Originally posted by AzrongerNo, it's saying the Sith as an entity are more dangerous than ever, it is not saying that any specific individual is more deadly than any other individual.
???A Sith in the past - let's say Vitiate - is deadly. The text says Maul is proof that the Sith are deadlier than ever. Therefore, Maul is deadler than Vitiate.
Originally posted by darthbane77
No, it's saying the Sith as an entity are more dangerous than ever, it is not saying that any specific individual is more deadly than any other individual.
Yes, it's saying the Sith as an entity are more deadly than ever, and it's also saying that Maul - a single, specific individual - is proof of that.
Originally posted by AzrongerYes, in that Maul is vastly superior to a great majority of history's Sith Lords. It's proof that the RoT has produced Sith that are generally far superior to past Sith. The quote does not, however, imply that Maul is superior to literally every Sith that came before. The logic you're using here dictates that Maul be superior to Plagueis, Tenebrous, or arguably Sidious himself.
Is it? We've never seen Maul's upper limit (aside from Sidious but he's not relevant here), have we? How do you know where he caps out?
This is why interpreting quotes literally, and taking them as 100% factual, rather than simply taking them into equal consideration with all other evidence, is entirely moronic.
Originally posted by darthbane77
Yes, in that Maul is vastly superior to a great majority of history's Sith Lords. It's proof that the RoT has produced Sith that are generally far superior to past Sith. The quote does not, however, imply that Maul is superior to literally every Sith that came before. The logic you're using here dictates that Maul be superior to Plagueis, Tenebrous, or arguably Sidious himself.This is why interpreting quotes literally, and taking them as 100% factual, rather than simply taking them into equal consideration with all other evidence, is entirely moronic.
No, it doesn't posit that Maul is greater than Plagueis or Sidious, because the Sith of that time consisted of Plagueis, Sidious and Maul. It says that the Sith as a whole are deadler than ever, and that Maul alone is proof of that. As in, if there was a debate over which is more deadly, the OR Sith or the PT Sith, the former would bring up all sorts of feats and superweapons and so on. The latter would simply point to Darth Maul, who according to this quote, by himself, is proof enough that the PT Sith > OR Sith in terms of deadliness. So no matter what the OR supporters cite to hype up their characters, Maul will always be superior.
Originally posted by Azronger
Is it?
It is. These type of accolades have licence to subjectivity and falsification. You just have to ask the question, is Maul the deadliest sith of all time based on his first appearance. The answer is no
We've never seen Maul's upper limit (aside from Sidious but he's not relevant here), have we? How do you know where he caps out? [/B]
Well he caps out much lower than Sidious. In canon, we have the pirates comparison (he runs away from a group pirates). In Legends we have the fighting force that defeats Maul (and Savage Opress of course) :
Now if we're accounting for all the people in this frame. The fighting force that causes Maul's to retreat is :
- Two random Jedi of no renown
- A child
- Around 30 troopers of an unknown faction
That's if we're being generous to Maul, because realistically, both the child and Master Judd would have probably been enough, as Maul collapses after escaping.On the other hand, you have him against an entire Sith empire and Vitiate himself. All we have to support the notion is a bit of (probably outdated) text that alludes to him actually being anything other than a complete combative chump. Here's a better statement : Darth Maul would challenged by pretty much any random sith lord, and could loose based of his incompetence. You don't need a canonical statement to come to that conclusion because it's self evident by events of Star Wars.
Originally posted by AzrongerRight, it confirms that the Sith of Bane's line are generally deadlier than the Sith that came before that. Using Maul as an example, however, does not confer superiority to ALL previous Sith.
No, it doesn't posit that Maul is greater than Plagueis or Sidious, because the Sith of that time consisted of Plagueis, Sidious and Maul. It says that the Sith as a whole are deadler than ever, and that Maul alone is proof of that. As in, if there was a debate over which is more deadly, the OR Sith or the PT Sith, the former would bring up all sorts of feats and superweapons and so on. The latter would simply point to Darth Maul, who according to this quote, [b]by himself, is proof enough that the PT Sith > OR Sith in terms of deadliness. So no matter what the OR supporters cite to hype up their characters, Maul will always be superior. [/B]