Stop comparing Vitiate to Palpatine...

[Kaedusz]

 

 

Sidious was an entirely new tier of Sith compared to the ones running around in the Old Republic days.

 

The *Sith* after Bane were entirely new tier of sith compared to the ones running around in the Old Republic days.Not Palpatine/Sidious the person.

 

Also ''new tier'' in this case doesn't mean better,it just means new and different,responding to the enviroment and the historical context they were living in - after the New Sith Wars ended.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Kaedusz

[Doctoglethorpe]

Also ''new tier'' in this case doesn't mean better

 

Yes it does. I would know cause I'm the one that said it.

[Ventessel]

Just to be a broken record, nobody can say Vitiate is the more powerful sith and simultaniously have any respect at all for the thousand year Rule of Two. To claim Sidious was even only equal to any Sith of this era is to claim the Rule of Two accomplished nothing during a millennium of research and training.

 

Thats all I have to say on this subject anymore. Debating the merits of their actual depicted accomplishments is just arbitrary.

 

The rule of two was a survival mechanism to keep the Sith from being exterminated from the Jedi. They changed their methods and opted to strike from concealment instead of wage outright war.

 

Also, who wrote the novelization of Revenge of the Sith?

[TheronFett]

Clearly the most powerful Sith in galactic history was Spock.

[Beniboybling]

Oh, and Beniboybling, I'll respond to you, don't worry. It's late though... I'll do it in the morning.

No worries, no one seems to be paying attention anyway.

[Beniboybling]

The JK killed the voice not the real Vitiate. If you check wookiepedia and the Revan novel it says that VItate's was a sith pure blood and the body that the JK kills is human.

Also it is not the fact that Vitate lived for 1,300 years its the fact that he ruled for 1300 years in an empire that had thousands and thousands of sith lords trained form childhood to becaome as poweerful as possible.

I'll take this opportunity to direct you to this thread - for my opinions on that matter.

But in a general matter for the "Star Wars Discussion" session of the forum, people should stiop creating this random versus topics. If you wanna do it, do something organized like Aurbere's BattleZone series, not a random topic out of nowhere who don't even have the intentio to create a debate, just to summarize an opinion.

Agreed, fortunately with the advent of such organised debates, sporadic vs series and ridiculous matchups seem to be a dying breed.

[MyDarkSunshine]

Just to be a broken record, nobody can say Vitiate is the more powerful sith and simultaniously have any respect at all for the thousand year Rule of Two. To claim Sidious was even only equal to any Sith of this era is to claim the Rule of Two accomplished nothing during a millennium of research and training.

 

Actually one can. The rule of two was necessary to facilitate Sith survival and to improve upon the weak organization they'd become. Which they did. They improved upon what they were at the time the rule of two began. That doesn't mean they improved upon the Sith that existed before the Brotherhood of Darkness. Quite the contrary, some of the most dangerous Sith existed before the rule of two.

 

"The Sith'ari will raise the Sith from death and make them stronger than before." Note it doesn't say, "stronger than ever before."

 

Also, what exactly was discovered during this "millennium of research and training"? Was there actually anything new, or did they merely re-learn skills and techniques used by the Sith of old? Sure, they could rediscover lost knowledge and maybe add a few new things to the mix, they could train to become exceptional light saber duelists and hone their connection to the dark side. But that does not instantly make them unstoppable. Ultimately they won through cunning and guile, which is also how some of the apprentices became master - not by being more powerful, but by out thinking their opponent (a vastly under valued trait).

 

The rule of two accomplished exactly what it was meant to. It enabled the Sith to not only survive, but almost exterminate the Jedi and take over the galaxy.

 

Sidious was powerful. Exceptionally so, given he took on Yoda in a one on one confrontation. Probably even more powerful than Vititate, and almost certainly a better light saber duelist. But the comparison is merely speculation. There is no right or wrong answer, merely "the truth, from a certain point of view".

[LadyKulvax]

Palpatine is the most powerful Sith Lord who ever lived, Not just Lucas and Chee have confirmed this but many other authors to, so has many sourcebooks.

 

This is canon fact on every single tier, don't like it? go and watch/read/play another IP.

 

This pointless bickering and whining about it is well.... utterly pointless, anyone with even the slightest respect for canon would understand this.

Edited April 20, 2013 by LadyKulvax

[Doctoglethorpe]

"The Sith'ari will raise the Sith from death and make them stronger than before." Note it doesn't say, "stronger than ever before."

 

...... http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/0/0/9/5/3/5/7/facepalm-44246808923.jpeg

 

I'm not gonna argue that kind of logic. Its impossible. Having undebatable logic is far from being right though, but thats all that can possibly be said.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Doctoglethorpe

[MyDarkSunshine]

...... http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/0/0/9/5/3/5/7/facepalm-44246808923.jpeg

 

I'm not gonna argue that kind of logic. Its impossible. Having undebatable logic is far from being right though, but thats all that can possibly be said.

