Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

I'm a big fan of Star Wars, yadda yadda yadda, you've probably heard it all before. Now, I've always loved the evil characters, as everyone knows. This was especially true in the prequels. I liked the battle droids designs, they were cool, I liked General Grevious as a cool designed character, I thought Count Dooku had potential, and I loved Darth Maul. These were all wasted, sure, but in design and potential, they were awesome.

Darth Maul was one of my favorite, though. I think he was a far better avatar of the Dark Side than Vader. The Dark Side is about anger, hate, letting your emotions fuel you. Darth Vader was never emotional, he was apathetic and indifferent. however cool he was. Darth Maul, however, was fiery and angry. His duel lightsaber was also pretty badass as well. I think Phantom Menace actually had the best scene in Star Wars for showing that scene, when the shields come up between Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon and Darth Maul. Qui-Gon begins to meditate, turning off his lightsaber and dropping to his knees, as Darth Maul aggressively paces the shield like an absolute predator. Such a good scene.

Now, you all presumably know what happens him. He kicks ass, before getting cut in half like a bitch and falling down a pit. Disappointing to a ridiculous degree. Clearly, he should've been kept around as the main villain for the prequels, or at least the dragon. But no, he was cut out, and we were left without a clear villain for the prequels. But whatever, I got over that

Fortunately, for those of you who watched Clone Wars or Rebels, you know that's not the end of him. Darth Maul survives, replacing his lower half with a spider body and growing his horns out as he becomes this fucking badass, absolutely insane creature. He was fucking sick and awesome looking. Then, his story continues, as he combines with his brother, who was recently apprenticed by Count Dooku, and they wreck shit, until eventually, the brother is killed. His story continues into the age of the Empire, where he's back to humanoid with cybernetic legs and looking relatively normal. He wants revenge against Sidious and the Sith for betraying him and killing his brothers. He does a bunch of shit with a Sith temple and tries to apprentice the Protagonist, and he wipes out three Sith Inquisitors. Anyhow, he's cool.

Suddenly, however, his objective switches to getting revenge on... Obi-Wan. For cutting off his legs, or whatever, I guess. Instead of going after the Sith like he wants, he actually discovers Obi-Wan is the key to defeating them, and wants to... kill him for that? It seems like he'd have a lot to hate the Sith for given the death of his brothers, while Obi-Wan seems far more innocent. Anyway, he confronts Obi-Wan, and I actually stopped writing to focus completely on the epic lightsaber duel... which was one swing. One swing after about a minute of showing off and preparing, and Darth Maul is dead. He collapses to the ground, dying, and talks about how Luke will avenge them in Obi-Wan's arms, like a little bitch. 

I loved Maul's character. He was badass, sure, but now, he had a new objective that the good guys agreed with, but he was willing to murder and betray anyone to get to where he wants. He had a journey to go on, as he was consumed more and more by hate. But in the end, the hate didn't destroy him or he didn't find peace. He was cut down in one strike, where he laid on the ground, and only at that point does he mention he's cool with the Chosen One avenging him and wiping out the sith.

Somehow, Darth Maul managed to die like a bitch twice. He's a huge disappointment, and I hate the world for killing him like so much of a bitch.

Oh yeah, and if you were planning on watching Rebels, oops.

Didn't he kill Han Solo in Episode VII? Jeez that movie was so forgettable. I have only seen Darth Maul in that videogame trailer and though he was pretty cool. Certainly better than the rest of the Star Wars cast (that looks like a hipster band to me).

Disclaimer :- I have only seen Episode VII and don't consider myself a Star Wars fan

What? No, no he didn't. Did you watch the film? Or literally any of them?

Oh, apparently you haven't. No, he didn't, which to be be fair, even if you've only seen Episode VII and the videogame trailer, you should know that's stupid.

Well, to be honest, I've always felt kind of ambivalent about Maul. I mean, yeah, he was cool and his lightsaber duel with Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan was quite epic, but to be honest, I've never really liked him THAT much, I enjoyed him when he fought, but that's pretty much it.

However, a character that I really had high hopes for was Grevious, I mean, he looked badass fighting with four lightsabers at the same time AND it was shown by the trophies he had that he killed a great deal of jedi despite the fact that he was unable to use the force. I mean, he kicked ass in the original Clone Wars cartoon and while in the newer one he was more of a coward than usual he was still strong enough to be a significant threat.

However, in the movies, all he did was fight with Obi-Wan and then he died by a blaster shot to the chest. A pretty bad ending for a character as cool as that, if you ask me.

I liked Grevious, he was admittedly pretty cool. Plus, he was accompanied by those badass MagnaGuards, who fought on without their head and had those cool staff things. Plus, he was pretty much an even more fucked up Darth Vader, and he had the cool trait where he was constantly confused for a droid and that pissed him off.

But yeah, he was a little bitch in the clone cartoons who constantly lost battles, and he never really accomplished much. A shame, but it's interesting how many kickass villains were wasted in the prequels for Force Awakens to come out with women silver clone trooper who is captured easily and not even worth killing, edgy emo Darth Vader fanboy, and shitty giant Emperor named Snoke.

I’m glad that I was not the only one disappointed.  I did like the idea of mirroring Obi-Wan’s abilities with the old samurai stories that inspired Lucas.  I however felt the creative team could have done this so much better with Maul’s ending.  It felt rushed and cheap when it should have been more epic.  

The prequels do have a clear villain, it's Palpatine. Sure they don't fight him in every movie but he is clearly the villain of the prequels. Some would argue he's the villain of the originals as well. He doesn't have quite as big of a role on those, at least not directly. In the prequels pretty much everything that happens is a result of his puppet mastering. In the originals, only Return of the Jedi revolves around his plotting.

I haven't seen Clone Wars (well, not the new one, I've seen the old Clone Wars cartoons) or Rebels but where in Phantom Menace were the scenes of Darth Maul emoting all this sith hatred you're talking about? Unless you're just talking about him looking cool in Phantom Menace and then Clone Wars and Rebels established the character you're referring to? Anyway, since I can't really argue about things related to the tv shows I'll just assume you mean his "hateful sith persona" was also visible in the Phantom Menace. If that's not the case you can probably just ignore most of this:

When he talks he sounds like the most monotone boring character ever. But you might say "well, in the only scene where he has dialogue he's just talking to Palpatine about their evil plans, why should be be angry at that point?" Okay fair enough I guess. In that scene where Darth Maul actually talks, he mentions how "at last they will have their revenge" indicating that he is very thirsty for the Jedi to feel his wrath. Then when he first tries to kill Qui-Gon on Tatooine they engage in a short battle and Qui-Gon escapes. Is he angry that he didn't get to spill Jedi blood (metaphorically since the heat of the lightsaber means no blood would actually be spilled), no, he barely even looks miffed. He just stares at the ship leaving. No Sith hatred here.

Then the only other scenes with him that include him doing anything other than just standing while Palpatine and Nute Gunray are talking (aside from maybe him sending drones to look for the good guys on Tatooine) are in the final battle. There we actually do get him showing some teeth during the fight and he is clearly not as patient as Qui-Gon while the fight is paused by the force fields, but that's about it.

Now lets look at Vader, who you say is a worse representation of the dark side since he was never emotional, just apathetic and indifferent. Granted, Vader gets a LOT more screen time than Darth Maul, being a main villain in 3 movies...well..2, the Emperor would probably be considered the main villain of Return of the Jedi, but still he gets a lot of screen time in all 3 while Darth Maul is not even the main villain of Phantom Menace, just kind of the muscle for the villains to be a boss battle at the end. With that in mind, not only does Vader murder his officers when they fail him, he also almost kills one merely for insulting the force. His entire plan in Empire Strikes Back revolves around getting Luke to help him stab the Emperor in the back, which I consider a huge part of the sith life, plotting to betray your master so that you can take his place. Doesn't sound like Maul ever did that. Even in the shows you were describing he only attempted to take down the Emperor as retaliation for being betrayed first, not because he was an apprentice that wanted to usurp the throne. Like I mentioned above, I haven't seen these shows so I'm merely going by what you described so maybe I'm wrong.

I mean, sure, Palpatine might be the overall villain of the whole thing just through pulling the strings, but in Phantom Menace he's just kind of there. He's not particularly impressive in the first two of the three films, just kind of fucking about pulling strings. He's certainly not like Darth Vader of the original trilogy, or even a particularly impressive villain. Hell, the fact that the closest thing you can point to as an overall villain is just a sleazy politician for almost the entire prequel trilogy shows just how weak at that he is.

Darth Maul's hatred I think pretty much runs through his entire character. As a fighter he's far more energetic and aggressive, bursting about with passion, while Vader's far more calm. Again, I think the scene where he's just pacing the shield like a brutal predator is also fairly showing, as it makes him look aggressive and bloodthirsty. We can actually see him emote and stare at Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon with anger. We see his facial expressions express the emotions that are supposed to be representative of the Dark Side, unlike Vader, who wears an emotionless mask. Sure, a lot of Dark Maul's things are in Rebels and Clone Wars, but I think the Phantom Menace clearly makes him cool enough that he's obviously a wasted character.

In Maul's first fight scene, he definitely seems angry. He stares furiously at the horizon as  he faces his prey, before immediately leaping into battle where he fights fairly aggressively. He's flipping about and continuously forcing Obi-Wan to frantically backpedal. We don't see his face or anything when Obi-Wan leaves, so I don't know how you can say he's barely miffed. In the second fight, he shows even more aggression, so yeah, whenever he's fighting, he's angry, he's passionate, he's emotional. That's what the Dark Side is. Vader, on the other hand, literally can't express emotions facially and isn't energetic and passionate.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is in pointing out how he only has like five scenes, and in most of them he's not the focus. I absolutely agree. Really, the only proper scene he gets is his battle scene at the end, and in that one, he absolutely shines. There's loads in that little bit. Aside from that, he's incredibly underused, which is the issue I'm complaining about. It's a waste of a really cool character.

When we look at Vader, he has three movies where he's the center, so there should be a shit ton more examples than Maul. Instead, not only can he not even express emotions, his voice is even more monotone than Maul's. He might kill lieutenants, yeah, but it's never a "Fuck you!" angry thing. It's a simple raising of his hand as he force chokes them. He does it slowly and calmly, almost disinterested. It's clearly not out of rage. He gets a proper motivation, which Maul never got the attention to have, and it's just killing the boss and taking over. Sure, that's evil, I guess, sort of, but it's hardly emotional. It's not angry or really anything. Darth Vader makes his plans against Palpatine with cold calculation.

Now, I love Vader as a villain, he's great. But as a Dark Side representation, he's absolutely shocking. He's the main villain of three movies, and I can only think of a single time he gets emotional once, which is when he tosses Palpaptine over the barrier. The only time is when he's fucking rejecting the Dark side. The original trilogy seems to get the ideas confused and show the Light Side as emotional and caring while the Dark side is apathetic, heartless and sociopathic. 

You focus on killing your master for some reason, which is evil, sure, but Sith aren't evil. Darth Vader's motivations are cold and calculated, as is his entire character. Darth Maul's meager motivation in Phantom Menace? Revenge, a motivation that shows passion and emotion. His motivation in the animated shows? Again, angry revenge at those who wronged him. While they're both great villains, even if one is incredibly wasted, Darth Vader fails at representing the dark side by a country mile, while Maul fits it better than any Sith in the prequels or originals.

I never said the reason Sith kill their masters is evil. That's just a core feature of the Sith. That's why the rule of two was enacted. Because if there are any more than just master and apprentice it results in in-fighting between them for who gets to rule. It is implied that Palpatine killed his master. Count Dooku wanted Obi-Wan to help him overthrow Palpatine. Vader wanted Luke to help him overthrow Palpatine. Maul is literally the only Sith in the movies (well, aside from maybe the new ones, it's not revealed if Kylo Ren intends to betray Snoke yet) who does not try to stab his master in the back. That's why I focus on it "for some reason", because the Sith focus on it...except for Maul.

I just watched the Tatooine Darth Maul vs Qui-Gon Jinn fight again..I don't see all this passion and energy you're talking about. Sure he's fast...if that's the energy you're talking about but his facial expression does not change any more than Vader's does during his fight. The only time his face expresses anger is during the final battle which...and I agreed with this above...is where he actually does express anger...finally.

Also, Vader does raise his voice and is certainly not as monotone as Maul was, who sounds less enthusiastic than the battle droids. Don't you remember the specific sound that comes when Vader raises his voice. "and bring me those passengers, I want them alive!" One of the first things he says in New Hope. Also remember the final showdown between Vader and Luke in Empire Strikes Back? During most of the battle, Vader is just toying with him, because he's fully trained in both Jedi and Sith arts whereas Luke hasn't even finished his Jedi training. Then, during the fight, Luke actually manages to hit him in the side of his armor and after this you can see how FURIOUS Vader is in every single hit he delivers. No playing around anymore, something is getting cut off....and it does. That's how Luke looses his hand which was not part of Vader's plan since he was intending to work with Luke not dismember him. Sure he didn't "show teeth" or whatever but his fighting style changed to match his anger.

I can agree with Darth Maul being underutilized though. He's kind of like Boba Fett was for the original trilogy. Underutilized but cool, barely says anything and still managed to gain a big fan base.

Didn't mean to imply you did, Sure, the Sith infight a lot, and Palpatine does directly say he killed his master in his sleep, if I'm not mistaken (or maybe not, the dude was focused on immorality, might've survived to become Snoke, theories abound!) But yeah, I think the very core feature of the Sith is clearly the emotional thing. The fact that they always kill each other is true, sure, but not a necessity as it's not what makes them, and even if I give you that, you don't know Maul wasn't planning to betray his masters, or do anything. He got so little screen time, to blame him for that would be ridiculous. 

Finally? He's had two battle scenes, it's not like it's been some wait. And no, I think the first battle alone is clearly more passionate and energetic than anything Vader ever really does. That dude just slowly walks through battles, occasionally slowly choking people with indifference. At the very best, you're arguing that Darth Maul wasn't angry in one of his battles, which even then I disagree with. Sure, it mightn't have been shown in the best way, but it's better than anything we've ever seen with Vader.

