Ventress and Darth Maul - Which One Is More Powerful and Dangerous?

I'd say it comes down to what criteria you use, as if anything Ventress and Maul are the embodiment of their teacher's philosophy: Dooku taught Ventress how to defeat Jedi techniques, that it is permissible to retreat and to not be too contemptous of the Jedi. In contrast Maul is all-out attack and does not see any Jedi as a threat to him - simply to be an obstacle to be removed.

As such it could be said by surviving, Ventress was the better soldier but not a better Sith, as Maul was utterly committed to the dark side - he wouldn't have card about Kenobi nicking a saber or starship. Maul got done in by a one-in-a-million move that he failed to foresee but I don't think Ventress would have seen it coming.

There is one aspect of this which I'm curious about though: Maul was killed, Ventress wasn't - does a perception of gender grant her a protection that Maul did not have? That we're perfectly OK with Kenobi killing a Lord of the Sith, but we get squeamish about him doing in a Lady of the Sith?

 

I doubt it. Did anyone feel bad about the death of Zam Wessel?

If anything it probably wasn't squeamishness over "killing a girl" as the fact that if they got rid of her they'd lose one of their already vanishingly small number of popular female characters. Which is a problem they created in the first place by making the Star Wars cast so disproportionately male.

 

Eh? Ventress was popular? She was a bloody irritant! Add in Durge - a villain that sounds like a brand toilet cleaner....Well, if ever a pair of characters deserved to be flushed round the U-bend, it was these two.

 

Maul. Sith Lord. End of story.

 

I'm not sure how that last one of Maul's is a success.

The important thing here is that Kenobi never defeated Maul in the lightsaber duel, per se. There is, therefore, no reason to assume that, even with that growth, he has come to surpass Maul.

If you want to use the "growth" thing as an argument: Darth Maul's clone, or doppleganger, or whatever, proves himself to be a tough fight for Darth Vader - they're even said to be near enough evenly matched (to my chagrin, but hey). Darth Vader being the man who Obi-Wan Kenobi couldn't kill in ANH, despite the fact that he's had nineteen years to "grow" since RotS. Sounds a bit silly, huh?

I suppose you could perhaps suggest that the Doppel Maul had been juiced up by the Prophets somehow (I mean, I'd actually prefer that) but, as things stand, theres no reason to assume Doppel Maul wasn't just Darth Maul as was which, to use your own logic against you, suggests that Darth Maul > (or =) ANH Kenobi > RotS Kenobi > AotC Kenobi > TPM Kenobi.

Keep in mind that Darth Maul is, supposedly, "one of the most highly trained Sith in history", per the TPM VD. Asajj Ventress, even if she's more naturally gifted, isn't.

 

Yes.

Which amounts to the same thing, effectively.

Problem?

 

Maul. I just can't see Maul falling on his face as much as Ventress has. But he did fall down a shaft so...still Maul. What makes both of them limited is a lack of deep intelligence. Since it's all academic I have to go with Maul as he was trained by Palpatine himself for years on end.

 

Definetly Maul, trained to be a Sith since early childhood. He also had more intense training from Sidious than Ventress and more strict Master.

Good Stuff

 

Two things that I think are crucial to this argument: one, unless you're dealing with a vast experience differential, Sith Lord > Dark Jedi. The Dark Side makes anyone stronger, and Ventress may well be tougher than the average Jedi Knight, but a Sith (especially at this point in history) is another matter entirely. How do you think Qui-Gon, who's never even seen a Sith much less fought one, was able to guess from his brief first encounter with Maul that he was a Sith? Because he was a Master, and any normal Dark Side user wouldn't have been as much of a challenge.

Which brings me to two - let's face it. Obi-Wan beating Maul, from an OOU perspective, is freaking ridiculous. If you looked up "suspension of disbelief" in the dictionary, you'd see a picture of that scene. It had to happen for the sake of the story, so we have to assume that Obi somehow just got extremely lucky at that specific moment, and Maul was just so overconfident/weary/constipated/whatever that he wasn't able to react to Obi's jump, reach for Qui-Gon's lightsaber, activating of Qui-Gon's lightsaber, and finally the blow itself, in time. There is no way you can use that moment as an accurate gauge for the skill levels of either combatant in any other circumstance. I personally have to think that Obi had briefly given in to the Dark Side to even have lasted as long as he did once Qui-Gon was down.

It's amazing to me that we're even debating this at the same time that we have another thread suggesting that the Sith had gotten so powerful by this point that the Force had to humble future Sith Orders in some fashion to keep it from happening again.

To put it another way, Ventress is Goldar; she's very good at getting in, causing trouble, and getting out again, but whenever poodoo gets serious, she's got no chance.

 

I pull these words out of Coop's post because, the way I see it, the character known as Darth Maul suffered an unfair fate for the sake of the story.

A disposable villain was necessary for TPM. Darth Maul provides the story with 1) a serious threat to the Jedi, 2) a scary visual, 3) an antagonist to take Obi-Wan to the brink, 4) a phyrric victory with his death, and 5) the remaining threat of "the real villain", Darth Sidious.