 

The logic presented supports the conclusion given, that "one can [say Vitiate is the more powerful sith and simultaniously have any respect at all for the thousand year Rule of Two]".

 

It does not prove that Vitiate is the more powerful Sith, but then it was never intended to- it may however imply (intentionally) that the rule of two does not necessitate that Sidious be the most powerful Sith ever, any more than the lack of the word 'ever' prevents that being a possibility.

Whilst I could probably present a reasoned argument that Vitiate is the stronger Sith I am not going to, as I do not believe it to be the case. Sidious is probably the more powerful of the two, it is the reasoning people are using to convey this that is flawed.

 

For instance:

 

Palpatine is the most powerful Sith Lord who ever lived, Not just Lucas and Chee have confirmed this but many other authors to, so has many sourcebooks.

 

This is canon fact on every single tier, don't like it? go and watch/read/play another IP.

 

This pointless bickering and whining about it is well.... utterly pointless, anyone with even the slightest respect for canon would understand this.

 

George Lucas also explicitly stated Sidious never became a clone, which could be used to argue all of Sidious' powers and feats occuring post-ROTJ never happened. Dodgey reasoning, I know, as Lucas has also pretty much dismissed the entirety of the EU. Taking Lucas' comments as law is wrong, as he himself admits he doesn't even know about half of the story that is now Star Wars; he is, by any reasoned analysis, a source of limited reliability. A source that can be used, of course, but not one that is above dispute.

 

Chee I cannot comment on, as I have never actually seen direct quotes from him or links to such quotes, only here-say regarding what he has or has not said. Such here-say should always be taken with a pinch of salt. Nor, unfortunately, do I have a clear idea of his exact job or how credible a source it makes him. Does he read everything related to Star Wars, or even care ultimately who may or may not be the most powerful being in existence? If so, how does one apply for this job?

 

An author has also stated Revan used both sides of the Force simultaneously, yet that is disputed frequently on these forums. It may directly contradict previously established canon, yet nothing is to prevent canon being rewritten or expanded upon. Whoever reads and approves such works must have let it pass. Again, I am of the opinion it is likely impossible to use both sides of the Force simultaneously, yet the point remains; authors are not always right, narrative includes a certain amount of artistic flare that often ignores or confuses the grounding of such debates.

 

As for source books, they frequently become dated and are over written, revised or otherwise left without more recent information. As an example, I would guess there are old republic source books in circulation that still maintain Revan left into the unknown regions and was never seen again; something we now know not to be the case. Did the latest source book occur since the creation of Vitiate as a character and comment on him or Sidious in such a way that would strengthen one side of the argument or the other?

 

Pointless bickering and whining would indeed be pointless . Reasoned debate regarding the two characters is only as pointless as other such debates about characters that frequently occur on these forums. I have absolutely no problem with canon, or with the idea that Sidious is the most powerful Sith to have ever existed. The problem lies with how otherwise respectable debaters constantly rant (i.e. without reasoning) this fact and then proceed to be demeaning about anyone who presents a different opinion. Wolf started this thread with reasoning as-to why Sidious is the most powerful Sith of all time in a manner that could roughly be considered a constructed argument, but as admitted it isn't absolute - or even balanced. Those that have attempted to balance it have been met with less than reasoned response, which is a shame.

 

TL;DR; this argument, like any, can and should be handled with reason. Not with responses of "this is canon because [someone] said so and like sheep we must agree", because when it comes down to it that simply isn't true.

Edited April 20, 2013 by MyDarkSunshine

[Ventessel]

The logic presented supports the conclusion given, that "one can [say Vitiate is the more powerful sith and simultaniously have any respect at all for the thousand year Rule of Two]".

 

It does not prove that Vitiate is the more powerful Sith, but then it was never intended to- it may however imply (intentionally) that the rule of two does not necessitate that Sidious be the most powerful Sith ever, any more than the lack of the word 'ever' prevents that being a possibility.

Whilst I could probably present a reasoned argument that Vitiate is the stronger Sith I am not going to, as I do not believe it to be the case. Sidious is probably the more powerful of the two, it is the reasoning people are using to convey this that is flawed.

 

For instance:

 

 

 

George Lucas also explicitly stated Sidious never became a clone, which could be used to argue all of Sidious' powers and feats occuring post-ROTJ never happened. Dodgey reasoning, I know, as Lucas has also pretty much dismissed the entirety of the EU. Taking Lucas' comments as law is wrong, as he himself admits he doesn't even know about half of the story that is now Star Wars; he is, by any reasoned analysis, a source of limited reliability. A source that can be used, of course, but not one that is above dispute.

 

Chee I cannot comment on, as I have never actually seen direct quotes from him or links to such quotes, only here-say regarding what he has or has not said. Such here-say should always be taken with a pinch of salt. Nor, unfortunately, do I have a clear idea of his exact job or how credible a source it makes him. Does he read everything related to Star Wars, or even care ultimately who may or may not be the most powerful being in existence? If so, how does one apply for this job?