I know Vader does ocacassionally raise his voice, but over the course of three films, he's almost always calm and quiet. The fact that his two coolest features, an emotionless mask and slow clam breathing, further show calmness doesn't exactly help. Darth Maul has so little screen time, and if I'm not mistaken, like a single line, yet you're giving Vader so much more room to Vader, who sure, got angry in one scene, but wasn't an emotional character, and was definitely by far the opposite. In that very Cloud City battle, it starts with incredibly slow fighting and calm talking and compliments from Vader. He gets hit by carbonite, and is immediately calm after again. He's pushed off a bridge, and again it calm afterward. He has like two sword swings after he's hit in the side, which don't exactly scream fury, as afterwards he's back to calm "Join me". You have three whole films entirely built around Darth Vader to go with, and in comparison, Maul was added for a lightsaber battle. Still, with that, I think scene by scene, taking into account the focus received, anyone could agree Maul was a million times better as an avatar of the Dark Side, but even with all his time and focus, it's still clear that Vader doesn't work.

Vader literally can't express emotions with his face, has permanent, calm, heavy breathing, walks around slow as hell and is clearly a cold, calculating figure. Sure, he's amazing, but he's got barely any emotion, and even in three films you're struggling for examples, with counting two swords swings that aren't anymore aggressive than the others as "FURIOUS". Meanwhile, even you admit Darth Maul "showed his teeth" in the ONLY time he ever really got any focus. 

Yeah, I mean, Boba Fett was definitely wasted and all, I'll agree with that. But what annoys me more than anything is Maul was given his focus in the animated series, and then even that ends fucking miserably as his character motivations go right out the window in the end because they decided they needed an end to his story.

"Meanwhile, even you admit Darth Maul "showed his teeth" in the ONLY time he ever really got any focus. "

He had two fights in the movie. I agreed that in one of them (and sure the longer one) he kind of emoted hatred and passion here and there but I still think the fight on Tatooine may as well have been against a robot impersonating Maul. He also had a brief dialogue scene which even though it wasn't much he was still much more emotionless in that than he needed to be.

"with counting two swords swings that aren't anymore aggressive than the others" anyone that actually pays attention to Vader's fighting style sees how the refinement and calmness is tossed aside after Luke manages to hit him. You don't see that just like I don't see the passion in Maul in the Tatooine fight. I see more emotion and passion in Vader than you seem to. You seem to see more emotion and passion in Maul than I do. We're just repeating the same points right now.

Well hang on, let's not even begin to compare the incredibly short first fight to the much larger second fight where he gets actual focus, and that one scene you're referring to has him speak a single line. In the short fight he's clearly aggressive and passionate in his fighting style, and receives little focus. In the latter, far, far more. Admittedly, in the one line of dialogue he gets he doesn't get much, but it's a single line, and even then it's clear his motivation is one of revenge rather than cold, calculated desire for power.

I'd recommend you watch the fight again, because Vader's acting that way for the entire bridge before he gets hit. On the bridge, Vader's swings are at wild and aggressive before the hit as after. You push aside the fact that Darth Vader literally isn't allowed to express emotion thanks to a mask and is permanently at calm, heavy breathing, while giving an incredibly amount of weight to the single line and first battle Maul gets. We agree that the main time Maul gets focus, he's aggressive and passionate, and we disagree about his lesser fight. You have to reach for even one battle where Vader has even a hint as much aggression after one point, whilst I'm sure you'd admit he was calm and collected for everything besides that, given that he was constantly making offers of joining up and was waiting patiently, standing perfectly still and calmly walking forward for the rest of the entire thing. 

We both agree that Maul's angry and passionate the only time he gets proper focus, and I think we'd both agree that given the fact he has one line he's not the focus of the dialogue scene. Darth Vader, however, has many, many scenes where he's the focus, and quite a few fight scenes, and the only fight you can point to where he acts angrily is maybe for three seconds during one fight where otherwise as you say, he's had "refinement and calmness".

I'd like to point out that although Vader has a lot of scenes in the movies, if we're just talking about battles, he only has three battles unless you're counting the Dagobah imaginary Vader fight. The Return of the Jedi one I would also argue that although his emotion isn't as simplified as facial expressions (since they are covered up) or louder speaking voice, his emotion and nastiness are showcased with him threatening Leia to push Luke over the edge. The sudden change in Vader's fighting style in the Bespin fight showcases a far more dramatic change in temperament than Maul ever shows and instead of being something as simple as having the word "revenge" in his line (which is still delivered with no passion at all) or showing teeth, it's showcased in a much more interesting way with his behavior and style of fighting completely changing. The fact that you think his swings before getting hit and after are the same indicate you're the one who needs to rewatch the scene. Vader's calmness in the beginning of the fight which is then dropped when he gets angry is a much better way to show off a Sith's rage than just him being angry and hateful all the time, if that is even the case with Maul which I'm still not even sure of. I mean, are you counting Maul's fast fighting style as part his predatory hatefulness? Because Obi-Wan's fighting style in Phantom Menace is also pretty darn fast. Fast enough to keep up with Darth Maul's dual bladed saber even though he only has a regular one. Does that mean Obi-Wan is full of anger and hate in Phantom Menace? I'd say that's them being young and energetic while Vader was older and thus more refined in the originals, but you can pretend that I'm "reaching" all you like.

Speaking of reaching, you keep harping on that "We both agree that Maul's angry and passionate the only time he gets proper focus" (which as I said before is perhaps his biggest scene but not the only time he gets focus), but you seem to consider that entire battle as a showcase of how Maul perfectly represents a Sith. There are like 2 or 3 moments where he shows teeth (which I still think is a very simplified way to showcase "rage") and there is the impatient force field pacing but that's about it as far as I'm concerned. Aside from that it is like a longer better edited version of the weak Tatooine fight. If we would compare the Bespin fight to the Naboo fight and ignore all other scenes in the Star Wars franchise I would still not agree that Darth Maul is a more hateful Sith.

Well, looking at his fight scenes he's all calm and collected, and even avoids fighting on Hoth and Tantive-IV, which show he's not very hot-blooded or angry as he doesn't storm onto the scene, just calmly walks in as his men pacify it. Anyhow, three fights is still more than Maul, and looking at killing Obi-Wan, the defense of the Death Star, the Bespin Fight and his final fight in the movie, they all pale in comparison with the Naboo fight. His nastiness might be shown in his behaviour, sure, but that's not emotion. Darth Vader was certainly an evil character, but that's what he was written as: A very evil character, shown through the fact they made him cold and heartless. That's not what the Sith is. The Sith is emotion. He doesn't change his fighting in Bespin after the hit, he has two swings the same as the rest of the bridge one, before being back to calm. It's not a dramatic change in temperament to any degree, as immediately after he's back to "Hey, join me, we'll create order". I think it's clear you're reaching a shit ton for this, and given that he follows it by calm and collected again, it's not there. You're seeing things that quite clearly aren't there, as he's swinging wildly and pushing Luke back all along the bridge, just as much as after he's hit. The "No, YOU need to watch it again" is cute, but inaccurate. 

Vader's calmness is never really dropped. He fights Luke, and is hit by carbonite and grunts in pain. No change then, back to calm. Shoved off the platform, grunt, no change in temperament, immediately goes and waits patiently for Luke. fights him backs, hit, strikes a blow, immediately to calm and collected. The man's an emotional, uncaring killer, not angry.

Maul's flips and aggression certainly don't take away from his anger, but it's the things like the pacing that best emphasize his predatory hatefullness. It's hard to have a lot of examples given how few scenes he gets.

Well yeah, the battle has fighting, and then it has Sith moments. There's certainly no points in that where Maul should be getting angrier and didn't. However comparatively, you've pointed out one very weak Sith moment in Bespin, while I've pointed out several moments where Vader is hit and behaves just the same forwards, plus the fact he constantly stands and patiently waits for his opponent. The pacing scene perfectly encapsulates the difference between Jedi and Sith. The best you've come up with is maybe getting angry for two strikes after being hurt the third time and then reverting to calmness, which certainly doesn't speak to the emotion-driven Sith nature. So you agree there's at least 2 or 3 Sith moments for Maul, plus the pacing scene, but all you have for Vader is "Maybe got mad after getting hit", while in opposition to that is the first hit, the second hit, the calm attempt at negotiations through the fight, and the patient waiting.

You keep pretending to have recently watched the Bespin fight and yet claim the rage only lasts for two strikes? His fighting style is different all the way until he slices Luke's hand off, which is where he calms down and goes "join me". Anger isn't as simple as forming a V with your eyebrows and showing off your dentures, which is why I think Maul is such a superficial representation of a Sith while Vader is a more complex one. Emotion is a big part of the Sith, but the biggest part of them is actually selfishness. They act out of their own interest (which is why all of them (except for Maul for some reason) have the hidden agenda of wanting to take over to be the rulemakers themselves) and because of this their own emotions and ambitions are such a big part of who they are, because they view their own wants and needs as the only ones that matters. Again, this is why the rule of two was enacted. Sith can only coexist when they believe they benefit from the other. The apprentice benefits from learning to become stronger from the master and the master benefits by having a loyal servant that carries out their will. Being Sith, the apprentices of course don't want to be loyal servants which is why they all aspire to become the masters themselves so someone else will become the servant.

"but it's the things like the pacing that best emphasize his predatory hatefullness" ehh no it's ONLY the pacing. What other scenes show his predatory hatefullness? I realize Maul doesn't have that many scenes to begin with but this line implies that there are more examples.

Yeah, watched it earlier today. I watched it again just now to make sure I hadn't made a mistake. I suppose, if I'm being completely accurate, it was a strike, a parry and another strike, but that was it. I counted it lasting five seconds from the hit, and three seconds of actual fighting. Doesn't even seem particularly different to the rest of the bridge fight.  You keep acting like Vader was some nuanced example of hate and anger, when again, he barely ever showed it, with the one thing you're able to point to being that one thing, and then nothing else. You're not pointing out nuance, you're saying that he was secretly angry the whole time while slowly walking about and being calm and collected. Even in his executions he's calm, killing a man as he talks to another.

Ah, no, it's not. The Sith is about emotion. That's why everyone constantly talks about using your anger and rage" to become strong, rather than selfishness. The entire thing is letting your emotions take hold of you, as Yoda says. “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” It's clear it's anger and hate, and emotion that leads to the Sith, not selfishness. Anakin himself was led there out of fear for his wife being hurt, not selfishness. Sure, I suppose that would naturally lead to selfishness, but that's not what the Sith are about. I take it's quite obvious you don't understand the Sith if you think that. Plus, once again, you act as if Darth Maul didn't have any plans for power, which we don't know because he got one line.  The rule of two thing is a cool piece of lore, but the Sith existed for ages before that, so it's certainly not essential, and seems more in line with the emotional things. Sith, like Anakin, crave power as they're scared without it. That's why they crave power, and that's why they bump off their bosses.

The pacing, the testing of the barrier. That alone is more than you ever get with Vader, seeing as the best you had was "he got mad when he was wounded. No, not the first time. No, not the second time. Yeah, the third time!" But if I need more examples, he stares with loathing on Tattoine before he somersaults into action, again showing passion. He's got a beautiful sneer at Qui-Gon right after Obi-Wan's thing comes up. Then, kills him, back to pacing, weapon drawn in front of the shields again. Knocks him down, and he launches a few strikes at the ledge. And yeah, it's not a huge amount of examples, but he has such incredibly little screen time, it's a fairly decent amount. Meanwhile, again, your example was Darth Vader gets mad when wounded for the third time, but not really, and even then, calm afterwards. Maul has a large amount of hatred for such a small role. Vader has three films as the main villain, and he's almost always calm and collected. It's fairly simple.

"he stares with loathing" and you accused me of seeing things that aren't there. I can agree with the ledge moment though. I just watched it again and aside from making Maul look kinda stupid for not force pushing Obi-Wan, it does showcase his need to keep fighting. So I'll give you that one.

"you act as if Darth Maul didn't have any plans for power, which we don't know because he got one line"

I can just as easily say "you act as if Darth Vader doesn't emote, which we don't know because he wears a mask". I didn't say that because that would be a stupid argument to make. We can only argue about what is there. I can't use Vader's mask as an example of him emoting without seeing it and you can't use Maul's lack of dialogue as an example of him having greater plans without talking about them.

Now, I recognize that what I'm about to isn't really concrete, but every time Vader talks I get the feeling of he's close to snapping but he's keeping it together because the Emperor has assigned him a kind of military leader position. That's the feeling his lines give me while nothing Maul does, aside from the pacing around the shield and around the pit gave me a similar feeling. That could be because of his limited screen time of course, and I'm not saying I don't like Maul, I just don't see all this stuff you see. To me he's just a cool boss battle.

Well yeah, if you want to get into the details of the fights and what characters should've done, you're talking about plot issues. There are many of them. But that's not important. It's like me pointing out how much of a bitch vader is for having putting a grate over the death star vent.

Well no, I'm pointing out the issue with having the character meant to show how falling to your emotions is bad wearing a mask that doesn't express emotions, coupled with the fact he's always calm and collected with calm, heavy breathing. That's a flaw in the character. I'm also pointing out how it's extremely unlikely he would be, given that he's always calm and collected throughout the three films. The issue that Darth Maul didn't have something is because he got no focus, which is what this is all about, and the point I made to start off. So not only can Darth Vader not show emotion, he clearly isn't doing that. Darth Maul, however, could easily be plotting against the Sith, we just don't get the focus, so he needs more of ti.

Close to snapping? Well, this is really reaching as you seem to know. At one point, the man is strangling an officer, before someone calmly tells him "That's enough" and he goes "As you wish". Moff Tarkin isn't like "Fucking hell, this dude's close to snapping", he's like "Yeah yeah, stop now". I'd say you thinking this about Vader is based off nostalgia and love for the character rather than any basis in fact. He doesn't do this. He's always calm. He calmly executes one of his officers in another scene, and it's not like a break, it's a "Yeah, you failed, you die, that's the system." He's so calm as he does it he promotes the guy standing next to him. I suppose Vader could hypothetically be close to snapping, but as I pointed out, that's because the blank mask allows you to push any interpretation on him. He could just as easily be constantly nervous and trying to act tough. 

