Who would win Vader or Malgus?

[sell-dog]

How you figure that?Nothing significant to fight for a 1000 years then at the end fighting a bunch of droids.

 

The Golden Age of Jedi is canonically the best era of Jedi. Yoda, Mace, Obi-Wan, Ti, Fisto, Kloon, Anakin, Dooku, etc. They didn't have any wars to fight that is exactly the point. They had all the time in the world to dedicate to studying the force and perfecting and extending their powers. This era's Jedi and corresponding Sith were excellent users of Lightsaber and Force Powers whereas previous eras specialized in one or the other as there was less time to study in times of war. Also Grevious is no joke and is the most powerful non-force user.

 

For example I would name Ruin's order as more successful.A Republic reduced to almost nothing for hundreds of years beats rulling the galaxy for 20 years in my book.

 

Moral Victories are not real victories. What are the goals of the Sith? Defeat the Republic and Jedi. Did Ruin do this? No. Did The Rule of Two? Yes.

 

P.S If you wanna go through the semantics road,the Rule of Two technically ended with Tenebrous ,because Plagueis abandoned it also,replacing it with his own doctrine .So in the end ,technically the Rule of Two basically achieved virtually nothing, because it was not the Rule of Two that toppled the galaxy.

 

Technically it didn't end with Tenebrous. Sith, by nature, try to bend the rules and mock authority even it is their own rules and authority. Plag and Sid are perfect examples of the Rule of Two's philosophy. What did Plag do? Trained an apprentice to equality then brought him in further by sharing with him his everlasting life experiments then they worked on these experiments together. Then we know what happens later. So even though Plag mocks the Rule of Two and thinks he's creating his own order, all he is doing is what the Rule of Two is designed for. Train and share all of your knowledge with another and be challenged for the mantle of Dark Lord.

 

Also it is said in the Plag novel that other members of Bane's Order would have their own children as apprentices and in Plag's case, Tenebrous used statistical prediction to manipulate the birth of a strong Force sensitive. Were there probably some people that both the Jedi and Sith missed out on across the galaxy? Absolutely. But both orders did alright for themselves as both are canonically the most powerful Eras in SW timeline

Edited October 9, 2013 by sell-dog

[Kaedusz]

They had all the time in the world to dedicate to studying the force and perfecting and extending their powers. This era's Jedi were excellent users of Lightsaber and Force Powers whereas previous eras specialized in one or the other as there was less time to study in times of war.

This is virtually indication of nothing .The conclusion you draw out of it is a function of your already made up mind,it's not a legitimate result.Not to mention the invalid basic assumption.

 

Yoda, Mace, Obi-Wan, Ti, Fisto, Kloon, Anakin, Dooku, etc. Also Grevious is no joke and is the most powerful non-force user.

Yoda ,Mace and Anakin are good ,yes.Plo Kloon,while awesome as a person and character doesn't strike me as particularly powerful jedi.Fisto is an absolute joke with a cool voice actor and a nice smile.

Grevious is a clump of non force sensitive metal and a few organs.A powerful Jedi should be able to just lift him in the air and throw him around or something,not even resorting to a melle fight.And Obi-Wan ,Fisto and others broke some serious sweat vs him.

lol i can't believe i am even argueing about this.

The Golden Age of Jedi is canonically the best era of Jedi.

I agree.Playing police with no sith to fight is a great era to be jedi in.It's actually .... Golden.

 

Moral Victories are not real victories. What are the goals of the Sith? Defeat the Republic and Jedi. Did Ruin do this? No. Did The Rule of Two? Yes.

So what?I thought i made my point clear about this.

I would take recreating the sith after being virtually extinct and doing what i mentioned in the post responding to @Beniboybling over skulking in the shadows for 1000 years to have a victory against the Republic and the Jedi for a meager 20 years any day now.