 

An author has also stated Revan used both sides of the Force simultaneously, yet that is disputed frequently on these forums. It may directly contradict previously established canon, yet nothing is to prevent canon being rewritten or expanded upon. Whoever reads and approves such works must have let it pass. Again, I am of the opinion it is likely impossible to use both sides of the Force simultaneously, let the point remains; authors are not always right, narrative includes a certain amount of artistic flare that often ignores or confuses the grounding of such debates.

 

As for source books, they frequently become dated and are over written, revised or otherwise left without more recent information. As an example, I would guess there are old republic source books in circulation that still maintain Revan left into the unknown regions and was never seen again; something we now know not to be the case. Did the latest source book occur since the creation of Vitiate as a character and comment on him or Sidious in such a way that would strengthen one side of the argument or the other?

 

Pointless bickering and whining would indeed be pointless . Reasoned debate regarding the two characters is only as pointless as other such debates about characters that frequently occur on these forums. I have absolutely no problem with canon, or with the idea that Sidious is the most powerful Sith to have ever existed. The problem lies with how otherwise respectable debaters constantly rant (i.e. without reasoning) this fact and then proceed to be demeaning about anyone who presents a different opinion. Wolf started this thread with reasoning as-to why Sidious is the most powerful Sith of all time in a manner that could roughly be considered a constructed argument, but as admitted it isn't absolute - or even balanced. Those that have attempted to balance it have been met with less than reasoned response, which is a shame.

 

TL;DR; this argument, like any, can and should be handled with reason. Not with responses of "this is canon because [someone] said so and like sheep we must agree", because when it comes down to it that simply isn't true.

 

What a breath of fresh air that was to read.

[LadyKulvax]

*snip*

 

The reasonable arguments you've referred to have been ignored over and over again in multiple threads, simply put, we no longer see a point in using proper arguments when they'll simply be ignored regardless.

 

Lucas has always referred to his original story, his story is the skywalker family, for him that's the be all and end all, but if that was the case why would he have even created the Canon system? the EU, all of the EU is canon until whatever the Sequel trilogy does to effect it.

 

Leland Chee is a voice second only to Lucas' he is the main authority on canon whenever Lucas isn't involved, he was given the job of holocron keeper, his job is literally to keep the Star Wars universe consistent, hence he basically has the same word as Lucas does unless Lucas himself speak on something.

 

Also, authors' words are widely accepted up till and until they contradict established higher tier canon.

 

My point is literally everything that has ever mentioned Sidious has referred to him as either the most powerful being in the galaxy or of all time.

 

Lucas has never wavered from Sidious being the most powerful in G-canon, T-canon established him as the most powerful Sith Lord in more ways than one.

 

C-canon has established him as the most powerful by such a large degree that's it almost sad to read.

 

Honestly I'd rather we not need such statements to prove who is better, I'd rather make comparison from proper material, but when you see people literally selectively choose what they believe is or should be canon, you really start to understand why such a thing does happen.

[Beniboybling]

Those that have attempted to balance it have been met with less than reasoned response, which is a shame.

This is just it. No attempts have been made. Both sides are at fault here. Although the Sidious supporters less so as at least they began by trying to put forward reasoned arguments, the rest has just been arbitrary statements.

TL;DR; this argument, like any, can and should be handled with reason. Not with responses of "this is canon because [someone] said so and like sheep we must agree", because when it comes down to it that simply isn't true.

Unfortunately... it is. For example, let's say we are having a discussion about driving. X says to Y: you need to get driving lessons. Y responds: why, I have hands and feet, what more do I need? X responds: If you don't learn to drive, you'll end up in an accident. Y responds: I don't understand how can I have an accident? X responds: by crashing into another car. Y responds: but I don't acknowledge the laws of physics. X responds: /facepalm.

 

Do you see what I mean? In order to have a reasoned debate about a fictional universe. We have to accept some kind of universally agreed laws AKA canon. We have to accept canon, whether we like it or not.

 

So if George Lucas says X is canon. X is canon. No debate.

 

But canon can be disputed through reasonable means. As you are attempting here. However despite the fact that no post-2011 sources have been written indicating that Sidious is the most powerful Sith Lord in galactic history, it has been stated, and until stated otherwise remains fact. This is how the canon system works. And its highly unlikely to change given the fact that if it were, then all statements made in novels saying Sidious is the most powerful, would be effectively rendered non-canon.

 

Nonetheless, I'm perfectly happy to have this debate. Yet this debate has not being happening.

[Aurbere]

The only real argument on Vitiate's side is that he's older than Palpatine. Apparently age=power or something, when that simply is not the case. So allow me to debunk this argument from a different side.