Anyhow, again, that's through all the films. You're not mentioning the three second Vader fight, so until I get an explanation for that there's nothing really there. Thus, we have three films where he's the big bad, and the best there is is maybe he might've been secretly close to snapping because, fuck it, he cares about being a good leader for Palpatine, or something. Maul, however, has the examples I've given.

We are arguing about emotions here aren't we? Emotions are hard to quantify and aren't just "he is speaking louder therefore he's angry, oh he's speaking slowly, therefore not angry" so it's all based on how we interpret them. I interpret Vader as someone very angry but rarely lets the anger out and him killing officers that fail (which I don't think anyone else in the Empire does so stop pretending it's an established Empirical system unless you can point to other examples that aren't Vader) is kind of his way of letting it out.

"It's like me pointing out how much of a bitch vader is for having putting a grate over the death star vent."

Vader was very clearly not in charge of the Death Star. It was either Grand Moff Tarkin or that guy that said the Death Star was more powerful than the force and almost got choked for it. Besides, the fact that Maul didn't force push Obi-Wan down the pit wasn't an argument I was making, in fact I was agreeing that the moment does indeed showcase his predatory need to attack.

But another thing I forgot to address in the last comment is about the whole "Sith are about emotions". They are not. Yes people keep saying "hatred leads to the dark side" and such but it is not entirely about selfishness either. It's actually about freedom..well...freedom of ones self, not freedom of others.

This is the Sith Code which I thought wasn't canon anymore but apparently it was used in either Clone Wars or Rebels at some point (according to my research although I haven't seen them) which are supposed to be canon to the Star Wars universe and thus this code is still canon:

Peace is a lie. There is only Passion.
Through Passion I gain Strength.
Through Strength I gain Power.
Through Power I gain Victory.
Through Victory my chains are Broken.
The Force shall free me.

Passion is important to the Sith, one of the most important things, but it is important as a tool to become free, not just as a thing on its own. Which is why the "killing your master" thing (which again, every Sith in the movies either successfully does or plots to do except for Maul as far as we know) is very important, because that's the breaking the chains and becoming free.

Well we're arguing about characters. You could hypothetically interpret them in any way, but you saying Darth Vader is secretly super angry doesn't really hold, given how calm and collected he seems. The fact that he's able to negotiate mid-fight doesn't speak to there being a lot of rage there, neither does the fact he goes from murdering someone to not thanks to a "Alright now, bud, stop" from Moff Tarkin. 

I suppose yeah, but the point stands that pointing out stupid plot points doesn't lessen the character. Anyway, we don't seem to be really disagreeing on anything here, so I shall move on.

I don't recall the Sith Code ever being used in the animated series, but I'm not sure. Apparently, fragments were used, but that's neither here nor there. It's worth nothing, funnily enough, that the very quote on the Star Wars wikipedia page is actually Darth Maul reciting the end of it, with "Through victory my chains are broken. The chains. The chains are the easy part. It's what goes on in here that's hard." However, it's not in the movies, which is where we've been focusing. The movies only ever mention emotions. If you're going to go ahead and say we're bringing in canon stuff not in the movies to allow this, then Darth Maul fits this perfectly. As an apprentice, he envied the wild predators he hunted for their viciousness and freedom. Then, he does end up betraying Sidious, using Mandalorians to kill him. So yeah, if the SIth Code is coming out, Darth Maul did plan to betray Sidious.

Not secretly. I'm saying I feel it in how his demeanor and attitude is. I never said the shows were off the table, I just said that since I haven't seen them I can't really speak for Maul's behavior in them, however the show does establish that the Sith Code exists in the same canon as the movies do. In your original post, you said "He wants revenge against Sidious and the Sith for betraying him and killing his brothers" so that sounds like it's not to overthrow the rulemaker and become one yourself so that you no longer have to listen to others, but merely because Sidious betrayed him first.

Well yeah, you're saying he's angry behind his calm, collected appearance, which there's no evidence for. It might be true, but so might nervous Vader, or any emotion.

I assumed they were. If you're putting them in, he tries to kill Sidious after taking control of Mandalore. I didn't mention it the original post because he does a shit ton of stuff and I didn't think it was worth mentioning, but he does. It's only when he tries that, Palpatine kills his brother for Maul's betrayal and then tortures him and... well actually, I'm not sure what happens. When we next see Maul, he's at a Sith temple. But anyhow, he betrayed Maul first. The Sith, the Dark Side, that betrayed him, he wants that destroyed, but Sidious was betrayed by him.

Okay, I didn't know that about Maul.

"Well yeah, you're saying he's angry behind his calm, collected appearance, which there's no evidence for. It might be true, but so might nervous Vader, or any emotion."

Okay...okay...read these words: I interpret Vader's choice of words, his behavior and his tone as someone who is angry but also doesn't want to show it because he's been put into a militaristic position and has to be professional. I'm not saying "it's there but it's invisible, believe me". I'm saying I interpret things one way and you seem to interpret tings another way.

You want my evidence? Okay, pretty much every scene with Darth Vader in it. That's my evidence. Those are my example scenes. Him not killing the guy because of Tarkin's orders included. I can just FEEL the resentment, not in his words themselves, but in how he says them, towards having to take orders from this guy. But that's how the Emperor decided things are and while he's in charge, Vader has to obey.

And your interpretation is a long-shot, about as valid as NoNameFuckFace's interpretation that he was secretly trying to hide his crush on Moth for the whole of New Hope. Vader obeying Moff doesn't show deep-down rage. Fuck's sake, you yourself said Sith are about freedom, and all he's doing is being the bitch to not even Sidious, but Moff. At this point, all you're really arguing is that you think he was mad, even though he clearly wasn't. He was cold, robotic and heartless. His mask showed no emotion, his breathing apparatus made him sound calm and collected. Your only rebuttal is "Ah, but I think he WAS angry, he was just hiding it". 

"His mask showed no emotion"...obviously...it's a mask.

I said that Sith are about freedom, and I said that while under a master their objective is to grow powerful enough to kill the master so that they themselves become the master. Tell me, in New Hope, was the Emperor dead or alive? Oh, he was alive was he? So Vader was the Sith Apprentice, yes? Thus his chains hadn't been broken? But sure, just take one single word from my argument and ignore the rest of the text. That's context for you.

"Ah, but I think he WAS angry, he was just hiding it" and your rebuttal is "I don't interpret that from how he says it, THUS NO ONE DOES." I get it...you don't get the same thing from the Vader says things, but you're pretending like because you don't, I shouldn't either. The notion that any moment in Phantom Menace showcased Maul's anger other than pacing around the force field and slicing the top of the pit is just as ridiculous to me, but you feel something else out of it. You feel him seething as he watches Qui-Gon on Tatooine or whatever. Stop pretending like the way you interpret things outweigh the way I do.

Yeah, that feature of Darth Vader further serves to help make him a shittier avatar of the Dark Side. The dude's entire character is heartless, cold and robotic, not emotional.

Is the Emperor his master? Are you sure? Because, it's not the emperor who bosses him around and demands he stop murdering the lieutenant, it's Tarkin. Is the Emperor going to be in a mood because Vader killed an insolent lieutenant for mocking the force? Pretty unlikely, there.

Well no, my rebuttal is pointing out all the ways Darth Vader shows he's clearly not angry, as I've done. I had just made a big paragraph doing that, which is when you responded with "I FEEL Darth Vader was angry, even if he doesn't act it at all and cows to admirals". 

Interestingly, you again absurdly point out that Darth Maul doesn't have a lot of scenes of anger, even though he has barely any. In the fight scene he shows passion several times there, that's agreed. He has a sneer that's fucking brutal there. If you disagree that the face he makes was anger, please tell me. Maul acts angry in that entire scene. So it's clear he's an angry, passionate character given that's the only big focus he gets. I'm arguing on facts. You're the one saying you secretly felt Darth Vader was mad, like he when he patiently choked a lieutenant and then stopped on order. But still, I like how slowly it goes from "Just the pacing scene" to "The pacing and slicing" and slowly expanding, even though Darth Maul has such little focus.

A Sith lord that has placed his apprentice below a non force user in the pecking order will not care that his apprentice defies his organizing of the chain of command and kills that person? That would make Sidious pretty stupid since he know apprentices killing their masters is a thing since that's exactly what he did to his master. Does he care about Tarkin himself? Probably not. Did he care that Tarkin died when the Death Star exploded? I doubt it. But his apprentice disrespecting his rules and systems? Yes, he will care.

"Well no, my rebuttal is pointing out all the ways Darth Vader shows he's clearly not angry, as I've done. I had just made a big paragraph doing that" to me it's pretty clear that he hates almost everyone he talks to. He hates Tarkin. He hates the Emperor. He hates Lando. He hates Obi-Wan. He hates the stormtroopers.

"But still, I like how slowly it goes from "Just the pacing scene" to "The pacing and slicing" and slowly expanding, even though Darth Maul has such little focus."

I agreed with the pacing scene from the beginning but had forgotten the slicing scene and then watched the fight again and then agreed that the slicing scene also counts. Oh wow. Look at that list still expanding. I'm sure more and more scenes will get added to it, right?

Btw, I have no idea what sneer you're talking about. Is that the one where he shows teeth? I guess it shows anger but I don't know, to me that's like if someone on the sidelines was watching and said "oh, that guy is angry" and then yeah...I guess that would count as a "Darth Maul is angry" scene.

"I'm arguing on facts" what facts? No, we're arguing about how moments and performances in the movies affect us. You pretend like me using the word "feel" in this argument is silly but that's literally what this entire argument is based on. I FEEL Darth Maul's anger when he paces around the force field, as do you. I feel Darth Maul's anger...although to a lesser degree...when he's trying to get to Obi-Wan in the pit. I don't feel anything from that sneer or whatever (unless it's a scene I don't remember but if it's in the final battle then I just watched that so then it must have been something that didn't strike me as anything special). I feel Vader's hatred when he talks. You don't, but you keep saying that because there is no evidence for the hatred in his voice then it doesn't count. There is no evidence for any of this. If I had said "well, I don't feel Darth Maul's rage when he's pacing around the force field", then what? What evidence is there to prove to me that it's an example of anger? I barely feel his anger when he's slicing the top of the pit? Can you prove to me that I should feel like he's more angry in that moment?

Vader outranked Tarkin, so that point doesn't stand. Vader was Supreme Commander of the Imperial Forces, Tarkin was a regional governor.

And again, you just listing out things he hates is bullshit, because that doesn't stand. He doesn't seem to hate Tarkin, he follows his orders willingly and doesn't seem mad about it. You're really just bullshitting.

Yeah, like that scene w... oh hang on, there's not a lot of other scenes with Maul. Because he's given barely any focus, and the one time he is, he shines, unlike Vader and his cold, calculated manner. Which seems to be the point I made at the start of this threat.

What?  Yeah, he gives an angry snarl. What the fuck is that sideline point?  Clearly, it's building towards Darth Maul as passionate and angry, unlike "As you wish" Vader, who mid-murder stops when asked.

Well no, Darth Maul's anger is obvious when he paces. All of Darth Maul's character is about his hate, which is why I keep bringing up the points where he shows it. It's obvious. Your argument with Vader is that even when he's acting calm, he's secretly angry. When he's obeying Moth, he's actually pouting about that. There's scenes where Maul shows anger. There's barely any for Vader, and he has a shit ton more scenes. But in his scenes, he's clearly not angry, he's a blank mask you're pushing feelings onto, which are about as valid as him being nervous. Maul, on the other hand, clearly isn't nervous in his scenes.

"Vader outranked Tarkin, so that point doesn't stand. Vader was Supreme Commander of the Imperial Forces, Tarkin was a regional governor." But they were aboard the Death Star which Tarkin had command over. He's the one that commands the Death Star to fire. Also when the X-Wings start attacking the Death Star Vader goes out into the field to fight them. You're telling me that the highest ranking Imperial on board was a field agent? I sincerely doubt it.

Where is it established that he's a Supreme Commander btw? The only title I remember for him was Lord, which can mean anything.

"He doesn't seem to hate Tarkin"

Oh, look, you used the word "seem". What do you base that on? That doesn't sound very factual does it? Almost as if this is about how we interpret what we see and hear in movies instead of anything factual. Weird. Almost as if that has been my point, isn't it? To me, he sounds like he hates Tarkin. Yeah he doesn't outright kill him, because he also has self control, and he tries to seem like he doesn't hate him at all.

"What?  Yeah, he gives an angry snarl. What the fuck is that sideline point?  Clearly, it's building towards Darth Maul as passionate and angry, unlike "As you wish" Vader, who mid-murder stops when asked."

I still have no idea what you're talking about.

"Your argument with Vader is that even when he's acting calm, he's secretly angry." Yes but my argument which you always leave out when describing it is also that the viewers (or at least me, can't speak on behalf of everyone) can see his anger while the characters around him can't.

"Maul, on the other hand, clearly isn't nervous in his scenes." No he barely has any emotions aside from two times in the movie. Vader's emotions, although not as obvious are constant and throughout the entire trilogy.

Rebels refers to him as Supreme Commander when he shows up to crush the Lothal Cell, IIRC, and he's referenced as being at th highest level alongside Admiral Thrawn in Season 3. but there's a few other places. The Death Star itself is Tarkin's, sure, but when if a general goes to a military based commanded by a lesser, he's not under his command. And yeah, Darth Vader goes to fight. He's supposed to be an amazing pilot. We know generals fight on the front lines in Star Wars, if they're Jedi, so the same being true if they're Sith isn't hard to belief. 

He follows his orders with an "As you wish". He could easily kill the man out of spite, but he does as Tarkin's asks. That's not what someone does if he hates someone else.

I brought up how Maul snarled with rage, and you brought up some stupid sidelines point that I asked for you to explain, and this is your response. Unhelpful.

Well no, not "the viewers", it instead seems to be that even though Vader acts calm, you just "feel" that's he's secretly angry. Since you don't speak for anyone else, you're not the viewers, and since I'm a viewer, I can tell you that's a crock of shit and I don't belief a word from it.

What a load of bollocks. He's angry on Tattooine, he's angry on Naboo. The only time he isn't is when talking to his master, where yeah, he's not angry, because no, he's not angry all the time. Vader, on the other hand, is always calm and never displays emotions. Insult the force? I will kill you for that... no, nah, I guess I won't if I'm commanded not to by my lesser. Cool." The dude barely ever shows emotions.