A serial victim was necessary for the Clone Wars. Assajj Ventress provides the story with 1) a serious threat the the Jedi, 2) a scary visual, 3) an antagonist to take our heroes to the brink, 4) phyrric victories with her escapes, and 5) the remaining threat of "the real villain", Darth Sidious.

The needs of the story drive the "powers" of these villains. I hate to break from "in universe" question of who's more powerful, but I feel it honestly boils down to this and this alone.

Maul had a very limited window to shine due to the needs of TPM (the Sith had to remain hidden only until, finally, the could confront the Jedi openly).

Ventress has a very extended window to shine due to the needs of the Clone Wars (the Sith are "out" already and they and the Confederacy are stretching the conflict and their foes the Republic as long and thin as possible).

Just think: if Ventress had died at the end of the Clone Wars, do you think there'd be stories about her regenerated form battling Vader, her mechanically-enhanced posterior hunting down Obi-Wan, or her brain in a jar projecting her ghost against Luke? Maybe. If she had been in Maul's place (and their places in the Saga switched)? Absolutely we'd want more... except Mail would have come along.. hmmm... maybe not.

I vote Maul!

 

You're right, overall, of course. But I would add, and a lot of people seem to forget this, that the story has no responsibility to treat Darth Maul "fairly".

 

That's a good point. I just had a geekly little fanboy moment imagining Maul in place of Ventress. That would be the awesomest thing in the history of ever!

In the end, I think Maul was more powerful and dangerous and could have had a long list of defeated foes if he had had the whole Clone Wars to wreak havoc.

 

Which is why he should have survived as the iconic Sith menace of the Prequels, with Dooku in the role of "Dark Jedi servant to the Sith Lords".

Alas.

 

But there could only be two Sith, and Sidious certainly needed Dooku at that point. So even if the individuals themselves switched places, we'd be talking about a Sith Ventress and a Dark Jedi Maul, which is a very different thing.

 

Hmm? I'm confused.

I'm not suggesting that there be three Sith, simply that Dooku can play the role he more or less does anyway without being a Sith, giving space for Maul. Nor am I suggesting that Maul remain undeveloped as a character from TPM onwards. The appeal would be in seeing a villian who matures.

The Banite Order, at least under Palpatine, appears to have no qualms about utilising Dark Jedi servants without dubbing them "Sith", after all. Given that, there'd be room for Darth Maul, Count Dooku (not Darth Tyranus, mind) and Asajj Ventress.

Dooku's character would have to be different (as things stand, he'd probably be far too proud to be a mere servant to the Sith rather than a Lord himself)... but, obviously things would be different, because we're talking about a Saga in which Maul wasn't written out in TPM.

 

I think we needed to have Maul die in TPM so there'd be one moment of real, unalloyed victory -- the *real* bad guys being *really* beaten -- in the film.

Otherwise the whole film would just feel insanely hollow, given that every single true fan in the audience who knows what the name "Palpatine" means would know that the entire Battle of Naboo was no real victory at all.

 

Ventress is such a loose cannon though compared to Maully who is merely a weapon in the hands of Sidious.

 

I was responding to Ed - hadn't seen your post.

 

That's a fair enough opinion to take. I disagree because I wouldn't mind if there had been no moment of "real, unalloyed victory" if it meant Maul sticking around and being developed further.

I'd have perhaps had him thrown down the shaft without being cut in half.

Ah, okay. No worries.

 

If I am recalling correctly, I don't think even Bane and Zannah had problems utilizaing dark Jedi pawns in their machinations. I do believe Bane told Zannah she could do just that in Rule of Two.

Also, in terms of luck and Obi-Wan taking out Maul. In the SWU luck apparently doesn't exist, things like that happen according to the will of the Force. So in this case we could say that Obi-Wan had an uncanny surrendering to the will of the Force in this instance and it was not "Obi-Wan" who lept, called forth Qui-Gon's saber, lit it and used it to bisect Darth Maul... it was the Force.

 

Well, Skywalker murdered Lumiya in cold blood. (Arguable, of course)

Ventress, IMO, is definitely more dangerous. Twice as conniving, always plotting and manipulating, and has some measure of independence from her Master, which Maul did not have.

 

Isn't there the notion that Obi-Wan was full of actual hate the moment his master was slain? Couldn't it be said that as both were fueled with hate therefore Obi-Wan was given a temporary boost in ability that put him on more even ground with Maul? After all, an Obi-Wan filled with hate would still be quite formidable.

 

I love that scene in Dark Rendezvous where Dooku's talking to Ventress via holocomm or some such after she failed the mission he sent her on, and he says something like, "If I told you to kill yourself, would you do it?" and she says no, and he asks, "If I told you to return here, even though it would probably mean your death, would you?" and she says that she would.

I've always wondered how far Maul's loyalty to Sidious would really extend. It's a pity we've gotten so few stories about him.

 

Yeah, that is kind of what I was referring to when writing that. Also, the scene where she asks Dooku to kill his Master and take her as his apprentice is a perfect example of her manipulative mind, although it doesn't work. I doubt Maul would ever say something like that.