The thing is, all those sources have been proven fallible, or the quotes themselves have been proven ambiguous. There's not one concrete statement that puts any incarnation of Sidious above Bane, and having any PT incarnation being above him just flat out makes zero sense.
Oh right Noobaris, I forgot, because in your own delusional mind, when you type you've automatically prove something. However in the real world, not only have you not proven that the sources were fallible, but the arguments for those sources were reinforced by your nonsense. You fall back on the "omg this quote is ambiguous" nonsense and your argument has been destroyed EVERYtime. PT Sidious is considered the most powerful sith lord in Bane's trilogy, and it makes perfect sense whether you believe it or not. Try not just watching the movies but reading other sources, so you can see why GL didn't make anyone a force god in the movies.
Hey Lightsnake, seeing as this is like your return to the forum, please at last try being a little less lame, yeah? I mean really, 'Bane Humper?' You sound like a fool.
Ok, seeing as people are still stuck on using random sourcebook blanket statements in debates instead of in-story evidence, hopefully this should end it:
Dave111283 (Darth Sexy): Being a huge Marka Ragnos fan, I just wanted to know where he ranks among the most powerful sith lords ever. The way he was always described made me think that he was the most powerful Sith Lord ever until sources came up with Sidious being the most powerful. Can you shed some light on this please?
Captain Yossarian (random dude): I don't know for sure but I would imagine that there are no hard and fast lists about which Sith are the most powerful. "Most Powerful" would have lots of different variables to take into account. So it may be best to say that he was simply amongst the most powerful Sith along with Sidious and whoever else there may be. It you definitively say that one Sith was the most powerful then by definition any others that you create in the EU must be inferior so I doubt the continuity people make such absolutes about the powerfulness of the characters. Of course, I could be wrong though.
Tasty Taste (Leland Chan, the guy who runs canon): Agreed, us continuity people don't deal in absolutes. Only Sith deal in absolutes.
With that said, we'll often need to come up with stats or rankings for gameplay purposes. These are for gameplay purposes only. Stunt coordinato Nick Gillard had his own lightsaber ranking, but even the use of this ranking system is limited because it was only the major characters from the prequel films that he ranked. We never expanded on that ranking system.
So as you can see, the head of the canon department himself states that these random statements aren't absolute, and thus, not a deciding factor in these debates.
Now can we please stop all this relying on blanket out of universe statements, and try and use in-story evidence from now on, as you can all quite clearly see that Leland Chan has basically confirmed that they don't mean jack, except for gameplay purposes.
...Palpatine is the strongest Sith Lord ever. George Lucas > anyone else. Lucas is top canon and whatever he says goes no matter what in the Star Wars universe.
Palpatine is the strongest and YES it is because the movies revolves around Palpatine.
__________________
Last edited by ESB -1138 on Apr 24th, 2007 at 09:35 PM
I've taken a look at that thread, lol, and I cracked up when I saw that Nebaris tried to translate "greatest master of evil ever to use Sith power" to refer to dedication and willingness.
Ok, calm down big guy, it wasn't that funny. Anyways, I really don't see what's so wrong with that, it works much better than that quote translating into personal power and combat prowess (like you tried to do). Anyways, I'd assume by LC's "us continuity people don't deal in absolutes" comment that it applies to essential guides, and all types of reference material, as well as sourcebooks.
I just searched his databank entree, and didn't find anything of the sort, and the NEC is an in-story source, and written by a historian inside the SW universe and thus subject to being inaccurate due to a lack of/distorted evidence, hence why I label such sources 'fallible'.
Apr 24th, 2007 02:51 AM
