims to believe in the text, and reinforces the validity of his claim. 👆
I wonder how this text serves to validate anything. It is obviously just some sort of plot summary for the plot which we are discussing, meaning your attempting to validate a source by using the very same source.