Discussion in 'Literature' started by Slowpokeking, Nov 2, 2012.
No matter which side, Nox became more powerful than Zash for sure。
Palpatine's the most powerful at certain times of his era, but not throughout. Sadow certainly wasn't the strongest in his, Ragnos was. And all of this has nothing to do with them killing their masters.
Vader and Dooku are "failures" for reasons that have nothing to do with them not killing their masters. Vader especially killed more Jedi than most other Sith, and the destruction of the Jedi is actually one of the greater goals of the Sith. Dooku enacted the Clone Wars which led to the Sith actually gaining control of the galaxy, another greater goal of the Sith that has absolutely nothing to do with killing one's master.
Yeah, but he still accomplished other things like pretty much every other Sith did. Its the equivalent of saying Dooku was a failure as a Sith because he didn't kill Palpatine, when again he did things that led to the actual goal being revealed. There's no one thing that defines whether or not a Sith is "great". Malak was weaker than Revan, yet still had his successes.
They all became more powerful than their masters. I'm not saying they must kill their master, but they must surpass their master, and killing their master is the best way to show it.
Vader had potential to become more powerful even after he became a cyborg, but the light in his heart couldn't let him improve further in the Dark Side. Also Palpatine is clearly more cunning than him. Dooku is way too ideal thus he was totally outsmarted by Palpatine and he wasn't more powerful than him, of course he's a failure, especially under Rule of Two, which the apprentice must surpass their master and kill their master.
As for Malak, he was outsmarted by Revan, less powerful than Revan and got beaten by Revan directly.
Malak was stronger than Revan, beat Revan, and destroyed Revan.
What survived was not Revan.
Also unlike Vader was badly crippled and Dooku was too old. Malak only lost his jaw and he was quite young at that time, why couldn't he surpass Revan?
Again, not the only thing that defines a "great" Sith. Did Malak fail to become stronger than Revan? Yes. However he also did more to destroy the Jedi than Revan, which is again one of the ultimate goals of the Sith. Being a failure in one aspect doesn't make you a failure overall.
Once again: because he's Revan. I say that a bit facetiously, but it's a bit ridiculous to assume that someone has to be TEH GALAXIES STRONGEST in order to be worthy of any sort of recognition. We know that Revan redeemed was stronger than Darth Revan ever was; this is the guy who managed to make the Sith Emperor sweat, who ultimately had to be brought down by four of the galaxies most renowned fighters (and likely isn't dead even then). It's no mark of shame to lose to him. I mean, why can't Ahsoka surpass Anakin? It has nothing to do with Ahsoka being weak, it has everything to do with Anakin being ridiculously gifted.
Malak was even augmenting himself with the power of the Star Forge at the time he fought Revan, and he still lost.
Malak is basically Starscream. The second in command who got beat up by his way more awesome master. Then when his master gets weakened he tries to take him out... but fails. Then his master shows up later even more powerful and kills him.
That analogy works better if Revan went with the darkside ending, but just imagine Galvatron being turned by the Matrix and becoming the new autobot leader for the lightside ending.
Though come to think of it, this debate/argument does seem a bit senseless, since I'm not sure anyone would necessarily disagree that Malak is a failure overall. He accomplished things, definitely, and had his reign, but in the end failed to kill Revan, failed to turn Bastila, failed to hold his position of power, and so on.
Going by the logic that Malak was a failure, I guess Cade Skywalker is a failure also because he failed to get rid of all the Sith, is a druggie, and has bad hair?
Doing stuff determines worth - killing the master isn't integral to this.
So is it also necessary for a Sith Lord to be passed and killed by his apprentice, in order to "be a success"?
But even with the Foundry's power and tons of droids, Revan still got his ass kicked by Nox/Emperor's Wrath and that was before they achieved the title. So Revan's strength is not an excuse, Malak is simply weak.
Yes, I think Darth Bane made it clear.
Every Sith is a failure. They all fail, die, and then end up burning in Force Hell for all eternity. Sucks to be you, Sith.
This line of thinking makes no sense. The only way for one Sith to be successful is for another one to fail. I think failure should not be determined by such generic terms. I personally think it needs to be handled on a more case-by-case basis. Just because a Sith Lord is killed by his apprentice does not mean his life was a failure.
Also, the Sith have a huge array of different philosophies pertaining to their mission and the way they view the force. Just because one line of thought defines success that way, it in no way is the only concrete definition.
Neither of those claims are correct. Revan was not drawing power from the Foundry in the way that Malak was drawing power from the Star Forge; while there is some indication that the Foundry is imbued with the dark side, there's no indication it functions at all like the Star Forge (and besides, Revan raves the entire fight about how he's neither Jedi nor Sith, so I can't see him choosing to draw explicitly from a dark side artifact). In addition, the boss fight with Revan is four-on-one: no droids helped him. Unless you're talking about the droids that they have to cut through to reach the boss fight? That's like saying Dooku sucks because he had tons of droids to help him against Obi-Wan and Anakin.