So is the Supreme Commander thing from Rebels? That would explain why I've never heard it.

"That's not what someone does if he hates someone else." Your view of hatred seems very simple. Hatred isn't just "snarling and killing people". You can hate something without acting on your hatred.

"I brought up how Maul snarled with rage, and you brought up some stupid sidelines point that I asked for you to explain, and this is your response. Unhelpful."

Speaking of unhelpful, I asked for you to explain when this snarl is and you have yet to do so. So I still don't know what you're talking about.

"Well no, not "the viewers", it instead seems to be that even though Vader acts calm, you just "feel" that's he's secretly angry. Since you don't speak for anyone else, you're not the viewers, and since I'm a viewer, I can tell you that's a crock of shit and I don't belief a word from it."

WAIT...You do realize that we're both viewers AND THAT I SPECIFICALLY SAID I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ALL VIEWERS, JUST MYSELF. I capitalized not to imply rage but to make sure you read it this time. You can speak for yourself. I can speak for myself. Why can you "since you're a viewer" say that that's a crock of shit but me, which is just as much of a viewer, apparently can't say anything about it?

"He's angry on Tattooine, he's angry on Naboo." Well, to quote you, that's a crock of shit and I don't believe a word from it. He is not angry at all on Tatooine and he has two moments of anger on Naboo.

It also existed in EU, to my knowledge. But yeah, Vader cowing clearly also shows he's a bad Sith, as not only is he not emotional, he's also content to be controlled and ordered about, so freedom doesn't matter to him there.

I told you the snarl, you asked if it was a specific one before saying some bullshit about sidelines, then I said "Yeah", and asked what the fuck you were going on about. So there we are.

Yeah, and I've never left out that your argument hinges on you "feeling" that Vader was secretly arguing. So yeah, not the viewers, but you feeling that. Which I've been referring to, I haven't ignored. It just doesn't matter, as your feelings ignore all the evidence of scenes I've pointed out where Vader clearly isn't angry.

It's strange how you take two moments of great anger, and then constant sneering throughout the rest of it, and you're saying Maul's not angry. Yeah, he was angry throughout it, which he expresses at the first pacing, and the snarl, and the second pacing, then slicing through the floor, and throughout by him constantly being angry. There's nothing that would show he stopped being angry up until his death. So that's a weak argument. In regards to Tattooine, at the very best, it's up for debate, which would still mean Darth Maul is far more angry than Vader scene-by-scene, as all you had was "He got angry, and then clearly wasn't angry like a minute or two later when he's negotiating again".

So it is the one where he shows teeth then? Okay, good, at least now I know what the "snarl" is which is apparently an example of his anger...I mean...sure...I guess...but as I've said before it's a very superficial example of anger. At least the pacings paint a picture of the kind of anger he's feeling. The snarl is just "argh, look how angry he is".

"It just doesn't matter, as your feelings ignore all the evidence of scenes I've pointed out where Vader clearly isn't angry." You have not brought up evidence of him being clearly not angry. You've brought up scenes of him hiding his anger which I think is clear by his timings and tone of voice but because you disagree you think of it as "evidence".

The second pacing and slicing through the floor are the same...unless you're talking about the scene where he's just killed Qui-Gon and is waiting for Obi-Wan to get through in which case...no I don't see the anger in that one.

"at the very best, it's up for debate"

All of this is up for debate. Nothing about this is factual. We're debating what emotions fictional characters are feeling. There is absolutely no way to get anything factual about it.

You say superficial, as if expressing anger just isn't "nuanced" enough, even though you still debate whether he was angry at Naboo, so clearly, they need to put in the snarl to show it.

Yeah, it's the latter one. But still, what's your point? He's angry when he paces, he's angry right before he's killed, and he seems to be angry throughout. I don't know how you could dispute that. Your angriest scene with Vader has him calm, dispuably angry, and then immediately calm again. And that's the best you got after Vader getting a lot more attention.

Well no, if you agree with Maul being angry on Naboo, that's no longer up for debate. Also, you retreating to "It's all up in the air" is bullshit. Anyone could tell you Maul was angry in when he was snarling. That's what the director was clearly going for, that's what the actor was doing, and that's what everyone would realize. The fact that you want to take it to a "None of it matters" point just seems like a tactic to get out of losing, because if that was your place from the start, you wouldn't have responded, and I wouldn't have the honor of getting so many posts from such a quiet user.

Or a character that just says "hey look, Darth Maul is angry", would be just as on the nose attempt to show me how angry he is. There are good ways to show how angry someone is, like the pacing scene for instance. That's not on the nose, that's just the mannerism and the behavior of the character showing us his mental state instead of one extreme facial expression.

"Your angriest scene with Vader has him calm, dispuably angry, and then immediately calm again" oh no, it's the only outwardly angry scene with Vader.

"Well no, if you agree with Maul being angry on Naboo, that's no longer up for debate."

Well...no not between us because we both agree on it so as far as this argument goes is not up for debate but my point is that there is no such thing as evidence or facts when it comes to emotions (unless we're talking about examining the chemistry in someone's brain I guess but that's not really possible when talking about fictional characters).

"The fact that you want to take it to a "None of it matters" point just seems like a tactic to get out of losing" and you acting like I'm wrong on that point seems like your tactic to convince yourself that you're "winning" (which shouldn't be what a debate is about). "because if that was your place from the start, you wouldn't have responded" I responded because someone said Darth Maul was a better representation of a Sith than Darth Vader and I disagreed and wanted to throw in my two cents. Then as we debated it became clear to me that we interpret the behavior and mannerisms of these two characters differently and so I realized this isn't a debate where one can get "convinced" because...like I said, it's not based on evidence it's based on feelings and you can't logic your way through feelings. Since then from my end the debate wasn't really about Vader vs Maul. That doesn't mean I've conceded that, I've just realized that we won't get anywhere with it. Instead my end of the debate was to convince you that there is no way to factually support how we interpret emotions from fictional characters. But that also seems to be a waste of time so let's just end this here shall we?

I'm sure you'll tell yourself that this is me backing out of the argument and that you've won now, which is fine. Tell yourself that if it that's what makes you feel better. But at the end of the day I feel just as strongly about Vader and his inner rage.

Ah, so a character looking angry is on the nose. Good to know, Sindri. Seeing as you're happy with "Could hypothetically be angry if I pretend even though he doesn't act like it"< forgive me if I call your idea of nuance a crock of shit.

So the only outwardly angry scene Vader has, and it's not even particularly angry. Besides that, you have the examples like when he politely does as his subordinates asks in not killing people, as you've said that's one where he's angry. So yeah, you have fuck all, where we both agree Maul has at least one, which thanks to him having far fewer scenes, that's impressive that he has more not by ratio, but by absolute number. 

And again, if a character sneering angrily with nothing to suggest he wouldn't be angry isn't evidence for him having been angry at that point, you've talking out your ass.

Well no, you are wrong. You've conceded as much on several points, such as when you made up an excuse for why Vader listened to Moff, before shrugging it off when you're wrong, or when you tried to backpedal and say that the Sith aren't even about emotions, that's only what the Jedi say in that disingenuous argument. You clearly didn't come into this saying nothing mattered, but now that you lost, you turn to it. Now, you've retreated to the point where if a character was said to be angry, claimed he was angry, looked angry and acted angry, that's not evidence for a character being angry, so it's clear you've retreated so desperately to such a meek point that you're clearly just trying to find some way to turn this into a stalemate rather than lose.

I'm sure you do feel just as strongly as it. Your argument has descended to nonsense to defend yourself, with your defenses for Vader's actions like him being resentful that he was forced to obey Tarkin turning to... ah, he was still angry, but he just obeyed Tarken for... reasons, even though he hated him. Feel free to hold onto your defeated points and opinions, but you'd be wrong to do so.

Okay, I said you can pretend you've won but you don't have to lie about what I actually said. I always acknowledged that emotions are an important aspect of the Sith. And I also never said the snarl doesn't count as angry, I just said there are more impressive and impactful ways to show it like how Vader treats everyone with his hateful cold demeanor, even when "bowing down to them" (which you think I'm just imagining).

I didn't try to turn this into a stalemate. I said you can say you've won.

"I'm sure you do feel just as strongly as it" This does bring up something I'm curious about. I know I said I'm done but I've got to know, what do you feel winning is? It's clearly not about convincing me since you know you haven't. Is it about convincing everyone else? Well...I don't think anyone else has commented on which they agree with directly, just kind of stated their own opinions on the original post.

And can you actually just answer the question instead of accusing it of being an attempt to backpedal or being petty or something? I get it, you think I'm desperately trying to find a graceful way to exit.

Steve:  "The movie creates the Dark Side, and says it's about emotions. You don't get to pretend that the Dark Side is something other than it is just because the Dark Siders we see aren't great at portraying that. "

Sindri: "The movie also creates the Dark Siders, so why is the Dark Side defined what the Jedi say about the Dark Side and not how the Dark Siders behave? Both are equally from the movies yet you have decided that what the Jedi say."

Well yeah, it seems like you did try to argue that emotions wasn't important. Nice backslide though.

Well know, you did try to turn it to a stalemate of "Evidence can't exist, and I've just been trying to use it for fucking ages for shits and giggles" so that you didn't really lose, there's just differing opinions. 

What do I feel winning is? Well, I've pointed out several flaws in your reasoning, such as Vader cowing behind Tarkin. You've tried to defend it, you conceeded the point, and this has happened enough times that your arguments are filled with holes. I've successfully demonstrated how Darth Maul is the ideal Sith, as your argument devolves to "Maul wasn't mad there, he was mad only twice, so he wasn't mad the whole way through" and "I FEEL Vader was angry", and that devolved into "f a character was said to be angry, claimed he was angry, looked angry and acted angry, that's not evidence for a character being angry,". So it's at this point I'd say I've won. Winning is fairly hard to define, but at the point where it's clear the opponent has lost and is simply trying to save face, it's fairly easy to notice.

If you're asking how I feel, or why, or whatever, that's even easier. I'm quite satisfied. I like arguing. It's enjoyable, it helps sharpen the wit, and it leads to a certain refinement of positions. When I state an opinion, I'll have to defend it, and see attacks on it. I've done it before, and seen my positions defeated, and been forced to change them. It's never particularly fun, but it's enlightening. Here, however, seeing as my position has been easily defended and the counter defeated, I've gained the fun of the debate, the joy of victory, and the satisfaction of knowing I'm right. So that's what winning is. When I can logically defeat the other position, and force it full of enough holes that the opponent is forced to resign. The only real question after that is how gracious my opponent is defeat.

I like arguing as well, not for the same reasons but whatever. So winning is affirming your own views and is more about establishing things to yourself?

"such as Vader cowing behind Tarkin. You've tried to defend it, you conceeded the point" I still get a hint of spite everytime I hear Vader cower under Tarkin, so I haven't conceded that points, I conceded that clearly I don't know the rankings of the imperials.

I will give you that one, most of the things that were based on facts, such as the hit to Vader's side being the spark of his fury and the Sith saying the same things about the dark side as the Jedi do, you've had right and I didn't. I can accept that, those I had factually incorrect and thus I was easy to disprove on those fronts.

I still don't understand how you can listen to Darth Vader talk and not feel the emotion behind him. Not trying to open that argument up again. I've...I don't know if I can say conceded, because conceded means I've been convinced right? Which would be a lie, I haven't. But I acknowledge that Vader's anger is perhaps more up to my personal interpretation while Maul's is more clear. Just pointing out that after that whole argument I don't feel enlightened on this. I still see Maul as boring and simple for the most part apart from the two pacing scenes and his design.

More about defeating the opposition, but yeah, that's a plus. Obviously if my position falters, it's useless, or if neither position stands, that's hardly winning. I definitely don't need the opponent to change his opinion, although it'd be nice. I've had enough debates with evil fucks about how gays aren't evil to know a large amount of people aren't going to change their mind for anything. But I've been forced to change my mind on enough positions, be it war, religion, politics or anything else, to know that I do accept defeat when it comes, so I just try to honestly assess my own position. 

A hint of spite again doesn't make sense. If a dude is told to stop doing something by some under him, and he does, he's not very angry. If anything, he's fairly meek.

Yes, I'm great and know more about Star Wars. I don't really need to respond to this, but I've decided to do so in the manner of a prick to keep the 4x4 thing, and also, it's just enjoyable to say.

Vader's voice is deep and powerful, but it's the farthest thing from passionate. Anakin has been broken, the man killed, replaced by cold machinery. Vader's entire character seems to have been written for a heartless character rather than an angry one. Give him a mask so he looks emotionless. Make him a cyborg because that's cold and robotic. Make him indifferent to life. Give him this breathing apparatus so he always sounds calm and intimidating. I love Vader, but he doesn't suit what he should be. Hardly befitting the phrase "There is only passion".

Maul, on the other hand, does. He might seem simple to you, but I'd argue, whether you realize it or not, that's the lack of focus. On the basest level, in comparing their appearance, Maul can emote and looks like a fiery demon, Vader a robot. On their behaviour, Maul paces like a predator, testing the barrier, before tearing into battle with passion and energy. Vader walks calmly but sternly, taking lives with ease and indifference as he makes it known he's the most powerful man in the room without trying. I think by the pace and appearance alone, Maul had his character written. He was a fierce, savage warrior, very much like a wild predator even by his name. Was he simple? Yes, without a doubt. He had no room to be anything more in the tiny bit of attention he got. But boring? Definitely not, but instead, simply a very cool character that's wasted. 

I started to write a paragraph about how the spite is there in the voice but it's pointless. I hear it, you don't. Maybe I'm just imagining things because of nostalgia, whatever. The argument is over anyway and even if it wasn't, it was based too much on personal opinions to actually go anywhere.

Delightful. Well, I'm going to saunter to bed. Slan, SindriV, see you around.

googles slan

comes up with a sadomasochist from a Berserk wiki, an old Iris mutation, a science fiction novel and an Irish word for goodbye

hopes it's the last one
 

But another thing you were right about: I did need to watch that scene again. For some reason I confused what prompted the change in fighting style. It wasn't the hit in the side it was after Luke pushed Vader off the platform. Then when the fight resumes his fighting style has become much more furious. I don't know why I thought the hit to the side was earlier in the fight.