 

 

Technically it didn't end with Tenebrous. Sith, by nature, try to bend the rules and mock authority even it is their own rules and authority. Plag and Sid are perfect examples of the Rule of Two's philosophy. What did Plag do? Trained an apprentice to equality then brought him in further by sharing with him his everlasting life experiments then they worked on these experiments together. Then we know what happens later. So even though Plag mocks the Rule of Two and thinks he's creating his own order, all he is doing is what the Rule of Two is designed for. Train and share all of your knowledge with another and be challenged for the mantle of Dark Lord.

Are you Plagueis's lawyer?He made his point perfectly clear,he doesn't need you to make excuses for him.

He wants nothing to do with the Rule of Two and the connection between him and his apprentice has nothing to do with the Rule of Two.But as i said this is semantics.My original point is the one above.

Also,you are forgetting that every sith teaches his main apprentice eventually everything he knows.Bane didn't found something particularly new in this department.He had a strong impression about this tradition from Kas'im and his master ,which are outside of the Order of the Sith Lords.

Also it is said in the Plag novel that other members of Bane's Order would have their own children as apprentices and in Plag's case, Tenebrous used statistical prediction to manipulate the birth of a strong Force sensitive. Were there probably some people that both the Jedi and Sith missed out on across the galaxy? Absolutely. But both orders did alright for themselves as both are canonically the most powerful Eras in SW timeline

This is directed towards another person.I don't have anything to say about missing out on strong force sensitives across the galaxy.

* * *

Seriously we need another thread for this.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Kaedusz

[sell-dog]

This is virtually indication of nothing .The conclusion you draw out of it is a function of your already made up mind,it's not a legitimate result.Not to mention the invalid basic assumption.

 

No..it is a confirmed fact via source books that the Jedi of this era are the most powerful. Nothing of my own bias or whatever you're claiming. As an aside I prefer TOR era to the ROE era but personal preferences and recognizing SW facts as they are and not what you want them to to be are two different things.

 

Yoda ,Mace and Anakin are good ,yes

 

I also forgot to mention Master Fay. Yoda, Mace, and Fay are more powerful than any Jedi before Luke and the New Jedi Order. Throw in the others that I mentioned and there's no way that the Jedi Order of any other time period who's top guy is already behind at least Yoda, Mace, and Fay is more powerful as they will be lacking in quality and quantity.

 

I agree.Playing police with no sith to fight is a great era to be jedi in.It's actually .... Golden.

 

Hence why the Jedi of that time are so powerful. They would spar often and there were mild uprisings here and there. They were not sitting in total isolation just mediating all the time.

 

Obviously this also speaks to the success to the Rule of Two being able to manipulate and destroy the Jedi Order at the height of its power.

 

So what?I thought i made my point clear about this.

I would take recreating the sith after being virtually extinct and doing what i mentioned in the post responding to @Beniboybling over skulking in the shadows for 1000 years to have a victory against the Republic and the Jedi for a meager 20 years any day now.

 

Has it been established that Ruin brought the Sith from out of extinction and did nothing with something such as reorganizing leftovers from Vitiate's Empire? I don't think the back-story of the New Sith Empire is developed enough yet to make such a conclusion but I could be wrong.

 

The Sith of Bane's order were looking towards ruling for more than 20 years obviously. The Sith Lords leading up to Sid cannot necessarily be held accountable for the unpredictably in events that occur 50-1000 years after their death. Remember, if Connor Jax would not have destroyed Sid's clones, Plag basically creating Anakin and thus Luke, who's to say it would've still only been 20 years? Also, the SW timeline as it stands only goes through 137 ABY and thus the full legacy of Bane's Order/effect on the Republic/galaxy from Sid and others is not developed yet whereas Ruin's and others' legacy is more easily determined.

 

Are you Plagueis's lawyer?He made his point perfectly clear,he doesn't need you to make excuses for him.

He wants nothing to do with the Rule of Two and the connection between him and his apprentice has nothing to do with the Rule of Two.But as i said this is semantics.My original point is the one above.

