Is the Dark Side really more powerful

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2005-02-08 07:13am

I still hold fast to Yoda's orginal statement to Luke.

Luke: Is the Dark Side stronger?

Yoda: No. Quicker, more seductive.

We know in AoTC and RoTS that Lucas is giving more thought that the reason for the Jedi being fooled and what not, beyond their absolute arrogance, is that the Dark Side is clouding them...which in turn could be a clear way of the Jedi just being arrogant to the nuances of the thing they claim mastery over.

In the OT though, it's pretty clear that the Dark and the Light are pretty much the same in power just one is far more physical while the other is much more passive.

Medic · Post by **Medic** » 2005-02-08 07:13am

Steven Snyder wrote:As has been mentioned, Yoda may have claimed the darkside wasn't stronger, but that doesn't bode well with the knowledge that he was marooned on that swamp world because a Sith Lord defeated him.

If Yoda was a match for Sidious, it should have been him facing down Vader and later the Emperor. Instead he sent some half-trained farmboy with a head full of lies.

Atton was right...Jedi lie.

Well, he died of old age in ROTJ so I'd say he was over the hill. Besides, he was hundreds of years old before the clone wars, perhaps the war and confrontations with the Sith really drained his body becuase of the overactive force usage? "Strong in the force am I... but not that strong." (or something like that

)

BTW, I'm stictly cutting out any spoiler material from my eyes and ears so please respond appropriately or at the very least, put a disclaimer on your post and the thread topic. (not trying to play mod!)

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2005-02-08 04:18pm

Steven Snyder wrote:
Lord Pounder wrote:Neither side has an advantage IMHO, it's all to do with the way you use it.

For example look at the Obi-Wan versus Maul fight. In pure terms of the battle Maul over powered Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon. However Maul was only able to use his powers for brute force and was unable and untrained to handle it when, Obi used a passive power and leaped opening Maul up for the slice and dice.
You are actually using an example of a fight between two Jedi in a duel against one Sith? This was the same battle where the Sith fought off the Jedi for several minutes, kill the elder Jedi, and nearly kill the other one, only to fall because of a cruel twist of fate?

Use his powers for "brute force" you mean an elaborate series of attacks and parries to keep two attackers at bay while he moved into a more advantageous position?

Obi-Wan didn't use a 'passive power', he had only one chance, a longshot to quickly kill Maul and save himself.

A Force jump is a passive power unless you land on a guy back on the way down.

Also a Jedi or Sith would say that there is no fate only the Force.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2005-02-08 07:06pm

PainRack wrote:Sons of suns. It may have been physically impossible for anyone else, but a Skywalker to defeat the Emperor hold on Vader. Obi-wan tried and failed, maybe only Skywalker can.

Grandson of suns, actually.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2005-02-09 01:16pm

Everyone is looking at this all wrong. When Yoda says that the dark side is not stronger, why assume that he means an individual Sith cannot beat an individual Jedi, all other things held equal? He could mean that it's easier and more seductive in that it gets quick results (ie. It's more powerful), but that it will eventually destroy itself from inner strife and betrayals. He could be including the fact that there can be millions of Jedi at one time, but only a few Sith, and the Light Side has strength in numbers. He could be speaking poetically. To assume that he means that a Sith is not individually more powerful than an equivalent Jedi, and then to either uphold this viewpoint or call him a liar, seems bizzare to me.

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2005-02-09 04:19pm

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:He could mean that it's easier and more seductive in that it gets quick results (ie. It's more powerful), but that it will eventually destroy itself from inner strife and betrayals. He could be including the fact that there can be millions of Jedi at one time, but only a few Sith.

Actually, there is some parallel there in that the old Sith Empire was constantly crippled by infighting of major Sith lords. A Dark Side theocracy turned out not be very practical, because the Dark Side is all about taking what you want for yourself and screwing everybody else over.

Gustav32Vasa · Post by **Gustav32Vasa** » 2005-02-09 04:42pm

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Everyone is looking at this all wrong. When Yoda says that the dark side is not stronger, why assume that he means an individual Sith cannot beat an individual Jedi, all other things held equal? He could mean that it's easier and more seductive in that it gets quick results (ie. It's more powerful), but that it will eventually destroy itself from inner strife and betrayals. He could be including the fact that there can be millions of Jedi at one time, but only a few Sith, and the Light Side has strength in numbers. He could be speaking poetically. To assume that he means that a Sith is not individually more powerful than an equivalent Jedi, and then to either uphold this viewpoint or call him a liar, seems bizzare to me.

I thought there were only 10,000 Jedi's during the fall of the Republic.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2005-02-09 06:41pm

The precise number is irrelevant to the point.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2005-02-11 04:48pm

The dark side is better, it just plain rocks.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-02-20 11:24pm

anyone else notice that whenever some powerful sith guy is defeated, it is because the good guy gets angry and taps into the dark side? obi-wan was supposed to have attacked darth maul with a vicious anger-attack. luke crippled vader in rage. and the darks side is basically far more offensive than the light side.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2005-02-20 11:38pm

unbeataBULL wrote:anyone else notice that whenever some powerful sith guy is defeated, it is because the good guy gets angry and taps into the dark side? obi-wan was supposed to have attacked darth maul with a vicious anger-attack. luke crippled vader in rage. and the darks side is basically far more offensive than the light side.