Ah, good. Noted.  Anyhow, being pushed off the platform leads to Vader calmly walking away, at least down a hallway, and patiently waiting by a window for Luke to arrive, waiting there, and then calmly waiting to Luke to arrive. Not a lot of anger there. Admittedly, if you're going from that point, his swings do become wilder and more aggressive, but he continues to negotiate mid-fight. At the very best, you're saying after getting wounded Vader gets a bit more desperate and sloppy. Still, the second time Darth Vader gets hit gets him angry still isn't much in pointing out that Darth Vader's a better Sith and more angry.

I said furious not "he loses all senses of strategy".

"At the very best, you're saying after getting wounded Vader gets a bit more desperate and sloppy."

No, at very best he stops toying with Luke and actually tries to attack him, which is how I interpret it.

Also you say "second hit" when the first hit was from gas. Sure it was carbonite gas but it didn't freeze him which is what it does the only other time we see it used so what did it actually do? To me it makes sense that it's just an inconvenience to him while getting pushed off the platform is "this little untrained squirt actually just ruined my plan to freeze him"

Which seems like it would be explained by just Vader taking the threat seriously, but even then, I don't buy it. Darth Vader's plan fails as soon as Luke escapes the carbonite pit. That only leads to an "Impressive", so he clearly isn't angered by that. Hell, he tries to negotiate before that.

His dialogue doesn't sound angry, no, but like I said, the reason why I name this as the ultimate example of Sith-ness is how we see his rage change his style of fighting. The fighting isn't just fancy for the sake of it like I feel a lot of the prequel lightsaber battles are, they actually portray the inner journey of the characters. Luke's swings in the Bespin fight are raw and desperate but he swings anyway. He knows he's outmatched but he has to try. Vader at first isn't even trying to beat him because he assumes Luke doesn't have a chance but then Luke shows him that if he doesn't take this fight seriously he might actually lose so Vader lashes out and ends up dismembering Luke.

Sith-ness is being consumed by your anger, that's where Vader is supposed to be at this point as a powerful Sith Lord. Adding a bit of power to make sure you don't lose isn't that.

Sith-ness is not being consumed by your anger, it's using your anger to your advantage which are two very different things. Being consumed by anger LEADS to the dark side...sure...because like I said, passion is a very important part of being Sith, but if the case is that Sith-ness is defined by how consumed by anger you are then basically every single sith is a poor sith. Even Maul. I did not see the "consumed by anger" side of him.

Well no, it seems to be about being consumed by your anger. That's why all the Light Side are terrified of their allies doing that, as it's what the Sith are about. Anyhow, Darth Vader clearly isn't angry, given how calm he is. He's so controlled throughout it he has the upperhand until Luke is down, and then it's back to calm talking.

Which Sith is angry then? Maul? Dooku isn't any angrier than Vader is. Sidious isn't any angrier than Vader is. I still don't agree that Maul is but whatever I'll play along for the sake of the argument. So you're saying all the Sith's suck as Sith's except for Maul because he shows his teeth and is impatient when blocked by force fields? All the other Siths are incredibly patient so I guess they're not Sith enough. Nevermind that Sidious and Dooku are attuned to the dark side enough to summon force lightning which Maul (unless it's in Rebels or Clone Wars) is never able to do. At least Vader has an excuse for why he can't summon lightning because he doesn't actually have arms for the lightning to shoot out of. As Obi-Wan said in New Hope, the force affects all living things. His arms are robotic and thus actually not living things.
 

Maul's pretty angry, yeah. He represents the Sith. Anakin was pretty angry, that worked. Dooku was pretty mediocre at that, but I think Sidious' lightning attack was pretty indicative of his anger. What's your point here? That if I didn't think Dooku was a good Sith, I'm wrong? He wasn't, he was pretty mediocre. I've already expressed how I didn't like Vader as a Sith. Sidious at least shows some anger in torturing Luke, and he also tortures other characters in the series like Maul. And now your argument is down to "The movies said he was a powerful Sith!" 

No, that's not how things work. If a movie says Bob is incredibly smart, and has a bunch of degrees, but he doesn't act it, that's a bad character. The fact that Dooku was said to be powerful and has force lightning doesn't make him a good Sith. Hell, Vader couldn't use Force Lightning, which you say is because his arms are there, which seems like an ass-pull, given that he can strangle people though hand gestures, and you don't need to use your hands to do it. And the force choke isn't an exclusive move, Maul used it first, chronologically. But I don't know why I'm arguing the point, it's wrong on principle and doesn't need disputing.

I don't think you understood the point of my previous post. I'm not saying "the movies say he was powerful, therefore you are wrong", I'm saying, if you're right then that basically means the other Sith are terrible Sith because very rarely do they portray outbursts of anger and most of them are in fact very patient people.

Sidious laughs while torturing Luke. He is more sadistic than angry.

"If a movie says Bob is incredibly smart, and has a bunch of degrees, but he doesn't act it, that's a bad character." Oh good point. So if a movie says that anger is the path to the dark side but the dark siders themselves don't really showcase any more anger than anyone else then what does that mean?

"given that he can strangle people though hand gestures" in Empire Strikes back when Vader is in his orb talking to an officer through a monitor, he chokes the officer to death without moving a single muscle, indicating that the hand gesture is...just that...a gesture. The force power itself isn't actually coming from the hand.

" And the force choke isn't an exclusive move, Maul used it first, chronologically." Ehm...okay...great...

Count Dooku is a shit Sith, yeah, as is Vader. Palpatine doesn't get much focus, but when he attacks Luke, he seems angry, as with other times he uses it outside of that. What does that have to do with anything? Maul's the best avatar of the Sith because he's the only one who actually represents the difference between Sith and Jedi, while otherwise people have just tended to go "Uh, the Sith are evil, fuck it, they're just evil and Jedi are good", as was done with Vader, where he was turned into a cold, heartless villain, which isn't what the Sith are.

Also, it does seem in part that your point is "They're stronger, so you're wrong", as you bring up the calmer Sidious and Dooku being able to use force lighting, and being more in tune with the force. That doesn't matter to whether they're bad at representing the Sith, so mentioning that only helps the "They're stronger" point.

Smart is a property that exists. The Dark Side does not. The movie creates the Dark Side, and says it's about emotions. You don't get to pretend that the Dark Side is something other than it is just because the Dark Siders we see aren't great at portraying that. 

Yeah, that's what the force is. You don't actually need to outstretch your hand to use it, we see that throughout the films. So Vader should just as easily be able to use the force lightning if that's what we're going with. There's no reason whatsoever to think he couldn't, but again, this point doesn't matter, as even if Maul turned out to have used force lightning in some episode of Rebels I'd missed, that wouldn't mean he's any better or worse at representing the Dark Side just because the show says he's better at it.

"The movie creates the Dark Side, and says it's about emotions. You don't get to pretend that the Dark Side is something other than it is just because the Dark Siders we see aren't great at portraying that. "

The movie also creates the Dark Siders, so why is the Dark Side defined what the Jedi say about the Dark Side and not how the Dark Siders behave? Both are equally from the movies yet you have decided that what the Jedi say is what defines it while the Dark Side users themselves are just poor examples of Dark Side Users. Jedi also consider Dark Siders to be the most evil thing imaginable, which you don't seem to think they are. So are the Jedi right or wrong about the Sith?

 

It's not like the Jedi say the Dark Side is about emotions and the Sith disagree. The Sith also say its' about emotion. As does the good, which holds passion up as a high ideal. It's petty and disingenuous for you to act like this is just something the Jedi came up with when the code you brought up and all the Sith agree with it.

"It's petty and disingenuous for you to act like this is just something the Jedi came up with when the code you brought up and all the Sith agree with it."

Wait...you're not making any sense. Let me recap here a little. You said that emotions are the most important thing about being Sith? I disagreed and said it was selfishness and then re-read the code and realized we were both wrong and it was actually freedom. You still seemed to think it was emotions and said the reason why is because the movies established the dark side and keep saying that emotions like fear and hatred are a path to the dark side. I pointed out that the movies also create the dark side users themselves who aren't that much angrier than everyone else and then questioned why you think the fact that people say something about the dark side outweighs what people attuned to the dark side actually do. You then call me disingenuous for some reason and say that it's all based on the code...which says that freedom not emotions is the most important thing for Sith. So are you saying the code is correct now? That freedom is actually the most important part of being Sith and emotions are just important as a tool to achieve that freedom? Please explain because I have no idea what your opinion on the code is anymore.

The code says it's about freedom and emotions are important. The Sith characters talk about how it's about emotions, as do the Jedi. Then, you act like the Jedi are the only ones talking about emotion, and that if I'm going by their opinion then the Sith must be the most evil things imaginable. So you made a petty an disingenuous point and now seem to be backpedalling. You didn't bring up that it was what people say, you brought up that it was what Jedi say. Specifying Jedi when Jedi and Sith alike agree on it is incredibly disingenuous.

And yeah, the code agrees that emotions are important. I already agreed with the code earlier, using it to point out how Maul also wanted to betray his master. But as we've both agreed, the code holds emotions as high and important.

Yes emotions are important to use to achieve freedom.

I wasn't trying to backpedal, whether I said Jedi or people...I didn't know that was such an important distinction. When does a Sith say that anger is the most important to the dark side? I guess now that I think about it the Emperor does mention that at some point. Alright, I concede this point. I only remembered Jedi ever saying stuff like that.

 

Well no, not "whether". You said Jedi, and then used that to ask whether the Jedi were also right in thinking the Sith was evil? In Rebels and Clone Wars the Sith constantly refer to letting anger take over, as in the original trilogy and the prequels, so there. Anyhow, you've conceded, so I've nothing more to say.

I enjoyed the alternate character interpretation Palpatine earned in the pre-Disneyfication Expanded Universe. Palpatine was a strong force wielder who realized the greater scope threat, the Yuuzhan Vong were about the waltz into the known galaxy (from beyond the known galaxy) and trash the place. He engineered the whole civil war and subsequent perpetual militarization of the galaxy in order to build war industries and experience to prepare them for the upcoming war, knowing peace had made the galaxy fragile.

He then went silly regarding how to handle baby Luke, and well, one less emperor (though as with Maul he got revived and re-revived and re-re-revived whenever an author wanted to trot him out), I found this interpretation of his character to be the most rewarding. A similar role was assigned to Darth Revan in the KotoR series, and for that I praise Revan's design to the high heavens. Side note, KotoR 2's exile is yet another fascinating character offshoot of the Star Wars canon (and in my opinion one of the finest).

@Steve: As for Maul, he was a Zabrak. If you liked him, I suggest you play KotoR2 (it's bargain bin cheap, and after the restoration mod becomes what it was meant to have been), you'll enjoy Bao-Dur.

I think even with the small amount of time he got on the movie screen, they did manage to capture some of the seething hatred his character had.

I still think one of the best examples of that is when he’s fighting Qui-Gon and they both get stopped by the force field.

Qui-Gon does the whole zen centering thing, meanwhile Maul first tries to see if he can get through the barrier some how and when that doesn’t work, he just paces back and forth staring at Qui-Gon probably just making himself more and more pissed off in order to destroy his opponent.

Vader obviously showed more emotion when he wasn't a crippled cyborg in a survival suit.

Uh... yeah, I just pointed out the force field example. I'm not entirely sure why you're repeating it, but cool, glad you agree. 

To be honest I just skimmed the thread and I missed that you said it already.

But in keeping with under used characters, seems like they make a big deal out of bounty hunters characters in general (Boba gets the most attention though) like Zam Wesell or Aurra Sing before these movies come out and then it's a blink and you miss them type thing.

I'm not going to pretend the original writers put that much thought into it, but Darth Vader wasn't really apathetic, and throughout the Expanded Universe, it's implied he's keeping his cool, so to speak, at least in part in order to spite Sideous for putting him in a very painful suit of armor and giving him a torturous existence. The other reason in some far corners the EU and Clone Wars is that he doesn't derive his power from hatred of others, but rather hatred of himself for being seduced by the dark side, killing all the people he did, in a misguided attempt to save the people he loved who died anyway, and the burns and armor that snag on his tissues are a constant reminder. He's apathetic and disinterested because he hates his life, he's going through the motions because he believes that the dark side is inevitable and he's powerless to stop the man he hates from ruining more lives. He experiences a lot of internal anger rather than being outwardly angry like Maul, doesn't mean he's not emotional.

I mean, hey, apparently this is canon, if memory serves.

That was from the "Star Wars Tales" series which even during the expanded universe stuff, a lot of those short stories weren't taken as "canon" even if they were mostly entertaining.

The story from the comic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DKv4DBuheY

Comicvine LIED!? Those bastards.

"He experiences a lot of internal anger rather than being outwardly angry like Maul, doesn't mean he's not emotional."

Even though the comic this is from may not be canon, this line here is a better phrased version of something I was trying to say above. Where Maul's anger is showed in ways I find too simple, like "ooh, he said revenge" or "ooh, he showed his teeth", while Vader has this shell of refineness on which occasionally drops which allows us to see what he's really like.

Dark Vader never expresses a large amount of self-loathing in the original trilogy. I mean, the fact that he's emotionless and wears a mask could allow you to act as if he's expressing that, and that seems to be the path the extended universe writers went, but you could just as easily portray him as a nervous cadet who is in over his head, or a moral extremist, or anything you really want to. 

Why is this reply to me? I in no way said anything about his self-loathing.

Ah shit, fuck it, nevermind. I clicked a bunch of reply things to new pages so I could respond to all of you, got them mixed up. I'm sure I had something to say to you, feel free to just pretend I said something trivial.

Well he was in the original trilogy. There's so much expanded universe stuff of course he gets a lot of cool shit there, but I'm primarily referring to the original. I don't recall any indication that it's self hatred in the Clone Wars, though, which I did follow, although that petered out into shit with the introduction of brainwashing microchips to explain Order 66. Oh, and to my knowledge, that's not Darth Maul being killed, that's his clone, because the extended universe worked with everything. I'm not saying that he's a bad character to any degree, and all the extended focus on him in endless books, comics and everything else meant he's got a lot of work, but just in the original trilogy, he failed as an avatar of the Dark Side.