Also,you are forgetting that every sith teaches his main apprentice eventually everything he knows.Bane didn't found something particularly new in this department.He had a strong impression about this tradition from Kas'im and his master ,which are outside of the Order of the Sith Lords.

 

Are you the attorney prosecuting the Order of Sith Lords? I'm sure you've heard the phrase actions speak louder than words. It really don't matter how many times Plag mocks the Rule of Two and says that he will create a new order that will last a thousand years. He clearly is obsessed with immorality and goes above and beyond any other person in SW history to obtain it. Among his many efforts is trying to force this new order thought onto Sid. Why do you think Plag is so intent of reminding Sid of this new order? Because he knows that Sid is, and always was, super power hungry and powerful and by trying to convince Sid of this new order Plag will have eliminated one more threat to his immortality. What ACTUALLY ended up happening? Sid gained all (or a large majority) of his master's knowledge and maintained collaboration with him because Plag was still useful to Sid's own ends. Once Sid became chancellor, he is the most politically powerful person in the galaxy and has no need of a co-chancellor or Plag in general and thus he eliminates him. How, in any way, is this concept different from the Rule of Two and what transpired between Bane and Zannah? Plag can boast all he wants about his new order but I truly don't understand how an out of universe perspective can say this ended up not being another iteration of the Rule of Two. Thus, yes the Rule of Two ended up on top of the galaxy or in your mind at the very least was THE essential mindset that led up to being atop the galaxy. Pretty Important either way.

 

Seriously we need another thread for this.

 

I agree.

On topic: Vader wins.

[Kaedusz]

Hence why the Jedi of that time are so powerful.

 

 

In what terms?If you are talking about being unopposed in a direct way then yes;being a jedi in peace and all that

If you are talking about the jedi individuals themselves being oh so mighty then no.If they were so powerful then they would be ... well ... powerful.From what i have seen,and i have seen all of it,they are just normal rag tag jedi with the addition of becoming complacent.

With few exceptions.But there are always a few exceptions.

 

I'm sure you've heard the phrase actions speak louder than words.

The only action by Plagueis that bares similarity with the Rule of Two is that in his plans there are still only 2 proper sith.The similarities end there.

 

These are the 2 points i wanted to address.Everything else you said is an elaboration to a point that is already made clear.My response is the same as before.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Kaedusz

[Beniboybling]

Taken from Wookieepedia:

 

The newly rechristened Darth Ruin and his followers initiated the New Sith Wars against the Jedi and the Galactic Republic, but Ruin's Sith Order quickly disintegrated. Ruin's single-mindedness and ambitions led to hatred and betrayal by his followers, who later killed him.

 

Yeah, really compares.

[Beniboybling]

P.S If you wanna go through the semantics road,the Rule of Two technically ended with Tenebrous ,because Plagueis abandoned it also,replacing it with his own doctrine .So in the end ,technically the Rule of Two basically achieved virtually nothing, because it was not the Rule of Two that toppled the galaxy.

Except that's impossible because Sidious fulfilled the Rule of Two doctrine by killing Plagueis and taking the mantle of Dark Lord. The Rule of Two ended with Sidious who failed to train an apprentice capable of being his successor.

 

And of course, it is established canon that Sidious was the pinnacle of the Rule of Two. Not Plagueis or Tenebrous. I'm afraid your attempts to exploit semantics are going to prove fruitless.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Beniboybling

[Selenial]

Except that's impossible because Sidious fulfilled the Rule of Two doctrine by killing Plagueis and taking the mantle of Dark Lord. The Rule of Two ended with Sidious who failed to train an apprentice capable of being his successor.

 

Not exactly.

 

There were apprentices who killed their masters without, arguably, being more powerful than them. Vader did end up killing him, and in a similar style to Sidious killing Plagueis... Deceptively

[Beniboybling]

Not exactly.

