I'mma make this quick since I'm about to hit the sack.
Then I'mma go to bed.
{get it?}
You claim your agenda is to defend Vitiate's lackluster reputation in these parts. I think your exposure to unflattering opinions of the character has prompted a fairly rigid and extreme reaction {as is often the case with people and deep-seated opinions}. So when threads like these come along and you feel you can successfully make the case that Vitiate > the most powerful Star Wars characters, you're tacitly trumpeting the cause even if this incarnation of the character doesn't "exist" within the mythology.
Put another way, in a news/media paradigm, the ubiquitous presence of the "damn liberal media" has prompted you to be the Fox News of the Vitiate cause.
Bit of armchair psychology there, but I'm pretty perceptive and confident in my reading of your behavior.
Determining a character's position based on just feats isn't a winning formula imo. Especially when it's selectively applied. {For example, you do realize how lame Vitiate comes off next to other characters when we just compare feats, right? If we just compared feats, Palps, Starkiller & maybe Nihilus would be the kings of the mountain.}
You have to juggle feats, accolades, and creative intent to come up with the most accurate formula available for determining character placements imo but even this has its flaws.
Under that formula, the Mortis Anchorites are exactly where I put them. Sidious and Vitiate, while crazy powerful, just don't stack up in any incarnation.
Now those are my absolute, raw two cents. Hopefully you understand a bit more though I'm pretty sure we're just retreading old ground at this point.
And while I'm most certainly right and you're most certainly wrong, I must admit for the record that I was also most certainly more aggressive towards Sinious than I have been towards anyone in a long time. It's been a while since I've really been so firm with someone. I apologize if I offended you, Sin. Must be an unusual spike in testosterone.
Last edited by The_Tempest on Feb 27th, 2015 at 04:02 AM
Well, the thing is, I at some point believed that Vitiate was more powerful than Sidious. It was when I first joined this site and had much less knowledge on Star Wars. Sidious has always been my favorite character in any fiction I've read so far. I was more into his character than his power though. So I studied his political genius and the alignment with the dark side. I didn't go and study how powerful his lightning is compared to some ancient sith for example. Meanwhile, Vitiate's raw power and his emotionless and elite oratory was what I liked about the character. Yet in time I started learning about Sidious' combatant side which made me realize he is in fact the most powerful sith to ever live. Other than that, I never had crazy intentions about Vitiate.
I don't know for certainty that Vitiate would reach a galactic wide level with the ritual. I believe it but it isnt proven so don't use it as an argument. In this thread which is not created by me, Vitiate is assumed to have gained that power. Now, what bothers me here is that the Ones of Mortis is being hyped to a level which I find to be ridiculous. I've already made my arguments and you already made yours. You haven't really referred to my strongest ones so I'm not convinced. If you wanna keep debating, we can and I'll list my reason for skepticism again.
I place him as the second most powerful sith which is something you agreed with in a chat we had before. I'd rather have him stay there than go up or down. But that is my personal yet sincere feeling.
I can't agree more. The lack of this approach is what turned KMC into a troll pit.
This incarnation of Vitiate is not real and has no bearing or link to any other incarnation of his. So yes, any actualized incarnation of Vitiate or Sidious would utterly be destroyed by the Ones.
The OP creates a scenario where Vitiate is x100000000000000 more stronger than he actually is. In that case, I'll side with him or anyone else who manages to consume the galaxy and amps their powers to that degree.
The Chosen One is never created with the intention of having x1000000000 more potential than Yoda or any other jedi. He was simply, vastly more prodigious but not to that degree. The dialogue in the movies make that clear and you know it.
Appreciated yet no worries. I enjoy tough love but I also enjoy having mutual respect when debating about fictional things. Especially between Sidious fans.
Yep, the Children of Mortis were forced to unite against her to defeat her. And we know that she isn't a universal power, not even close.
Another BS I detect in their arguments is Anakin's prime.
Anakin Skywalker and Luke Skywalker had AT LEAST comparable potentials.
Luke Skywalker did not end up being a universal power. So why would Anakin be 10 billion times stronger than Luke at some point? And since we all agree that Anakin at his prime is the Father's equal, I don't see how the Ones of Mortis are universal beings as well.
I guess I'll never get an answer to these as there are none. Still waiting though, Temp.
The "children of Mortis" were "forced to unite against her" according to a Killik mural in a Legends book.
Nowhere is it canonically declared that Anakin and Luke have "at least comparable potentials." All that Lucas ever said on the subject is that Luke could surpass Palpatine.
You admit that determining a character's worth based only on feats turned KMC into "a troll pit" and yet that's exactly what you're doing here: Luke doesn't have universal power feats so the Mortis Anchorites clearly aren't universal powers.