When was the last time anyone's seen SindriV post this much? I'm kind of amazed.

e: JJJ needs to come back and say something about all of you and your gaping mouth holes

Usually if it's about super hero comic lore or Star Wars he tends to post a lot and in great detail.

Either that or mocking Marmotlord for insisting videogames are a sport.

Clearly the way to summon me has been found.

I don't get what the fuck Steve's talking about. Darth Vader was CLEARLY consumed by rage the entire time.

So, my debate with SindriV got my researching a lot more about Star Wars, and I discovered some cool shit.

General Grievous was apparently this cool alien humanoid on a world that was taken over by insects that were brutal slavers. He led his species against them, before his best friend/mate was killed by one of them. He changed his stupid name to Grievous to grieve for her, and quickly began kicking ass. He forced the insects off world, forcing them back and destroying their empire. Before he got to their homeworld, though, the bugs convinced the Grand Republic that Grievous' species were the evil ones. They send a bunch of Jedi, who stopped Grievous' in his tracks and made him hate the Republic and Jedi, which I like, because it's a legitimate reason to hate the Republic. Grievous was making another attack when Dooku planted a bomb in his ship, killing his allies and badly wounding him. 

Honestly, that annoyed me. It seemed like a weak way to pin the blame on the Sith with a stupid plan of blowing someone up and rebuilding them as a cyborg to convince them to join you, rather than just offering to help win the war with the droid army. It would've been better if his ship was just hit by Jedi fighters in the war, because not everything needs to be black and white. Anyone, Grievous got mad because he wanted to die with his men, but he was rebuilt. He was then given control of a droid army to fight the insects, in exchange for joining the CIS as a general. Anyhow, a cool backstory that I enjoyed.

Also, fuck it, I love all the Separatists. I think their designs are cool from the snail tanks to the battle-droids to the Droidekas. I really enjoy their whole army. For some reason, a lot of Star Wars seems obsessed with painting them as the bad guys, and I think this is stupid. The Galactic Republic was never a perfect system, so having secessionists was natural. Instead, they were painted as the evil pawns of the Sith, even though the Republic was just the same. They half-tried to show some good Separatists in clone wars, which I looked forward to, but that ended in them leaving the Separatists. It was just incredibly frustrating how expendable the droids were supposed to be, even though they had intelligence like droids like R2D2 who we're supposed to care about, the droids clearly want to survive, and they have living commanders and a lot of reason to be likable. Hell, they take prisoners, when the clones don't. Plus, their commanders are sick, like including the cyborg Jedi-hunter Grievous, a cyborg spider admiral, 

On the other hand, the Clones were shown as always good, despite being people bred for warfare without ever having any hope to do anything more. A few EU stuff worked on this, like a Rebel Commander who betrayed the Republic before it became the Empire known as Kadak who was a clone who wanted an identity, but ultimately, it's not focused on much. Even though the droid army and the clone army were both filled with created soldiers fighting for the same leader in a massive scheme, for some reason they still tried to paint it as good vs evil.

Thankfully, Rebels had a cool episode where they show up on a planet still controlled by a Separatist army that refused to deactivate. At first, the surviving clone turned rebel Rex wants to fight them, but after a bit of fighting, they realize they're both pawns and the war is over and was never meant to be winnable by either of them. Plus, the whole fact that the Separatists have even more reason to fight now that the Republic became far worse was brought up. Then, the Droids fight the Empire and a bunch of them even manage to successfully escape off world with the rebels. It was pretty cool, and I want more stuff like that. I mean, there's separatist holdouts that would naturally join the rebels, they're even referenced to in Rogue One. I'd just like a bit more focus on that stuff, really, hope we get more of it.

If you like “What if” scenarios, here’s some “What if” on if the Separatists won or made peace. (The channel is full of Star Wars stuff)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqwe3tepWpo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5zHEk13AcY

I, too, and a big fan of Darth Maul, but I don't think he went out like a bitch.

He clearly won in terms of the actual fight itself when he encountered Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon Jinn. Maul let Qui-Gon tire himself out and took advantage of a fatigued Jedi master, then he toyed with Obi-Wan before dispatching with him easier than he did Qui-Gon. If you read any of the novels and/or comics, you'd know that Maul was simply caught up in the moment of completely pwning these Jedi and this led to him not being able to react well to his surroundings (Darth Sidious would suffer the same fate at hands of Darth Vader). I'm pretty sure even Obi-Wan acknowledged how Maul completely dominated him in that fight, which is why Obi-Wan would later become a master of Soresu - the most defensive form in lightsaber combat.

He then comes back in the Clone Wars and, once again, kicks Obi-Wan's ass at every turn. I mean, can you find an instant where Obi-Wan did anything more than survive his encounter with Maul during that series? Then Maul takes it a step further by killing the only woman that Obi-Wan ever loved. Why? Because Maul wanted nothing more than to see Obi-Wan suffer. Mind you, even though Maul would always get the upper hand on Obi-Wan, Maul was never able to kill him (and revenge is a big part of Sith philosophy). Killing someone Obi-Wan loved was all Maul could do, but that wasn't enough for him,

Maul never suddenly switched his objective. His goal has always been vengeance from the moment he first appeared on the screen. "At least we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi. At least we will have revenge." From the moment Obi-Wan cut Maul in half, Maul decided to make Obi-Wan the object of that desire. If Maul couldn't defeat Obi-Wan and avenge himself, how could he hope to face Sidious? It would fly in the face of everything he stood for.

Also, that final fight between Maul and Obi-Wan was very well done because it outlines the difference with these two characters. Maul and Obi-Wan have fueled each other to progress in different ways. Obi-Wan was able to fuel Maul's anger, thus allowing Maul to gain more power that would eventually lead him to take over the Death Watch and pose a threat to Sidious (okay, not really). Maul pushed Obi-Wan to improve himself as a Jedi through trials of pain and sacrifice. The difference between the two? Maul couldn't let go of the past. In his age, Obi-Wan had gained wisdom and learned from his past mistakes while Maul had clearly learned nothing. Their last fight perfectly displays this.

Take notice of the stance Obi-Wan takes when he and Maul begin their fight. If you've been paying attention, you'd have realized that it was the same Ataru stance that Qui-Gon used when he fell to Maul. Maul realized this and attempted to kill Obi-Wan using the same exact move he used to kill Qui-Gon (seriously, watch both fights and you'll see). Obi-Wan, learning from the past, anticipated this and was able to easily dispatch of Maul.

Even though Maul wanted his revenge against Obi-Wan, I don't think he hated him as much at this point in his life. Maul really wanted Sidious dead. Obi-Wan was just his personal trial. Maul probably knew he couldn't defeat Sidious himself, but he was still set in his convictions to see if through due to his dedication to the Sith and their code. His final words, "He will avenge us," actually made me feel sorry for him. Even in death he is still committed to a Sith code he was never able to fulfill. I also think that by "us" Maul meant the Jedi and the Sith since Sidious used them both to gain power.

Truly a tragic story that is Darth Maul.

Yeah he did. He was kicking absolute as, then Obi-Wan, a fucking padawan does a big flip and cuts him in half. He'd won the fight, but he somehow still lost to a fucking padawan, because he died like a little bitch. Darth Sidious was betrayed, he didn't see that coming, and even then, he still killed him. Darth Maul was focused on an enemy who had lost his ligthsaber and was hanging down a chasm, and yet he was still killed.

In regards to switching goal, he did. It was clear his goal in Rebels was to take down the Sith. They were the object of his revenge, for killing both his brothers and torturing him. He does everything in rebels to find out how to kill them, and then he finds out it's ObI-Wan. Then, he decides killing Obi-Wan, who he just learned is the way to defeat the Sith, is what he's going to do.

In the final fight, Maul was killed again like a bitch. Not sure why you're arguing that, he was again killed in one sword move. Obi-Wan didn't kill him originally through being a better fighter, it wasn't a great stance that got him, it was surprise. Now, even though Darth Maul has always been the superior fighter, is butchered because... he couldn't let go of the past? It was certainly a cool manner in which the producers said they were going for, but that doesn't change the fact that Obi-Wan had been defeated many times before, and had never done this, or that Maul had clearly abandoned his hatred for Obi-Wan and that whole past up until the point where the writers realized they needed to get rid of him. He'd already defeated Kenobi many times before this, so he hd no real reason to have fought Kenobi as a "personal trial" in the first place, anyhow. 

Yeah, clearly. But the thing is, he clearly places a lot of faith in the Sith and Jedi holocrons, and knew that the only way to defeat the Sith, which was his actual objective, was Kenobi. Yet he still went to kill him, clearly enraged, and planned to. Yet when he's struck down, he embraces the person he was wanted to kill at the cost of not having the Sith fall. What's the most absurd thing in this whole thing is that you say this is because of his dedication to the Sith and their code.

There's a reason everyone calls him Maul in Rebels, not Darth Maul. Maul is no longer a Sith. He has abandoned the Sith, and now absolutely despises them, as he constantly says. He has no convictions to follow their code. No, instead the culmination of his journey is to cheaply throwing away on something his character wouldn't have done. The fact that he wasn't a Sith was such an important part of his character that I can't believe you missed. 

So yeah, his story is really only ended by two huge flips, where he tries to kill Obi-Wan again despite knowing he's the only way to take down the Sith because "reasons" and then once again where he feels content knowing that Obi-Wan will help take down the Sith, even though he could've been a part of that.

You forget that in Sidious's case, he was unleashing a torrent of Force lightning which resulted in Vader's death. And yes, that's why Maul was cut in half. He was too full of himself after kicking some Jedi ass and didn't realize that Obi-Wan was focusing on Qui-Gon's lightsaber or that Obi-Wan was planning on doing anything at all. I'm pretty sure its said somewhere that Maul was expecting Obi-Wan to start begging and Obi-Wan was hoping that Maul wouldn't realize what he was about to do.

Maul's goal has always been vengeance, it's just a matter of who he is going after. First the Jedi, then Obi-Wan, then Darth Sidious (not the Sith). I don't think it's stated anywhere that Maul wanted to destroy the Sith itself. Even if it did, it's pretty clear that his only goal is killing Sidious. The Sith didn't do anything to Maul, Sidious did.

Just because you beat someone a few times doesn't mean that you'll always be able to defeat that person. You forget that these aren't the same people that fought so long ago on Naboo (I think it was Naboo). Obi-Wan especially has grown considerably, and he had never had a real 1 on 1 fight with Maul since their duel on Naboo. Every time they've engaged in combat, there has been someone else involved. Also, every time they've fought, Maul was never able to kill him. That's why this is a personal trial. Maul swore to himself that he would claim his vengeance and kill Obi-Wan, but something got in his way every time he tried to do so. For someone like Maul, who strictly follows the Sith code and is bound by his own warrior code, he had to see that through.

I must have missed the part where Maul said he needed Kenobi in order to defeat Sidious. Had he said that, it could be him referring to that personal trial I'm talking about. Maul places so much faith in those because he knows he doesn't have the power to defeat Sidious. Do you not remember how the last engagement between Maul and Sidious went (although it was bullshit since it's stated that Maul is a better duelist, but whatever). Maul knows that he needs to find something to give him a boost. Maul clearly is still dedicated to the Sith code. Did you miss the part where Maul is guiding Ezra and teaches him about the Sith code? Why would someone that no longer considers himself to be a Sith pass that knowledge on to someone else? The fact that no one refers to him as "Darth" Maul is simply due to the fact that he doesn't consider himself to be a Darth, but that doesn't mean he doesn't think of himself as a Sith. Maul said it himself, "Two there must be, no more no less." Maul had no apprentice and he saw Ezra as a candidate. He probably wanted to train him to be strong enough so they could kill Sidious.

The way I see it, Maul's character is very dependent on the Sith code and his own warrior code. He wants to kill Sidious because he feels that he betrayed the Sith and he lacks honor (something Maul has been shown to have).

Yeah, but Sidious was still betrayed. Maul, on the other hand, was in the middle of a battle and seemed to stop paying attention. Obi-Wan clearly isn't going to start begging, he has this determined look on his face, and Maul even starts to realize this while Obi-Wan's still hanging there, and he loses.

Maul says several times he's trying to destroy the whole Sith, he asks the holocrons how to destroy the Sith, he's clearly turned against the Sith as he dropped "Darth" from the name. This is a nonsense point. I'll have a few quotes down in a bit to prove it.

Obi-Wan fought Maul several times, including once where he was captured, in the pirate base, before he executes the duchess where he disarms Kenobi. After this, Kenobi pretty much retires to contemplate and gives away his lightsaber after Order 66. Maul, however, continues, learning secrets from both the Jedi and Sith that are shown to greatly increase power as done with Ezra Bridgers, and also continues to train and practise, as well as fight in practice, killing several Sith Inquisitors.

Maul uses the holocrons to find out how to defeat the Sith. He realizes that's Kenobi, and Kenobi is connected to the Chosen One who will wipe out the Sith. Maul knows that he can't defeat Sidious and his lapdog, and even says "I can't defeat Vader alone", and he learns that the only way is through Kenobi, yet your argument is that he decides to kill Kenobi to test himself. It's strange you point out how Maul teaches Ezra to learn to use hate, but miss the parts where he says he hates the Sith, where he says he's no longer a Sith, where he says he dropped Darth from his name, where he states his plan to destroy the Sith. I'll give a quote.

Ezra: Then, you're a Sith?

Maul: The Sith? The Sith!? The Sith took everything from me, ripped me from my mother's arms, murdered my brother, turned me into a weapon!

***

Maul: I have discovered the key... the key to destroying the Sith.

***

Ezra: You seem to know a lot about the Sith. / Maul: To defeat your enemy, you must know your enemy.

***

So yeah, Maul isn't dependent on the Sith code, and your entire argument is based on falsehoods. Maul certainly doesn't hate Sidious because he feels he betrayed the Sith. Quite the opposite. The Sith betrayed Maul, and for that, he plans to destroy the Sith.