 

There were apprentices who killed their masters without, arguably, being more powerful than them. Vader did end up killing him, and in a similar style to Sidious killing Plagueis... Deceptively

True, rules were bent. But broken? No. The essence of the Rule of Two remained.

 

Did Vader break the rules? He abandoned the dark side. I think that breaks quite a few.

[Selenial]

True, rules were bent. But broken? No. The essence of the Rule of Two remained.

 

Did Vader break the rules? He abandoned the dark side. I think that breaks quite a few.

 

But he was never even part of the Rule of two, Palpatine gave himself Immortality. Only way to contain that beast is the Soul of thousands of lightside heroes. Otherwise he'd come back. He destroyed the rule of two by making himself unstoppable by all but Jedi, creating the Rule of One.

[sell-dog]

In what terms?If you are talking about being unopposed in a direct way then yes;being a jedi in peace and all that

If you are talking about the jedi individuals themselves being oh so mighty then no.If they were so powerful then they would be ... well ... powerful.From what i have seen,and i have seen all of it,they are just normal rag tag jedi with the addition of becoming complacent.

With few exceptions.But there are always a few exceptions.

 

 

The only action by Plagueis that bares similarity with the Rule of Two is that in his plans there are still only 2 proper sith.The similarities end there.

 

These are the 2 points i wanted to address.Everything else you said is an elaboration to a point that is already made clear.My response is the same as before.

 

1. Jedi are most powerful in every possible definition of the phrase: Lightsaber, Force, as an organization, and individually. There are canon facts that support this claim as well as feats that can be most easily seen/referenced in the REAL Most Powerful Project specifically the Jedi list. (I know your skepticism of that list but please take it from someone who observed and did some mild participation throughout the 500+posts to determine each position that they are thorough and the closest thing we have to accurate at this point). Instead of claiming that I am wrong, how about you give an order or an individual that is more powerful than the Golden Age Jedi or its grandmaster. I'll give you a hint: Yoda is canonically the most powerful Jedi pre-Luke and the Jedi Order of this time period is canonically most powerful so this will be hard.

 

2. Unless I am mistaken your original point was that the Rule of Two ended with Tenebrous which is not at all what I've said. I am saying that it ended later with Sidious/Vader as Vader, the apprentice, did not destroy the master with the intention of grabbing the mantle of Dark Lord of the Sith and then the institution truly dies later with Sidious final demise.

[Beniboybling]

But he was never even part of the Rule of two, Palpatine gave himself Immortality. Only way to contain that beast is the Soul of thousands of lightside heroes. Otherwise he'd come back. He destroyed the rule of two by making himself unstoppable by all but Jedi, creating the Rule of One.

Well yeah that too.

[Aurbere]

In what terms?If you are talking about being unopposed in a direct way then yes;being a jedi in peace and all that

If you are talking about the jedi individuals themselves being oh so mighty then no.If they were so powerful then they would be ... well ... powerful.From what i have seen,and i have seen all of it,they are just normal rag tag jedi with the addition of becoming complacent.

With few exceptions.But there are always a few exceptions.

 

If you truly have seen all of it, then you would not make such a comment.

[Wolfninjajedi]

Vader has something to say.

[Hambunctious]

The jedi of Obi Wan's day didn't have anyone to fight to hone their saber skills. Neither did the sith, since they stayed in hiding. Practice is one thing, but reality is another.

 

I'm only trying to point out that most of the jedi, and the sith of the Malgus era were trained from birth as warriors. The sith of that era were constantly in battle against their own, and later against jedi. Not just battling with their saber skills, but also with the force. They were battle hardened veterans.

 

I still believe the rule of two was a failure. If the sith emperor of the Malgus era had not decided to destroy the entire galaxy, and let up on the Republic, they could have hurt the Republic much more than they did, and maybe have won. Palpatine did lose in the end, and his little empire didn't last anywhere near as long. Anyway, the only way he won in the first place was through politics. That's just cowardly. I'll take a sith like Malgus over a sinister little spider weaving his web of deceit any day.