 

I can name several Jedi that are much much older than Luke Skywalker (Odan-Urr, Yoda, Ood Bnar etc.), and yet, they don't hold a candle to his power. Simply put, Luke Skywalker has done far more impressive things than those aforementioned, except live extraordinarily long. Not only that, but he is G-canon the most powerful Jedi to ever live.

 

Now back to Vitiate vs. Sidious. The same argument applies. Sidious has simply done far more impressive things than Vitiate, except live extraordinarily long. Sidious also is G-canon the most powerful Sith.

 

If age is the best argument that Vitiate supporters have against Sidious, then that argument is a very weak one.

[Beniboybling]

The only real argument on Vitiate's side is that he's older than Palpatine. Apparently age=power or something, when that simply is not the case. So allow me to debunk this argument from a different side.

 

I can name several Jedi that are much much older than Luke Skywalker (Odan-Urr, Yoda, Ood Bnar etc.), and yet, they don't hold a candle to his power. Simply put, Luke Skywalker has done far more impressive things than those aforementioned, except live extraordinarily long. Not only that, but he is G-canon the most powerful Jedi to ever live.

 

Now back to Vitiate vs. Sidious. The same argument applies. Sidious has simply done far more impressive things than Vitiate, except live extraordinarily long. Sidious also is G-canon the most powerful Sith.

 

If age is the best argument that Vitiate supporters have against Sidious, then that argument is a very weak one.

Indeed, Sidious simply has more affinity with the Force.

[Doctoglethorpe]

All this debate has become now is how some people misinterpret statements made about the RoT and Sith'ari.

 

When people say "they became stronger then before" and then later say things like "Sidious was the strongest sith to ever live" put two and two together, holy ****. Yes, they do mean EVER before.

 

Theres no point in continuing this debate when people simply refuse to look at the facts and only want to cling to cherry picked statements that are open to semantics arguments while ignoring other statements that put them into enough context to halt said semantics argument.

Edited April 21, 2013 by Doctoglethorpe

[Beniboybling]

All this debate has become now is how some people misinterpret statements made about the RoT and Sith'ari.

 

When people say "they became stronger then before" and then later say things like "Sidious was the strongest sith to ever live" put two and two together, holy ****. Yes, they do mean EVER before.

 

Theres no point in continuing this debate when people simply refuse to look at the facts and only want to cling to cherry picked statements that are open to semantics arguments while ignoring other statements that put them into enough context to halt said semantics argument.

Couldn't agree with you more. This debate was never about whether Sidious is more powerful than Vitiate, but whether Wolf's sources are entirely valid and whether G-Canon can be disputed or not.

[marcelo_sdk]

The only real argument on Vitiate's side is that he's older than Palpatine. Apparently age=power or something, when that simply is not the case. So allow me to debunk this argument from a different side.

 

I can name several Jedi that are much much older than Luke Skywalker (Odan-Urr, Yoda, Ood Bnar etc.), and yet, they don't hold a candle to his power. Simply put, Luke Skywalker has done far more impressive things than those aforementioned, except live extraordinarily long. Not only that, but he is G-canon the most powerful Jedi to ever live.

 

Now back to Vitiate vs. Sidious. The same argument applies. Sidious has simply done far more impressive things than Vitiate, except live extraordinarily long. Sidious also is G-canon the most powerful Sith.

 

If age is the best argument that Vitiate supporters have against Sidious, then that argument is a very weak one.

 

I give several reasons aside his age, but you keep foccusing only on that. And frankly Aurbere, if you think that way, then I can't understand how can you organize a versus series, since by that logic there's no debate, we will just see who is more powerful in canon and done. So, coming from you, I really can't accept that kind of argument.

 

And 'm not saying you're lying, I just really don't know, but where or who stated that Luke is the most powerful Jedi to ever live?

[LadyKulvax]

The saddest thing about this whole debate is that the anti-Palpatine side hasn't even used the best arguments against him. Edited April 23, 2013 by LadyKulvax

[Aurbere]

I give several reasons aside his age, but you keep foccusing only on that. And frankly Aurbere, if you think that way, then I can't understand how can you organize a versus series, since by that logic there's no debate, we will just see who is more powerful in canon and done. So, coming from you, I really can't accept that kind of argument.

 

And 'm not saying you're lying, I just really don't know, but where or who stated that Luke is the most powerful Jedi to ever live?

 

With the characters provided in my versus series, there is room for debate because they are not "the most powerful ever." That's why I kept Yoda, Luke, and Sidious out, because they are the most powerful. We have several G-canon sources stating that they are, and we have the C-canon material to back it up.

 

But please, provide me with an argument that shows Sidious to be the weaker of the two. Though, do remember that Wolf has provided a list of material to show that that simply isn't the case.

[MyDarkSunshine]

Appreciate the responses, clarifications on Chee's role etc. It seemed everyone was in agreement that whilst Sidious is likely the most powerful Sith to have ever existed, there is still room for reasoned debate. Whether or not such debates were being presented or not is another matter. That said...