Is it not possible that Maul is simply lying? Consider that he was practically raised to be a Sith by arguably one of the most devious Sith Lord to be produced by the Rule of Two. Hell, when Palpatine is propositioning Anakin to join him he starts by subtling suggesting that the Sith and Jedi aren't very different, then he gradually moves to telling him that only the secrets of the Sith could save Padme. I wouldn't put it past Maul to lie to Ezra about his ultimate intentions. Maul wasn't just teaching Ezra how to use his hate, he was teaching him Sith philosophy. Why would Maul do this if he himself didn't follow the philosophy? It wouldn't make sense. It would be like you or I teaching Christianity to a child even though we're not Christians.

Kenobi was doing more than just contemplating, he was immersing himself in the Force, which if you didn't know can give you a huge edge in combat. It's during this time he learns how to become a Force ghost and who knows what else. It's not far fetched to see how Obi-Wan could have lulled Maul into a sense of familiarity from his duel with Qui-Gon and use that against him. The main reason I say this is because that final fight mirrored that last moments of Qui-Gon vs Darth Maul. I don't see how it is that you disregard this so much. Believe it or not, sometimes wisdom is able to overcome raw power and aggression. Maul tried to kill Obi-Wan the same way he tried to killed Qui-Gon but didn't realize that Obi-Wan was setting him up for that. Maul made a mistake, that's all there is to it. Now, am I saying that Obi-Wan is the better duelist overall? No. But he was able to bait Maul into making a fatal error and you have to credit him for that.

That's the only reason that I can see Maul wanting to go out of his way to kill Kenobi. That last scene didn't imply that he wanted his help nor did he want to talk. Dependent on it may have been the wrong word to use, but it is a big part of who he is, whether or not he wants to admit it. I ask again, if the Sith code had no importance to him, why would he have taught it not only to his brother, but to Ezra as well. And you can't make the argument that it's Maul letting Ezra know how the enemy thinks, because Maul never even mentions that he's reciting the Sith code. From Ezra's POV, Maul is just sharing wisdom.

Ah, I considered you might go this way. No, Maul clearly wasn't lying. He never takes back his Sith title even after his chances at seducing Ezra are long gone, and he shows great anger in talking about them, and he's going after the holocrons to find out how to destroy the Sith, which is what he asks the Holocrons and what brings him to Kenobi. Maul taught Ezra to harness his hate because he plans to use both Sith and Jedi powers alike, such as the Holocrons, to do so. He even says that to defeat your enemy, you need to know them.

Again, Maul had access to the Sith and Jedi holocrons, which give a far greater edge in battle than mere contemplation, as shown to us by how quickly Ezra progresses with the holocrons versus when he's doing normal Jedi contemplation. It's said many times that they're incredibly powerful. Maul's always had a bit of a precognition thing due to the force, as you can see where he blocks a strike in the Naboo fight despite it coming from directly behind it. The idea that with the holocrons, the training and all his power he'd be killed is laughable.

He never taught the Sith code to Ezra. He taught Ezra to harness his anger, sure, but Maul was being practical and taking the best features out of both Jedi and Sith. It's never shown that he's actually staying true to the Sith code. Again, he's not a Sith, he despises the Sith. Maul clearly knew he needed Kenobi to defeat Sidious, and he knew he couldn't do it alone. He didn't follow the Sith code, as he's not a Sith, but he still went after Kenobi. It's foolish, and bad writing that led to a shit finale for such a great character.

I'll give you that much, but it wouldn't be accurate to say that Maul was using anything Jedi-related. Maul sees them as being weak, it wouldn't make sense for his character to suddenly start looking to them for guidance. At least not in the sense of using Jedi powers.

I'm not talking about mere contemplation, but immersion in the Force itself. That is what Kenobi was doing. And yes, that gives a far greater edge than anything else. Sidious himself would attest to that. Also, you may not fully understand what these holocrons can do. They don't, and never have, offered power. They offer knowledge to whomever uses them, assuming that person can use said knowledge correctly. Maul is a warrior by trade, not someone that would look to immerse himself in the Force. For him, it's just a weapon to be used, and Star Wars is filled with stories of people looking to gain such power and knowledge and still losing because they either don't use it right, or because the Force is rejecting them (or something like that). How do we even know Maul was training this whole time? Didn't he lose to Kanan when they fought? Kanan is nowhere near Kenobi's level yet he still managed to defeat Maul. How? Because he gave himself to the Force and allowed it to guide him. Whether or not you like it, that tends to trump any advantage the opposition had prior to going into the fight.

Maul rips lines straight out of the Sith code.

-

Maul: Your anger is a wellspring, you must use it.

Ezra: But...a Jedi is never supposed to act out of emotion.

Maul: Your passions give you strength, and through strength you gain power. You have seen it. You feel it. You must break your chains.

-

It's pretty far-fetched to say that Maul wasn't teaching him the code. And I never saw anything coming remotely close to Maul taking anything from the Jedi teachings. Yeah, then that last part is just stupid and makes no sense; they probably just didn't know what else to do with him.

Maul uses the Jedi Holocron, he clearly values their knowledge and powers just the same. It just seems he focuses on the Sith side, as that's the more powerful in short-term.

They do offer power. Kanan mentions several times at the power they've given Ezra, and Ezra talks about how it's helped him grow. We seem him use the power given to him by the holocron to cause a Stormtrooper to start killing his allies before committing suicide. Maul's been stuck on a Sith temple with only his lightsaber, so it's safe to assume practise would take up a large amount of his time.

Yeah, Maul rips lines out of the Sith Code. He takes what he wants from either side, without being bound by either. His entire character is based around him not being a Sith ,which I've shown, thus, he's not bound to any Sith Code. He'll happily take advantage of the Sith knowledge, however, which he does in using rage to take over.

Well since you agree his death is stupid, I don't know why the fuck you started arguing with me. This whole thing started with me pointing out I loved Maul but thought he was killed in a stupid manner.

No, they don't. They can only offer knowledge. I remember the scene you're referring to in which Kanan notices the differences in Ezra after finding that holocron, but the holocron didn't simply give him power. All they do is store information.

Straight from the wiki page: "Sith holocrons were devices used by the Sith that were capable of containing information...accessible only to those capable of using the dark side of the Force."

"Holocrons were information-storage datacron devices used by both the Jedi Order and the Sith that contained ancient lessons or valuable information in holographic form."

Saying it has helped him grow is accurate, but saying it gave him power (which Kanan never said) is not. That is unless you are saying that knowledge equals power which is literally true in the case of Force users. There are zero examples of holocrons giving anyone raw power. Ezra said that it helped him grow because it taught him things that Kanan never would. Dark side users tend to get that kind of boost (if you could call it that) because their usage of the Force is less restricted than a light side user. And if these holocrons really do offer as much power as you're suggesting, Maul should have made short work of Kanan and Ashoka, but he didn't.

Well he talks like a Sith, acts like a Sith, and fights like a Sith. He's certainly no mere Dark Jedi. Asajj Venturess was a Dark Jedi and she didn't know much about actual Sith philosophy nor cared to learn about it. The Inquisitors as well. Maul must be as Sith as you can get without actually being a Sith then. Kind of like Traya prior to reassuming her position.

Because you called him a bitch.

EDIT: I just saw the scene that you're talking about where Kenobi was the key to destroying the Sith. Maybe Maul intended to kill Kenobi and train Luke himself. It's also possible that Maul simply forgot about his main objective due to his hatred of Kenobi, which isn't unlike him.

Ezra was given the power to brainwash stormtroopers from the Holocron. If you're going to be pedantic, the holocron told him how to do it, but that information is gave directly gave him power. So yeah, Maul was far more powerful because of them. Next.

Doesn't act like a Sith, Sith don't try to wipe out the Sith. He doesn't talk like one, Sith don't talk about not being Sith and hating the Sith. He might fight like one to a degree, but he was trained by one and once was one. But, he wasn't a Sith, and you're just trying to defend a shitty position now.

No, that's not true. The Holocrons told him that Kenobi was necessary to defeat the Sith. He knew that he couldn't just replace him, you're pulling shit out of your ass. You say yourself you don't even think he hated Kenobi, so the latter part is also bullshit. Anyhow, making him immediately change his revenge quest after his two brothers were killed just for his legs is shit, that'd ruin Darth Maul and quite accurately make him a little bitch.

He was far more powerful, yet you can't explain how it is that he still couldn't beat Kanan who had just been blinded via lightsaber injury.

Darth Bane contradicts everything you said in your second paragraph. Seeing to as how he wiped out the Sith and hated what they were (different from Maul's hatred, but hatred nonetheless).

I'm referring to the scene where he and Ezra try to combine the holocrons. Not really pulling anything out of my ass here, just speculating based on Maul's character. If Maul spent his entire life hunting down his enemies only to discover that one of his greatest was still alive, I'd imagine he'd want to correct that. Does it make sense in the long run? No. But I'd say this shows a flaw in Maul rather than the writing. As I said earlier, he couldn't leave the past behind.

This was before he'd used the holocrons, obviously, so he didn't have that power, and he was taken by surprise, as he'd never expect a young apprentice who was just blinded to use the force to see. No such similar circumstances with Obi-Wan, who he'd fought before, and at that point, he had the holocrons helping him. So I can easily do it, yeah.

Wrong. Darth Bane hated the weakness in the Sith and wanted to reform them, which he did. Darth Maul doesn't want to help the Sith and reform them, he wants to destroy them completely. Darth Bane always called himself a Sith and made remade the Sith order, Maul didn't and wanted to destroy the Sith, idiot.

And as you said, he didn't really hate Kenobi. He had many enemies who were still alive, the one of which who had completely taken his rage was Sidious, for the deaths of his two brothers, and the Sith. You agreed it wasn't hate guiding Maul, but the Side Code, which after that was disproved, you've weakly returned to it being hatred. The Holocrons made it clear that the only way to destroy the Sith was with Kenobi. The Sith were Maul's greatest enemy. And yet, the writer's thought it'd be better if he tries to destroy his only path, in something you said wasn't motivated by hatred. You're an idiot, and you're clearly ass-pulling.

Hurling insults like a rage-quitting CoD player isn't going to make your arguments any better, Steve.

You clearly didn't understand how holocrons work, thinking that they just give power to people and you've been clinging on to that line of thought this entire time. Maul wasn't even using the holocrons for that. All he wanted was to find the "Key to destroying the Sith" whatever that may be. Do you really think Maul would have bothered stuffing his head with anything else when he already knows he wouldn't be able to defeat Vader, much less Sidious? It would be a waste of his time (which seemed to be limited at this point). The only instance where we know Maul used the holocrons was to activate that battle station (which failed), to corrupt Ezra, then to find the key to destroying the Sith. Had he used it for anything else, I'm sure it would have been referenced. Also, that's a terrible excuse. Maul is a seasoned warrior and assassin. His senses should have prevented his loss but they didn't. From the wiki:

"Maul arrived to settle the score with his old rival."

"Kenobi soon swapped to Ataru. Recognizing the stance of Kenobi's late master Qui-Gon Jinn, Maul leaped at Kenobi believing he easily could overwhelm Kenobi as he did his master on Naboo...Anticipating Maul's hilt-strike to the head...Kenobi bisected Maul's lightsaber in two while simultaneously mortally wounding him with a slashing blow to the chest."

So it would appear that Maul still hated him. Also, I wasn't changing anything, I told you that I was speculating on his intentions based on what I know of his character (which seems to be considerably more than you do). Maul never stopped hating Kenobi, and I wouldn't put it past Maul to want to use Luke to exact his revenge.

Darth Bane utterly wiped the Sith out. You said a Sith doesn't try to wipe out the Sith and Bane did. Yeah, but I highly doubt Maul wouldn't rebuild it in some way. Maybe under a different name. He's already trying to gain in apprentice in Ezra (which would be the Sith Rule of Two) and it's possible that he would have taken Luke if he hadn't been killed by Kenobi. Turning away from something you've been raised in, especially in this case, isn't so simple for someone that can't let the past go.

You say many enemies but you only name one. Tell me, Steve, how many of Maul's enemies have actually done something considerably harmful/humiliating to Maul and are still living? The first that comes to mind is the leader of Death Watch who betrayed Maul, put him on public display as something to not be feared, imprisoned Maul, then intended to use Maul for his own purposes. Maul, in turn, killed the man in combat without even using his Force powers. I think Sidious really crossed the line when he told Maul he was no longer his apprentice, but a rival. This after Sidious killed Savage Oppress. Of course, Maul couldn't kill him in the conventional means yet. Kenobi pretty much led to all of this happening. Had Maul never lost to Kenobi, Maul would have been able to return to his master's side, he would never have gone mad after losing his legs, he would never have had to witness his brother dying in such a way, etc. Kenobi pretty much ruined Maul's life with one swing of a lightsaber. Maul did beat him, and tormented him, but that clearly wasn't enough.

As to him being a Sith, you're right, in the traditional sense he is not. But that doesn't mean he isn't looking to rebuild it. With the Rule of Two in place, there are few ways to become a Sith: have the current master declare you to be one, kill the current master and take his title, or declare yourself a Sith (still requires killing the others). What's to say that if Maul succeeded that he wouldn't take the mantle himself? When Ezra asks if Maul is a Sith, Maul could have simply said no, but he didn't. And here Maul is teaching Ezra Sith philosophy and ways to use the dark side through a Sith holocron.

No, but I enjoy it, and as my arguments stand on their own merits, I might as well toss a few in.

Clearly not. They gave Ezra the power to mindcontrol an enemy pilot and turn him on his allies. I think it's clear Darth Maul would be eager to grow more powerful from the holocrons, yeah. The dude wants to be more powerful. What, do you seriously think he'd pass up the chance to use them to gain power just because? That is would be a waste of his time to become far more powerful?

Ah, is a wiki writer's opinion more valid than what I garnered through watching the show? You've already agreed Maul wasn't really motivated by hate of Kenobi. Backsliding on your points seems like a weak path to go down.

No he didn't. Darth Bane killed all the other Sith. He remained a Sith, and he didn't stop being a Sith or kill himself. His goal was never to wipe out the Sith, because he was a Sith. It was to kill other Sith. You're either too stupid to understand the difference, or you do, but you're just here to argue mindlessly. Either way, you're clearly wrong. Maul, on the other hand, isn't a Sith, as he makes clear. He seeks to destroy all Sith, not just other potential rivals.