And honestly, claiming that Darth Nox and the Emperor's Wrath were somehow weaker because they had not claimed their titles yet is ridiculous. Revan is a mid-tier boss, but that, and the leveling mechanic in general, is pure gameplay (just as Malgus being substantially more difficult than the Sith Emperor and various Admirals and random soldiers being more than a match for the players is pure gameplay). Sure, it's reasonable to assume that the player grows in strength from the beginning of their story to the end, but there's no reason to assume that it's anywhere near the difference between a level 1 and a level 50. Besides, these two first-class Sith also have the galaxies greatest bounty hunter and most skilled agent helping them. It's far from a massacre.
As much as I hate arguing "power levels" in Star Wars... there's pretty clear indication all over the place that Revan is remarkable. He defeats Malak even as he's drawing substantially on the power of the Star Forge and of live prisoners. He incinerates a Sith Lord who beats the Exile (much as I hate that). And most telling of all, he takes on a Force user who is arguably in Palpatine's league (he's quite obviously intended to be the era's Palpatine), and in a pure contest of Force, knocks him to the ground twice. People have their limits. Malak would likely never surpass him, which is exactly why he chooses to attempt to kill him in a much more underhanded fashion (attacking the ship that he was on).
Is Luke pathetic because he apparently can't match Abeloth? Obi-Wan since he can't match Yoda? Some characters are just stronger in the Force than others.
Are you Drew Karpyshyn? Because you seem really intent on taking this particular subject and endlessly simplifying it.
Truth be told, though, I'm not sure why this argument is still going on, because Malak is a failure. Just no more a failure than most other Sith.
Revan got so many droids, jedi and HK47 as his assistant and the Sith simply cleaned them all then kicked his ass. Anakin and Obi Wan didn't beat so many elite to get to Dooku.
So you know the problem of game mech, then drop the "Revan took 4 to defeat". If we want to talk about the game, Dr Lorrick is a much bigger pain than Darth Baras or Darth Thanaton or Revan, even his droid and test project is much harder to beat.
So what? Revan is powerful but Sith are suppose to surpass their masters. Freedon Nadd was a Sith Legend but Exar Kun surpassed him in all the way. Darth Bane was extremely powerful but Zannath still defeated him and became more powerful, Plagueis could shift the balance of the Force and revive the dead but Palpatine still surpassed him overall. If Anakin didn't cripple he would surpass Palpatine as well. That's the Sith' way, surpass their master and kill them if they could.
Luke is not Sith and Abeloth is not Jedi or Sith, nor is Obi Wan a Sith.
Of course it's not failure to be killed by his/her student, especially if their student surpassed them. Actually it could be a success.
Just like in real life we want the next generation to become stronger than us. Darth Bane was trying to make the Sith grow more powerful generation by generation, just in a cruel way. So if someone was unable to surpass their master he/she is a failure for sure.
I was simply following the line of thinking laid out by the OP. I do not personally think a Sith is a failure for those reasons.
Well I'm following the Sith' ideology, you can see if the apprentice could not reach the level they would just replace him/her with a stronger one. Palpatine did quite a few times.
Sure some master didn't do such thing but I don't believe the Sith could have long time partnership, either the master replace the apprentice or the apprentice kill the master.
Again, a very simplistic way of looking at things.
He's got a prosthetic jaw, speaks in a robot voice and muah ha has with the best of them. He's one of the most successful Sith of all time.
Sith ideology is rearly even followed, Krayt didnt follow the Sith tennants, either the code or master kill apprentice. He is simply a powerful charsmic leader and political revolutionary that created a cult of personality around him. That followed the philosphies of the pre sith Dark Jedi.
Same with Jacen's "Ceadus", Jacen became a right wing military dictator who used the sith as a costume. but when did he follow the sith code? He sure as hell wasnt culturally sith besides the red lightsaber and acting like and a-hole, and dressing in black.
Even the Original sith empire, was no diffrent than an agressive expansionist Klingon Empire. And Sith Empire in Swtor is no diffrent that Amestris from Full Metal Alchemist with its leadership. and its similar to alot of slave holding sociaties in Earths own past.
Really except the sith who do what they do out of some philisophical aesthetic to some tribute to Eeeeeeeevviilllll, they are your garden veriaty superpowerd thugs with no cohesive ideas or ideals.
At that time, in that moment?
Malak's dialog was EPIC.
In theory, this could go either way. Not really for Maul, but Dooku served his purpose. Completing what he is intended to do makes him a sucessful experiment in Palpatine's eyes. Unlike Anakin, Dooku was never intended as more than he was.