 

All this debate has become now is how some people misinterpret statements made about the RoT and Sith'ari.

 

When people say "they became stronger then before" and then later say things like "Sidious was the strongest sith to ever live" put two and two together, holy ****. Yes, they do mean EVER before.

 

Theres no point in continuing this debate when people simply refuse to look at the facts and only want to cling to cherry picked statements that are open to semantics arguments while ignoring other statements that put them into enough context to halt said semantics argument.

 

Where exactly has the Sith'ari quote been misinterpreted? An interpretation that does not align perfectly to your own is not necessarily wrong. In fact anyone with a basic knowledge of how narrative is analyzed would understand almost any written work can be interpreted in a vast array of different ways. Naturally this is Star Wars and not classic literature, but your post, quite frankly, rubbed me the wrong way. This is not mathematics, putting two pieces of information together does not end with a single absolute answer.

 

At no point have I argued Sidious is not the most powerful Sith, nor have I ever used the rule of two or Sith'ari prophecy to support such a view. What I have argued, and still maintain to be true, is that such a case could be argued and done so in a reasoned, mature, manner. Having to reiterate this is tiresome, given the distinction between the two should be fairly apparent in my previous posts.

 

Hopefully that has cleared it up for you, because there is actually no other way of doing so as it has been stated plainly more than once.

 

Couldn't agree with you more. This debate was never about whether Sidious is more powerful than Vitiate, but whether Wolf's sources are entirely valid and whether G-Canon can be disputed or not.

 

Any reason such a debate should not be held? Source analysis is a useful skill. Ultimately yes, Wolf's sources are generally both valid and within the context of the Star Wars canon system very credible- there is however no reason this cannot or should not ever be disputed. Doing so generally builds a clearer, more in-depth picture that simply quoting them and/or making declarations about who is more powerful; which can be used to not only counter an argument but also strengthen it.

 

Time for me to bow out, now. Given I've steered things into a questionably topic-related area and made my point as best I can. Look forward to seeing more from some of the debaters, and learning more about the lore and story of Star Wars from the points they make.

 

With that goal in mind...

 

The saddest thing about this whole debate is that the anti-Palpatine side hasn't even used the best arguments against him.

 

Would you mind elaborating? It might help steer this topic back on track, whilst simultaneously offering more information regarding Sidious. Not looking to spark a flame, merely learn more which this would achieve both directly, and possibly indirectly, as other lines of thought follow.

Edited April 21, 2013 by MyDarkSunshine

[LadyKulvax]

Would you mind elaborating? It might help steer this topic back on track, whilst simultaneously offering more information regarding Sidious. Not looking to spark a flame, merely learn more which this would achieve both directly, and possibly indirectly, as other lines of thought follow.

 

Sidious was his own worst enemy, after order 66 and transformation of the Republic into the Empire, he stopped the Great Jedi Purge when the Dark Woman was killed by Vader, he never found out what happened to Yoda or Obi-Wan Kenobi, his arrogance basically meant the return of the Jedi was all but assured.

 

He completely envisioned himself as pretty much immortal when that was far from the case even with Essence Transfer.

 

He even believed that even with Vader clearly scheming behind his back, that the Dark Lord would stand there and let his own son be corrupted into himself and effectively replace him or simply watch as his son is electrocuted to death.

 

Numerous incidents like this occurred but the one that I will never forget is screwing over Grand Admiral Thrawn's attempts to consolidate the Imperial remnant and take back control of the galaxy under a renewed Galactic Empire:

 

His own petty arrogance and almost child-like ego and overblown view of himself meant that he would rather kill Thrawn just because Thrawn did what any main military commander would do in his position, both the Emperor and Vader were dead to the best of his knowledge and the rest of the moffs had turned into squabbling warlords fighting for power, so he placed himself in control and tried his best to restore the Empire to power. It was working, the New Republic didn't stand a chance against Thrawn, he was sweeping them aside in almost all engagements.

 

But his efforts were undermined by Reborn Palpatine and sabotaged, allowing the New Republic numerous crucial victories, if the former Emperor had merely come out of hiding, revealed himself to Thrawn and combined their gathered forces, the Empire would have almost definitely retaken the galaxy, but his pride overwhelmed him so much so that he instead destroyed Thrawn's plans just out of spite and well we all know how that ended.

 

As powerful and intelligent as Palpatine was after the events of Order 66 and the Rise of the Empire, he could be and was an utter fool at the most important moments and allowed not only himself, but the thousand year Rule of Two which was the most successful Sith order in all history and the great Galactic Empire he had built to be destroyed, just because of his vanity.

 

I am certain that the Sith Emperor would never have made such amateur mistakes in the same position(barring the whole insane eat the galaxy plot).

Edited April 23, 2013 by LadyKulvax

[Beniboybling]

Any reason such a debate should not be held? Source analysis is a useful skill. Ultimately yes, Wolf's sources are generally both valid and within the context of the Star Wars canon system very credible- there is however no reason this cannot or should not ever be disputed. Doing so generally builds a clearer, more in-depth picture that simply quoting them and/or making declarations about who is more powerful; which can be used to not only counter an argument but also strengthen it.