TCW declares that the Mortis Anchorites are threats to the universe, hence their containment. It's cut-and-dry.
Dude, you can't seriously be entertaining the idea of Luke having universal power feats? His point is generally correct that Anakin and Luke don't even begin to remotely approach that level and never will.
Using one example based off of feats doesn't suggest a feat-only paradigm. Are you going to accuse me of double standards as well if I ever make an single argument that only mentions feats?
English, which was why I was smart enough to not say you were doing that, but rather ask you whether you were by objecting to his point. Though I studied Literature, not Language. I hate Language, spelling and grammar.
Isn't it also said that Luke became the Jedi Anakin was supposed to become? Anakin's ultimate destiny was linked to the sith. He was meant to become stronger than Sidious, not to become this uber god that dominates the entire universe. In the films, if Anakin's potential was that above everyone else, they wouldn't just give him to a jedi as an apprentice. They'd build him a freaking temple and start worshipping him.
Exactly. Thats his level. Being above someone like Sidious. Yet Abeloth wasn't 10 billion times stronger than Luke.
What? I never said anything about feats. What else does Luke have to make him a universal being? An accolade? Does the context hint him to be one? More importantly, wouldn't you agree that Luke and Sidious have comparable powers? Don't you think FOTJ Luke vs DE Sidious would at least be a decent fight? Yet you admitted that Sidious is nowhere near the Ones(Since they're universal powers).
Than everyone in SWEU is a threat to the universe. Anakin prime = The father, Anakin prime is comparable to Luke prime, Luke prime is comparable to Sidious prime etc etc.
Writing off a character being a universal threat because you feel they lack the feats to indicate as much is using a feat-only paradigm.
I'll accuse you of double standards when you inevitably use an argument hinged on feats regarding a PT character in a way you wouldn't otherwise if the character was, say, Bane.
In other words, when you use double standards, I'll accuse you of using them.
Given that Luke having universal power feats wasn't even remotely implied by my post and I spent previous posts condemning the notion that feats should not solely determine a character's placement, I'm pretty sure the previous post was the very definition of a non-sequitur.
Except he specifically says that it's just another problem he finds with the idea.
Well tough, because at some point I am going to make an argument based on feats. That doesn't mean I'm ignoring everything else though, just that that argument is the thing relevant to the point I'm making or the thing that's convincing me of something. Just because I'm not mentioning other aspects doesn't mean I'm excluding them. Nor does it mean Sinious is. You loon.
So you agree with his point then? Because unless you do think that's a possibility I can't see why you'd object to it.
Key words being: "mural" and "Legends." It's an in-universe myth in a continuity that is explicitly non-canon. Canon never was subordinate to the EU and it certainly isn't now that it's under the Legends umbrella.
More powerful than Sidious, yes. Not that Anakin and Luke's potential were comparable, let alone equitable. Anakin is Father level and Luke is > Palpatine level and there's a vast gulf between Father-level and just-greater-than-Sidious level. Luke can be potentially more powerful than Sidious and still nowhere friggin near Anakin/The Father.
They're not mutually exclusive.
...According to whom? What does your personal skepticism over the lack of religions surrounding Anakin have to do with anything? And I'll remind you again that the Mortis arc was introduced to the mythology a decade after TPM was released.
Abeloth and Luke are not Anakin or The Father and Legends depictions do not have any bearing on canon ones.
Dude... Luke and Sidious are not Anakin/The Father. Why is Anakin/The Father's placement contingent upon a fight between Sidious and Luke or Luke and Abeloth?
*Didn't see this part
This might be valid if your premises were. But they're not. Anakin/The Father & the Mortis Anchorites are in a whole 'nother world next to even otherwise enormously powerful characters like Sidious.
Last edited by The_Tempest on Feb 27th, 2015 at 11:56 PM
Yes, I'm well aware that you'll continue to make liberal use of double standards. My question to you in the other thread was more or less rhetorical. You'll make them, I'll probably do that thing I do when you make them, you'll get angry with me for "lecturing you," and I'll respond with the "well tough" precedent you graciously provided here, you'll get even more irritated and expect me to be more courteous with you than you are with me, I'll point out that that's merely another double standard, your anger will increase by orders of magnitude and you'll probably threaten to block me because if I was really your friend I wouldn't do something that irritates you and I'll just redirect the same question to you. It will be a vortex of anger and snark and the status quo will remain unchanged.
It's predictable, but there we are.
Do I think Luke's been depicted as a universal power? Obviously not.
Luke had the potential to become greater than Vader and Palpatine, but, according to Lucas, Vader no longer had the potential that he once did as Anakin.
__________________ "The power of the dark side is an illness no true Sith would wish to be cured of" -Darth Plagueis
Feb 27th, 2015 03:59 AM