[Kaedusz]

Yoda is canonically the most powerful Jedi pre-Luke and the Jedi Order of this time period is canonically most powerful so this will be hard.

yes,that's why i said there are a few exceptions.

 

P.S I don't fully agree with Yoda's claim,but i am also not downplaying his power.Anyway ...that is immaterial in our context.

 

 

Except that's impossible because Sidious fulfilled the Rule of Two doctrine by killing Plagueis and taking the mantle of Dark Lord. The Rule of Two ended with Sidious who failed to train an apprentice capable of being his successor.

 

And of course, it is established canon that Sidious was the pinnacle of the Rule of Two. Not Plagueis or Tenebrous. I'm afraid your attempts to exploit semantics are going to prove fruitless.

/sniff Do you smell that?It's the scent of hypocrisy.

If Sidious wasn't part of the Rule of Two,then Plagueis wasn't also.There can be no discrimination.You are the one that started talking semantics.

There are two possibilities.

1.If we are talking about who established his own doctrine and abandoned the Rule of Two,then it was Plagueis first.From this follows the previously mentioned conclusions.

2.If the Rule of Two/Order of the Sith Lords died with Sidious or with Sidious and Vader,then my original point about the Rule of Two's achievements comes into effect.

* * *

By the way killing your master is not Rule of Two exclusive.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Kaedusz

[BacaWicket]

As much as I love Malgus, Vader would totally destroy him.

 

Lorewise, Vader is more powerful than anything the Old Republic era can throw at him.

 

save for the sith emperor

he is immortal and he is all powerful

[Kaedusz]

save for the sith emperor

save for a lot of people,but Malgus is not one of them

Edited October 10, 2013 by Kaedusz

[Beniboybling]

/sniff Do you smell that?It's the scent of hypocrisy.

If Sidious wasn't part of the Rule of Two,then Plagueis wasn't also.There can be no discrimination.You are the one that started talking semantics.

There are two possibilities.

1.If we are talking about who established his own doctrine and abandoned the Rule of Two,then it was Plagueis first.From this follows the previously mentioned conclusions.

2.If the Rule of Two/Order of the Sith Lords died with Sidious or with Sidious and Vader,then my original point about the Rule of Two's achievements comes into effect.

* * *

By the way killing your master is not Rule of Two exclusive.

Again semantics, regardless of whether Plagueis created his own doctrine (which he never officially did) it never came into fruition - it exists in theory alone. On the other hand the Rule of One did exist, Darth Sidious outlines its philosophy and tenets in the Book of Anger and puts it in to practice by not training an worthy successor and establishing sects such as the Inquisitoris etc. while ensuring all power of the dark side revolves around him.

 

And regardless of this attempt to sabotage the Rule of Two, Plagueis and Sidious still remain a product of it and therefore the Rule of Two remains responsible for the fulfillment of the Grand Plan and Sidious' power, because without the Rule of Two these would never have come into effect, there is no other Order to attribute it too.

[Beniboybling]

I still believe the rule of two was a failure. If the sith emperor of the Malgus era had not decided to destroy the entire galaxy, and let up on the Republic, they could have hurt the Republic much more than they did, and maybe have won. Palpatine did lose in the end, and his little empire didn't last anywhere near as long. Anyway, the only way he won in the first place was through politics. That's just cowardly. I'll take a sith like Malgus over a sinister little spider weaving his web of deceit any day.

And this I'm afraid is ignorant.

 

Ascribing 'cowardice' to hiding in the shadows and using clever manipulation rather than brute force to achieve your goals is fallacious. The Rule of Two was the logical and intelligent option as the tactic of open warfare failed. There is nothing brave about running blindly at your enemy in plain sight, that's just stupid.