Of course source analysis is a good thing, but it should always be coupled with actual argument.

 

One cannot simply say: "Just because G-Canon says so doesn't mean Sidious is more powerful" without going on the provide evidence for why this is the case. If we forget canon, and forget quotes and have someone tally this debate up the result would be 100 to 1 in Sidious' favour. For despite what marcelo says, I can find no evidence of it.

 

Allow me to demonstrate:

 

As for Vitiate, I agree that Sidious is stronger, but you underestimate him a lot. And he achieved some objectives who Sidious was not even close to. He lived for more than 1300 years (for now), as Sidious lived for what, 93 if we consider the death of his last clone body as his final death. We know immortality was the main goal of almost all Sith Lords, Palptine especially. So in this matter, Vitiate was far more succesful.

 

And Palpatine, as near brought the Jedi and the Republic to an end, ruled an Empire who lasted for 3 decades (again, considering his final death at 11ABY). Vitiate ruled more than mileenia, and we don't know when his rule truly ended.

 

So, we don't have to throw Vitiate to trash just to praise Sidious. Both were great, powerful and accomplished amazing things. Period.

 

Marcelo's argument about age, a valid one. But became fixated on throughout the entire 'debate.'

 

If he achieved immortality... why he's dead?

 

Tell me one Sith Lord under the Rule of Two who did not wanted to become immortal. Sidious, his master, his master's master. Any of them achieved? Guess is not an easy thing.

 

And yes, EU is supposed to be an extent of the movies, but some authors don't realize this. You will not agree that Vader is an extremely overpowered in most of EU content about him? The same happens with Sidious in a lot of works.

 

Starts off with a point, but becomes a 'just because' argument and a negation of the validity of Wolf's sources.

 

Yes, all that and still was defeated by the Rebel Alliance, an organization with short amount of resources, with a fleet composed mostly of old model's ships. As Vitiate was able to fight the Republic and achieve victory with a brilliant strategy, killing the Chancellor in the heart of the Republic.

 

And we must not forget that Vitiate was behind all attacks against the Republic since the Mandalorian Wars, so by his actions he paved the way for the First Jedi Purge. Also, who told to Revan about the Star Forge, the Foundry?

 

An entirely irrelevant point as I believe Wolf is referring to comparison of personal abilities and nothing more. This point became the second argument fixated upon through the course of this 'debate.'

 

There's not many different types of immortality, there are different types to achieve this, which Sidious didn't. If he just died because the Wall of Light, his failure, he should have preddicted this, the fact is he's dead.

 

A valid negation of Sidious' power, but no comparison was made. (Which is impossible as the Emperor is likely dead or dying at this point - and his level of immortality would not grant him immunity from such an attack.)

 

Man, I couldn't disagree more with almost everything you said. First, how can you say his personal strength was almost non existent? I'm sure even Sidious's "team" will agree that's just absurd. He personally defeated Revan, the most powerful Jedi of his time.

 

Yes, he relies puppets and proxies, yes, and Sidious doesn't? Also, Vtiate is vulnerable right now, yes, but so was Palpatine after he was defeated above Endor. If anyone had found his clone facilities, he would be over. He was indeed in a sack of water waiting to be ended.

 

About being defended "just" by the Royal Guard and the Wrath with "no" true Sith Lords. Well, the Wrath, which is a Sith Lord, was probably the most powerful Sith of the time, with perhaps just the Hero of Tython as his match. And you forget that he had the entire Dark Council, wich was compposed of what, 4 Lords? If it's about numbers, Palpatine was defended by only one Sith Lord. That argument just don't give any advantage to either side.

 

Again, we find ourselves debating an issue non-related to the topic i.e. the strength of empires.

 

What I see here that you guys have a very short-sighted view about everything. First thing, being the most powerful doesn't neccessary mean more succesful nor that you are unbeatable. Second, some of GL statements are pretty much subjective. Like "Vader would have been more powerful than Sidious if he was not defeated by Obi-Wan. With all his injuries, he has 80% (if I'm not mistaken) of Sidious's power." What the hell is 80% of Palpatine's power? To gain or lose 1% what the guy have to do? That is pretty much subjective for me.

 

Disputing the validity of G-Canon statements, which if accepted wouldn't lend anything to the debate either way.

 

I give several reasons aside his age, but you keep foccusing only on that. And frankly Aurbere, if you think that way, then I can't understand how can you organize a versus series, since by that logic there's no debate, we will just see who is more powerful in canon and done. So, coming from you, I really can't accept that kind of argument.

 

And 'm not saying you're lying, I just really don't know, but where or who stated that Luke is the most powerful Jedi to ever live?

 

And now we can come back to this. I hope this shows how Aurbere's stance is in fact entirely valid. Age has been the only real argument, regarding Vitiate's power, that has been made.