Luke and Obi Wan were two clearly overmatched novices against supremely skilled masters. Maul was a match for the best among the Jedi in lightsaber combat.

However, counter to your concept- Yoda had Dooku on the ropes, and there was no evidence that Yoda had to get pissed off to do it.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-02-21 01:52pm

ah, but Yoda was basically the best Jedi there had been in the past couple centuries, i'm guessing. Dooku wasn't even the best sith out there. i'm positive that Vader and Palpatine could've out matched him.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2005-02-21 02:52pm

unbeataBULL wrote:anyone else notice that whenever some powerful sith guy is defeated, it is because the good guy gets angry and taps into the dark side? obi-wan was supposed to have attacked darth maul with a vicious anger-attack. luke crippled vader in rage. and the darks side is basically far more offensive than the light side.

This is a tad speculative, but I always believed that the Jedi trials, the one that confirm knighthood were missions/tests to see what will happen when a Jedi is exposed to the wild, dark side of the Force. Using a single line off the ROTJ book, I believe that the sole difference for promotion from padawan to knighthood lies in whether an apprentice has been exposed to a real-life situation, outside of the norm and without any guidance, exposes himself to the Dark Side but not become Dark.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2005-02-21 05:08pm

unbeataBULL wrote:ah, but Yoda was basically the best Jedi there had been in the past couple centuries, i'm guessing. Dooku wasn't even the best sith out there. i'm positive that Vader and Palpatine could've out matched him.

I repeat my earlier post; why does the 'side' of the Force be what is dictating the outcome? Why couldn't be that one Force user (Jedi) is stronger/weaker than the opponet Force user (Sith)? We know that Anakin should be more powerful than Yoda (TPM in relation to midichlorians), so why couldn't it have been the simple fact that Palpy was just too strong period?

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-02-24 07:15pm

i just thought the fact that the Dark Side is offensive, and that it requires less strenuous training and control to use, might make it at least have a reduced learning curve, which might give the impression of more power.

also, one should notice that Qui-Gon Jinn, presumably a more skilled Jedi than Obi-Wan (at that time) was cut down by Maul (while presumably using the Light Side). Obi killed maul in a dark side attack, and seemed to be at a disadvantage before that attack (he lost his sabre and was nearly knocked into the pit).

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2005-02-24 10:56pm

unbeataBULL wrote:i just thought the fact that the Dark Side is offensive, and that it requires less strenuous training and control to use, might make it at least have a reduced learning curve, which might give the impression of more power.

also, one should notice that Qui-Gon Jinn, presumably a more skilled Jedi than Obi-Wan (at that time) was cut down by Maul (while presumably using the Light Side). Obi killed maul in a dark side attack, and seemed to be at a disadvantage before that attack (he lost his sabre and was nearly knocked into the pit).

Eh? From the way I'd heard it, he lost until he calmed down and used the light side to jump up and cut him away...

Tricky · Post by **Tricky** » 2005-02-25 12:25am

I think the using the darkside makes you way stronger than a lightside user. It's like in sports when a immensly strong person decides to use steroids to get even stronger than he/she gets by physical training alone, steroids cut down the body's barriars & defence systems & force you past your natural limits.

A person can only by as strong as their body's physical limits, but if you are willing to push past those limits at the expense of irreparable damage to your body then you are in fact stronger than a person who won't. The darkside is stronger only because a darksider will do what a lightsider won't.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2005-02-25 02:25am

Maybe the dark side is like sex, and they try to teach abstinence-only, only instead of ending up with a crapload of teen pregnancy they end up with murderous evil dark jedi/sith.

So in this case Yoda would be like Bush.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2005-02-25 08:18am

unbeataBULL wrote:i just thought the fact that the Dark Side is offensive, and that it requires less strenuous training and control to use, might make it at least have a reduced learning curve, which might give the impression of more power.

The learning curve isn't in debate, it's admitted by Yoda himself, although if we apply your reasoning, Dooku should have bitch slapped Yoda, he didn't.

also, one should notice that Qui-Gon Jinn, presumably a more skilled Jedi than Obi-Wan (at that time) was cut down by Maul (while presumably using the Light Side).

So? All that proves is Maul was a better swordsman.

Obi killed maul in a dark side attack, and seemed to be at a disadvantage before that attack (he lost his sabre and was nearly knocked into the pit).

Please either watch the movie or read the novelisation. Obi-Wan was thrown off into the pit by Maul because he tapped into the Dark Side, and beat him because he let go of it. Also; since when is slicing something with your lightsabre a 'Dark Side attack'?

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2005-02-25 04:39pm

I don't know why it follows that Dooku should have beaten Yoda if the Dark Side is more powerful. Yoda has much more force potential and was a Jedi 800 years before Dooku was born.