[Kaedusz]

Again semantics, regardless of whether Plagueis created his own doctrine (which he never officially did) it never came into fruition - it exists in theory alone. On the other hand the Rule of One did exist, Darth Sidious outlines its philosophy and tenets in the Book of Anger and puts it in to practice by not training an worthy successor and establishing sects such as the Inquisitoris etc. while ensuring all power of the dark side revolves around him.

 

And regardless of this attempt to sabotage the Rule of Two, Plagueis and Sidious still remain a product of it and therefore the Rule of Two remains responsible for the fulfillment of the Grand Plan and Sidious' power, because without the Rule of Two these would never have come into effect, there is no other Order to attribute it too.

 

 

I will remind you again that you started the semantics,not me.What does ''officially'' mean?You are either following a doctrine or you are not.There is no middle ground.Plagueis did not follow the Rule of Two as he himself said it.He did not intent Sidious to be his successor.

Also Sidious did intent to fully train another Sith.The fact that this sith,failed terribly in Mustafar and forever crippled his potential,is immaterial to your argument.

So basically as i said before.Either the Rule of died with Tenebrous OR if we are talking about physical events and not ideas,it died with Sidious/Sidious and Vader.

 

 

In regards to your point about the Rule of Two leading up to Plagueis and Sidious if we hypothetically accept that they are not part of the Rule of Two, i have no objections here.However , I am not sure though how that helps your argument.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Kaedusz

[Beniboybling]

You are confusing doctrines with institutions. A doctrine does not make an Order, regardless of whether Plagueis bent the rules he never abandoned the Order of Sith Lords - he never founded a new Order. Sidious did.

[Kaedusz]

A doctrine does not make an Order, regardless of whether Plagueis bent the rules he never abandoned the Order of Sith Lords - he never founded a new Order. Sidious did.

He never abandoned the Sith.Regarding the Rule of Two,he abandoned it the moment he decided not to follow it.

Among other things,the relationship between Sidious and him is different and not the same as between master and apprentice in the original Banite Sith.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Kaedusz

[Snakesoul]

I would 100% say Vader. Malgus just doesn't give me that OH **** HE"S A DARK LORD feel where as Vader just keeps giving me that feeling that he's got something up his sleeve and is truly hiding something. Also it took one person to wound Vader and he was still able to kick *** at the end where as Malgus just ...well he got beaten down by 4 randoms and shoved down a hole where yes he could be dead or alive depending if he made it off the station before it turned into space dust.

[Kaedusz]

got beaten down by 4 randoms

4 randoms?This is a gameplay mechanic.The Emperor's Wrath and Darth Nox are more powerful individually than Malgus the crybaby pissant.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Kaedusz

[Selenial]

I still believe the rule of two was a failure. If the sith emperor of the Malgus era had not decided to destroy the entire galaxy, and let up on the Republic, they could have hurt the Republic much more than they did, and maybe have won. Palpatine did lose in the end, and his little empire didn't last anywhere near as long. Anyway, the only way he won in the first place was through politics. That's just cowardly. I'll take a sith like Malgus over a sinister little spider weaving his web of deceit any day.

 

Stupidest thing I've read in a while.

 

Wanna know why the Sith Emperor signed the treaty of Coruscant? Revan. A Jedi. And want to know why Revan was able to do this? The Sith Openly revealed themselves. This led the way to Revan halting the Emperor. It led to the Hero of Tython defeating the Voice and severely weakening the Empire.

 

Funny thing is, Palpatine eradicated the Republic completely, established a GALAXY WIDE empire, and only lost because of 2 Jedi... Any time the Sith reveal themselves the Jedi fight back, Palpatine came closest to eradicating the Jedi, because only 1 remained when Palpatine died. The Emperor died because he revealed himself to the Jedi, as did countless other Sith.

 

 

Damnit I'm rambling. The point is the Rule of Two let the sith Seethe and grow in power, have a power base, and set the stage for the greatest revolt the Galaxy has ever seen, the Sith Empire went through brute force, lost countless sith, didn't come close to making the most Powerful Sith in the Galaxy and ended in Failure.