 

Now I'm not picking on marcelo in particular here, in fact he's less at fault than some others who have been behaving in a manner that some would regard as 'trolling'. However this is indicative of how this debate has being going - really badly.

 

But its not fair for me to simply rant about this and make no attempt to rectify this, so here goes.

 

Based on the following

 

 

• At a young age, Vitiate snapped his adopted father's neck and tortured his mother to death. Sidious single handedly wiped out his entire family and their royal bodyguards without any prior training.
   
   
  
• Vitiate once consumed an entire planet after a long and complex ritual which took 8 days. Sidious can destroy planets by conjuring a Force storm in the space of minutes.
   
   
  
• Vitiate once enslaved 8000 Sith Lord to his will in an act of Qâzoi Kyantuska, he also turned several powerful Jedi to the dark side. Sidious turned Luke Skywalker, the most powerful Force user the galaxy has ever seen, to the dark side by subjugating his mind, to the point where he forwent his own name.
   
   
  
• Vitiate can call down powerful Force storms enough to incapacitate powerful Jedi, Sidious can use Force storms to destroy planets and tear entire fleets to shreds.
   
   
  
• Vitiate drained the life essence of all the inhabitants of a scarcely populated agriworld, with a population in the millions, to bolster his own power, resulting in the death of the planet itself. Sidious channeled the collective life essences of all the inhabitants of Byss - a densely populated world of 19.7 billion people - to sustain himself and his dark side adepts while keeping them in a state of bliss in a potentially perpetual cycle.
   
   
  
• Twice Vitiate destroyed the members of the rebelling Dark Council in matter of moments. Sidious has destroyed an entire stormtrooper legion, a Sith spawn and three dark side prophets in equally short amounts of time.
   
   
  
• Vitiate was able to possess pre-designed individuals and grant them immense power from lightyears away. Sidious was able to possess whomever he pleased. Post-mortem, as a Sith ghost, Sidious sought out and forcibly possessed an unwilling Emperor's hand.
   
   
  
• Thanks to various Sith rituals, Vitiate transformed large areas of Dromund Kaas into dark side nexuses and left the planet caught in constant lightning storms. Sidious transformed the entire planet of Byss into a dark side nexus and corrupted all of its inhabitants and when he died, it left a dark stain above Endor. Sidious himself was also a dark side nexus.
   
   
  
• Vitiate was able to speak with his former apprentice, Exal Kressh, lightyears away. Sidious could commune with anyone he pleased, interrupting a Force communication between Luke and Leia and reading Vader's mind lightyears away.
   
   
  
• Vitiate was a fairly skilled lightsaber duelist, able to go toe-to-toe with the Hero of Tython, however he was ultimately defeated in this lightsaber duel. Sidious on the other hand was a master of all seven forms of lightsaber combat, he went toe-to-toe with Mace Windu and defeated Grand Master Yoda.
   
   
  
• Vitiate sustained himself for 1,300 years through Sith Magic. Sidious could have used essence transfer and clone bodies to sustain himself for just as long a period of time, if not longer, in a youthful body. Unfortunately he happened to live in the same period as the most powerful (mortal) Force user in galactic history. Sometimes its hard being awesome.
   
   
  
• The only thing Vitiate trumps Sidious in is Sith magic, but given the fact that the Emperor seems to spend all his time studying it, you'd expect him to beat him in at least that. Despite this Sidious was exceptionally skilled in Sith Alchemy and has displayed remarkable proficiency for Sith magic.
  

 

So all in all, anything Vitiate can do, Sidious can do better.

[marcelo_sdk]

I'll not quote Beni's last post cause this one would be extremely large, but I'm answering to him.

 

First, if this topic was made with the intention of proving that Sidious has more power with the Dark Side than Vitiate, then it is a childish one just to promote a contest of who knows more about SW story. If this is the case, please tell me Wolfnin, cause I'll immediately stop posting here, as I see no pount in such debate.

 

It's obvious that Sidious is more powerful in therms of Dark Side usage and lightsaber skills. I've never denied that, with the canon sources we have about both, it's clear how Sidious is superior in that mater.

 

But the title of the topic is "Stop comparing Vitiate to Palpatine". And I just answered it to show that no, we should not stop comparing them. Power is not acquired just by raw strength and display of skills. This just show how most of people are easily controled, accepting easily what is most impressive to his eyes.

 

If you guys are like that, buying everything that GL says and accepting without questioning without trying to enter more deeply in the matter, well, I'm just glad that most of the fans are not like you, otherwise there would be no EU.

 

In AotC, it's stated that the Republic exists for a thousand years. That would mean the end of all the Tales of the Jedi series, who is one of the most acclaimed EU pieces. But, unlike you seem to do, people didn't hang on that as an absolute and ultimate truth. They debated, they tried to conceive an explanation, and they ultimately "denied" a G-canon truth and to the development of new EU material. GL approved, yes, but if no one questioned him, he would not care if an important part of EU would go to thrash.

