Originally posted by Deronn_solo
I love how people shit on my ranking of Tenebrous, but don't bat an eye when people grossly overrated him [E.I. the hilarity of Tene > Valk] among other things.I guess retarded opinions is okay as long as it aligns with your shit stances. 👆
I called Az out on that on CV. Nobody else believes that, I don't think.
False equivalency. Regardless of how the Sith were deposed of, we have more than one confirmation that each generation was more powerful than the previous; therefore, yes, it's definitely safe to assume the 28th lord is capable of a great deal more than the first. It's far and away more intellectually sturdy than trying to compare a random fledgeling Jedi to a legendary Sith based on the vague superiority of his era as a whole. (Not that the Jedi Order being in it's prime has any impact on Vitiate in the first place...?)
Originally posted by Fated Xtasy
So raise Tenebrous on the account of others achievements and abilities while ignoring the fact that we have no evidence as to how the other Sith were deposed of?Yeah, why don't I just say a random padawan>valk on account of CW being the Golden age of the Jedi.
Because of the fact that it's directly stated that each successive Banite Sith Lord was more powerful than the last? How they were disposed doesn't matter. Each Sith Lord still ended up becoming more powerful than their Master.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
There's no proof there were 30 generations though, just that there were thirty Sith in the Order over a thousand years, which would include the failed apprentices.
I'm pretty sure he refers to the actual Sith Lords, not failed apprentices? I'll check.
Yeah, but I'm not sure failed apprentices who didn't contribute to the plan qualify to him as members of the Order. Especially considering how Plagueis goes on immediately thereafter to say that it's one of the duties of Bane's lineage to take out the trash and eliminate "Sith pretenders."
Either way, from the cases we've seen, 30 is a fairly reasonable number. That would mean each Sith would have reigned for what, 33-ish years after killing their masters before being killed by their apprentices? That's a fair bit longer than Bane lived after killing his, although he was lucky enough to find his apprentice pretty shortly afterward.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Yeah, but I'm not sure failed apprentices who didn't contribute to the plan qualify to him as members of the Order.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Especially considering how Plagueis goes on immediately thereafter to say that it's one of the duties of Bane's lineage to take out the trash and eliminate "Sith pretenders."
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Either way, from the cases we've seen, 30 is a fairly reasonable number. That would mean each Sith would have reigned for what, 33-ish years after killing their masters before being killed by their apprentices? That's a fair bit longer than Bane lived after killing his, although he was lucky enough to find his apprentice pretty shortly afterward.
Plagueis is speaking of Zannah from a thousand years after the fact, by which time she's cemented her contribution to the Banite Order by killing Bane and carrying on the lineage. He's currently teaching Sidious, so obviously he wouldn't be counted, and Maul/Tyranus/Vader didn't exist as Sith at the time. Not very good examples, tbh.
And they all contributed to the Grand Plan. Not sure what you're talking about.
Originally posted by SunRazer
That made no sense. You used two negatives back to back, lol. Could you rephrase it?Anyway, at best, you could argue that it's ambiguous what Plagueis is referring to.
Zannah, Sidious, Maul, and Dooku all carried out tasks as apprentices that advanced the Grand Plan.
A person is not only given the Sith title or considered a member of the Order once they kill their master.
Plagueis is talking about people who have been Sith in Bane's order in the past millenium, and that isn't a statement that excludes a subset of people that were a part of the Order and were in fact Sith.
I don't see why it's such an outlandish concept for some. Plagueis > Valkorion is accepted by many here, so that shouldn't raise any eyebrows. But then, when the gap between Tenebrous and prime Plagueis is very small (or at least the evidence points to that), people still laugh at the notion of Tenebrous > Valkorion. Why?
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Going off of the assumption that no master ever had to train a second apprentice because their first failed.
Not really; Bane's reign only lasted twenty years, and it being even that long can be attributed to the fact that his apprentice essentially sat on her thumbs for a long while. It'd still be perfectly reasonable for the average reign to be in the ballpark of thirty to thirty five years, even if we assume a few of the masters went through a couple failures.
Either way, it's not a big deal. We could go back and forth all day on the various unknowable factors that could affect the exact number of Lords during the 1000-year timeskip between DBT and Plagueis, and my point wouldn't change. Tenebrous and Bane would still be separated by many generations of Sith, each more powerful than the last.