 

Now, responding directly to your post Benin. Yes, most the posts you quoted were indeed talking about his age and the duration of his Empire. What you didn't quote were all the other posts who diminishes such feat, desperately trying to find an answer for a matter that the don't have an argument. So, instead of a debate, we have a Palpatine's fanboyism, and what happens is exactly what you quotted: people can't see that both achieved amazing things and were incredibly powerful. In some way one was superior, and in others inferior.

 

And about you "comparison list". C'mon man, some people may buy your little technique (wich again shows how people are easily impressed by the visual), but I certainly won't. Well, I can do the same thing, let me show you.

 

- As a young adult, Palpatine killed his family and their security guards. At age ten, Vitiate killed his mother and father, a Sith Lord, and was named such at age 13.

 

- Sidious could devastate planets with his Force Storm. Vitiate consumed the Force of his home planet, literally killing it.

 

- Sidious turned Luke Skywalker, the most poerful Jedi of his time, for a brief period. Vitiate enslaved and drained the essence of 8,000 Sith Lords at the same time and subjugated Revan and Malak, the most powerful Jedi of their time.

 

- Sidious could call powerful Force storms that could devastate planets and crush fleets. Vitiate created an non-ending Force storm at Drommund Kaas with Sith alchemy.

 

- Sidious fed on Byss's popullation life essences during his reign. Vitiate drained simultaneously all the life essence of all the popullation of his home planet, Nathema, along with thousand of Sith Lord, and ultimately he drained the planet's essence itself.

 

- Sidious destroyed a legion of stormtroopers, a Sith spawn and three dark side prophets in short amounts of time. Vitiate instantaneously defeated the whole Dark Council, twice.

 

I'll not elongate myself, just wanted to show how you can manipulate with words. Just by changing the subject's order and by emphasizing things, I changed the same statements you posted with exactly the same subjects.

 

Also, I would like to note how you hanged to Sidious Force storm power, again showing that visual display is really what counts most for you. Between that and reiginig for more than mileenia, I'll certainly hang to the second.

Edited April 22, 2013 by marcelo_sdk

[Beniboybling]

What you didn't quote were all the other posts who diminishes such feat, desperately trying to find an answer for a matter that the don't have an argument.

I hope your not referring to the Palpatine supporters, as just a few posts ago I brought to your attention my so called 'desperate' post debating that exact point, which you had failed to notice and address before hand. And no one has yet responded.

 

But in response to the above.

 

The intention of this topic was made with the intention of once and for all proving that Sidious is more powerful than Vitiate, because many people are not inclined to believe it regardless of what Lucas says. And so evidence had to be provided. Nor is this a contest about who has the biggest lorebanks, on the contrary Wolf is actually trying to inform people as to why he and many others believe that Sidious deserves the title of "the most powerful Sith Lord in galactic history." Rather than commenting in various posts saying "you clearly know jack all about Sidious so just &%£$ off with your stupid opinions." Which would you prefer?

 

I for one take my hat off to Wolf for taking the time to collate such a wealth of information, and I can only see it as beneficial to those who prior to reading this post, where not aware of such feats and quotes (including me.) Yes it may have come across as provocative, but I don't blame him given the swathes of ridiculous comments going around these forums amounting to 'Vitiate is BAMF' and then refusing to have a debate about it by instead opting to shout down anyone who mentions the word 'G-Canon' (which seems cultural taboo on these forums.)

 

But regardless, if you accept Sidious is more powerful than Vitiate - then how can we make a comparison? I'm not saying no comparison can be made at all. But not in this sense: "Vitiate is the most powerful Sith Lord to exist." - because its simply not true.

 

And finally, forgive me for being terse, but some will find your comments about 'Palpatine fanboyism' and 'blindly following GL' frankly insulting. Time and time again we find ourselves constantly berated because we accept what George Lucas says. Apologies if I am not an instinctive revolutionary who likes to rebel against every authority I can get my hands on. I believe that Sidious is the most powerful Sith Lord in galactic history, not and I repeat, not because 'George Lucas says-so' but because it is self-evident. How? This. Palpatine has earned that title time and time again. I mean, fanboyism! Really? The urban dictionary's definition of fanboyism is this: The collective outlook and behavior of a group of people concerning a subject (movies, games, hardware, comic book characters, etc.) which when challenged results in an antagonistic, passionate, and unreasoned response. I challenge you to find a single example of this in this thread, while your busy with that I'll do the same but for the opposite side. So please, don't regard us as blind sheep just because we accept one thing George Lucas says, and them jump to the conclusion that we are blind servants to his divine will. Sheesh.

 

P.S. G-Canon was only brought up towards the very end when debaters just got tired and exhausted, and even then it was mentioned by only, what, 2 people? So why you deigned to bring it up I have no idea.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Beniboybling