Sidious is still alive, as is his apprentice, Vader.  You've already agreed his hunting down of Kenobi wasn't motivated by hate. Here, let me remind you: "I don't think he hated him as much at this point in his life." So yeah. Maul already pretty much got his revenge on slaughtering someone he loved and/or admired twice, and we agree he doesn't have much reason to hate him. Definitely no more than the man who tortured him, replaced him and killed his brother, while getting another killed. The fact that this can be traced back to Kenobi is trivial: it could be traced back to anyone, including Mother Talzin who let Maul be trained as a Sith, but Maul never hated her. Clearly, he knows his main rival can only be killed with Kenobi. So the idea that he'd try kill his only chance at revenge is absurd. If he really wanted, he could've just killed Kenobi after taking down Sidious.

No, he's not a Sith at all. He's stopped being one. It's mentioned he hates the entire order of the Sith, so he's clearly not trying to rebuild them. He repeatedly says how he wants to destroy the Sith, not just kill Palpatine and Vader and take over, so that's wrong. He's tossed away his Sith title, so it's clear that's not his intention. You're reaching and back-sliding, retard. Try harder, in future.

It's because you know you're full of shit and you're angry because of it.

Once again, they didn't give him the power to do anything, just the knowledge. That you keep thinking that holocrons give people power shows that you don't know anything about them. Ezra already knew how the Jedi Mind Trick works, what he did was just a lethal application of said mind trick. Thing is, it requires digging into emotions that Jedi typically avoid. The holocron, and Maul, taught Ezra to use those negative emotions and this was Ezra applying that knowledge. To your question: yes. It would be a waste of time to chase down techniques that he know won't work against Sidious. Maul would never be able to touch Sidious in terms of raw power. So attempting to gain power through the knowledge a holocron provides would be pointless. It's not the same as Vader who could potentially defeat Sidious. Maul isn't even in their league. That's why Maul wanted to use the holocrons for the battle station. When that didn't work, he sought out something else. At no point does Maul try to use them for anything else. Also, consider what Ezra was able to learn from the holocrons. Do you really think Ezra was learning anything that Maul didn't already know prior to obtaining it? "Use your anger, use your passion, blah blah blah." That's pretty much all we see that holocron do. You can use the same technique (ex: Jedi Mind Trick) and add some anger and you'll get something else.

How is it that you took my direct quote and still manage to twist it? I said he didn't hate him as much, which I stand by. That doesn't mean Maul didn't hate him enough to want to kill him. I explained this based on Maul's convictions. Yes, it does trump it because anyone that payed attention would be able to tell you that that's how Kenobi defeated him. Hell, I told you that before I was even aware that it was in the article. It's painfully obvious and that you keep dick-riding the holocron argument even though I've debunked it is absurd. The only weak path I see is you clinging onto something that is factually inaccurate based on Star Wars lore. Besides, when does Maul even have these holocrons outside of Malachor? He clearly leaves without the Sith holocron as it is still in the temple and Kanan should have had the other one. Either way, Maul didn't have access to the Sith holocron which would have provided more combat-related knowledge inside of it than the Jedi holocron which I'm sure Maul didn't have prior to combining them. So your point is gone even though it was inaccurate to begin with.

The Sith'ari was destined to lead and destroy the Sith and remake it into something greater. If you're destroying the established order of the Sith, then you are destroying the Sith by definition. Bane removed himself from said order prior to wiping them out and rebuilding. Maul is similar in that he is not a Sith, yet still abides by their teachings, and plans to wipe them out. It's the same shit, Steve. You're just twisting my argument just as you did my quote earlier.

Just because you don't hate someone as much doesn't mean the hatred is gone entirely. And I said that because it had been years and Maul thought Kenobi was dead. I also said that Maul still wanted to claim his vengeance, which to him may not have been completed. You don't seem to understand this because you don't know much about Maul and his motivations. Could Maul hate Kenobi more than Sidious? It's quite possible since Maul would still be with Sidious had he not lost to Kenobi so long ago. I'm not sure if you're aware, but Talzin was killed because Maul had her drawn out. It's in the comics. Also, Maul actually has access to Kenobi and the power difference between the two isn't as great as it is between Maul and Sidious. Unlike Sidious, Maul can actually kill Kenobi in straight up combat.

And how do you know he knows that? Those visions, as with all visions in Star Wars, are vague as hell. The Jedi knew Anakin would bring balance to the Force, but didn't realize that included wiping out the Jedi Order. The ancient council knew that the Mandalorian War would lead to a greater war and thus stayed out of it, but didn't realize that staying out of it was the primary cause of the Jedi Civil War that followed. The only thing we know that Maul knew was that Kenobi was on Tatooine and that the key to defeating the Sith had something to do with him. Not that Kenobi is the key to defeating the Sith. And this is proven by the fact that Maul pieces together that Kenobi is protecting someone, which is why Kenobi decided to engage him in combat in the first place - to protect Luke. Maul even asks Kenobi if 'he' is the Chosen One, which could have been referring to Luke.

Again, Steve, you don't know that. Maul is doing things that you'd expect one to do if they're trying to destroy and rebuild like Bane before him. Maul is searching for a new apprentice. Why? Maul is teaching said potential apprentice about Sith philosophy. Why? Maul tries to make potential apprentice complete a rite of passage many Sith apprentices complete prior to becoming a Sith, that being killing someone close to you. Why? You don't really know anything about Star Wars aside from what you see on screen and it's clear that you lack the ability to understand the characters or what is happening. You have nothing backing up anything you've claimed aside from misinformation.

You keep saying that, even though we agree knowledge translates to power pretty easily, as has been shown with Ezra. And then your argument is "It's a waste of time of Maul to become more powerful so that he could, you know, beat Kenobi, or Vader, or Sidious, or any of his enemies", while also saying that he didn't plan to use Kenobi to take down the Sith. So, what, exactly? Maul couldn't use becoming more powerful in any way, even though that's what killed him in the end, and it would certainly be helpful in whatever his plan to get Sidious was? Drivel. Oh, and you say maybe the holocrons didn't have anything to teach Maul. Clear nonsense, given how powerful they were. Next argument. 

Yeah, you made that point, and then you said it was his Sith principals. I pointed out he wasn't a Sith and didn't stand by their principals, so you backslid to "Maybe he was angry enough to kill him". You seem to think you've debunked the holocron argument with "He just didn't want to become more powerful!", which is actually absurd. And yeah, Maul had access to the Sith holocron before he used it to garner his knowledge on how to defeat the Sith. Or, at the Sith temple. There were several points where he could garner their knowledge. It isn't hard; Ezra's been doing it in secret as we learn.

No, that's blatantly false. If you're for legal reform, that doesn't mean you want to destroy the law. Bane wanted to reform and remake the Sith, not destroy them. Otherwise, he wouldn't have continued this. On the other hand, there's no evidence whatsoever to say Maul had any plans of continuing the Sith, and plenty to say he wanted them wiped out completely. Bane was a Sith the whole time. Maul was not. Wrong again, but let's keep going.

Maul never seemed to try particularly hard to track Kenobi down. In fact, there's no evidence for it at all. His objectives are focused on the Sith after his brother was killed. And then you try to argue that Maul might hate Kenobi more than Sidious, which is drivel, because the former only took his legs which were replaced, the latter took his brothers. But no, the fact that you're backsliding is pushed aside. Anyhow, wrong again. Talzin was killed by Sidious letting Maul escape, it wasn't an actual attempt to kill her on Maul's part. The man was planning to resurrect her, for fuck's sake. Then, he begs for his Mother to kill him so she can live, you stupid retard. But no, your argument is that Maul wanted to kill Kenobi and allow Sidious to never be defeated just because.

No, as Ezra clearly garners, Kenobi is the key to defeating the Sith, as he tells Kanaan.  So this long-ass point is nonsense.

Maul wants an apprentice to help him kill Sidious. He says he hates the Sith and wants them destroyed, he asks the holocrons how to destroy the Sith rather than just, say, Sidious, yet you're arguing "No, maybe not". You complain about my information, yet your only argument is "Maybe Maul's words and actions and plan didn't really represent what he was about!" Pathetic. Anyhow, try again, or don't, either one will amuse me. Maybe try get some new points, while you're at it, these ones are soundly defeated.

Sure, but that goes only to an extent. For instance, Vader could find a holocron to teach him how to use Force lightning, but that wouldn't make him any more powerful, now would it? Are you serious? Maul didn't even know Kenobi was alive when he found the holocrons. He only learns this upon using it for that vision, then we never see him use them again. Point blank period. Your entire argument about Maul using them to gain power is gone since Maul never used them aside from powering the battle station and seeing how he could destroy the Sith. Yeah, he couldn't use it because it would have been a waste of time. Maul isn't known for being the most patient person in the world nor would he be foolish enough to think he could touch Sidious when Sidious absolutely destroyed him when they dueled and Maul was in better fighting condition. Holocrons are not powerful, Steve. Pull your head out of your ass for one second and know this already. Artifacts are powerful. You know, like that artifact Exar Kun used that allowed him to blast someone with pure Force energy. Then that artifact that Vader was trying to obtain that would have allowed him to kill Sidious. Artifacts give you power. Holocrons give you knowledge. That knowledge is only useful to those that know what to do with it.

I never backslid, you're just saying that I did. Maul still clearly abides by the Sith principles and you'd know this if you listened to him speak to Ezra. There you go misrepresenting what I said. I debunked what you said about the holocrons because Maul didn't even have the holocrons, you dishonest shit. He left the Sith holocron on Malachor and I'm sure Kanan had the other one. We never see Maul with the holocrons again until he captures Ezra and the crew and combines them. Then he leaves without them...again. So when did Maul have access to these holocrons? Did Maul say he had been studying them? Maul knows they exist, but that doesn't translate to "I've been using them." And you just said that Maul lost to Kanan because he hadn't used the holocrons that apparently give you an instant boost, so which is it, Steve? Also, Ezra had possession of the Sith holocron for a longer period of time than Maul had it.

It's in his actions, Steve. "Oh hey, I hate the Sith and everything about them. By the way, have you heard of the Sith code, you should try practicing it. Oh, while I'm at it, let me teach you to think and fight like a Sith. And take this holocron, it's full of Sith knowledge. It'll make you more Sith-like. Before we finish up, you should go through this rite of passage that is typically done to someone before they become a Sith apprentice, because reasons. Oh, cool, looks like it's just you and me now. Now, let me tell you about the Rule of Two..." Everything Maul is doing with Ezra follows what you'd expect a Sith master to do in order to gain an apprentice. A Sith apprentice. You said earlier that Maul was pulling from the Jedi as well. Okay, give me one example of Maul saying anything that was Jedi-like where he clearly wasn't bullshitting.

You clearly missed the point of what I said. None of these things would have happened (at least not to the extent that they did) if Maul never lost to Kenobi. Losing to Kenobi is what caused the rest of Maul's story to go the way it went. You're dumb as shit if you don't realize this. And you're right, Maul didn't try hard to find him after he had already gained the knowledge of his whereabouts from the holocron. What's you're point? Actually, she was killed by Grevious, but you were saying that Maul could blame her and she was still alive. My point being she was dead. And I don't even know why you'd say that Maul would see her as someone to take vengeance on when it's clear she didn't have much of a choice in giving him up.

You keep ignoring the point I'm making and I think you're doing this on purpose. Visions are always vague, and it's clear that Maul realized what it meant upon reaching Kenobi. Also, Maul states his intentions explicitly:

-

Maul: I've come to kill you, but perhaps it's worse to leave you here...festering in your squalor.

-

Maul: Why...come to this place? Not simply to hide. Oh...you have a purpose here. Perhaps you are protecting something. No...protecting someone.

Obi-Wan: *Ignites lightsaber*

-

 Okay, and? It doesn't matter what Ezra thinks. This is Maul we're talking about, no? Besides, the only thing Ezra said to Maul about this subject was, "He's alive. I can't believe he's alive!"

Yes, he says asks for the key to defeating the Sith. Guess what, Steve? Sidious just so happens to be a Sith, and Vader is the apprentice that replaced him. No it wasn't Dooku because Maul already figured that Dooku was just being used. Saying he wants the key to defeat the Sith, the key to defeat Sidious, the key to defeat Vader, the key to defeat Vader and Sidious, it would have given him the same answer. Luke was the key to defeating all of them and Kenobi was Luke's guardian. I'm basing this off of what Maul's words and actions show while you're doing the opposite. You haven't done anything, Steve. You just keep dodging my points and misrepresenting the ones you don't dodge. Then you pretend you've defeated the point. You're full of shit.

No, Vader couldn't, he doesn't have arms. Once again, showing your lack of knowledge in the field. But yeah, the powerful holocrons would've made Maul more powerful with their knowledge, obviously. Maul's not at a point where he knows more than they could teach him. Maul had the holocrons for a while there, and at the Sith Temple, where he clearly investigated them enough to figure out how to activate the super-weapon. But yeah, your last sentence is the weakest. You seriously think that Maul wouldn't know how to use the power, even though it was so easy that a mere apprentice to a Jedi apprentice would? Pffh, next.

Oh, you're still on this. No, he's not a Sith, he's not bound by Sith principles. This has been disproven, look up. You don't have any new arguments, so no need to debunk them. Oh, and Maul didn't lose to Kanaan because of a lack of using the holocrons, he lost because he was taken surprised that a blind Jedi apprentice could fight as well as Kanaan did right after being blinded.

Yeah, his actions. "Mirror Mirror on the wall, how do I destroy the Sith?" Or "Yeah, Ezra, I want to destroy the Sith. Use their poewrs against them, because to defeat your enemy, you need to think like them," which is something he actually says. Followed by "Oh yeah, and I want to use the knowledge of the Sith AND Jedi Holocrons." Which again, shows he wants to take the best of the Jedi and the Sith. Maul doesn't speak like a Jedi, because he isn't a calm, meditate type of dude. Still, he's happy to use the Jedi Holocron, which is an example of him taking from the Jedi.

No, you missed the point of what I said. Mother Talzin is responsible, as she gave him up to be taught by someone who'd later kill his brothers. Yet he's willing to die for her, which you argued against, then lost, and backslid to this. Talzin failed to take care of her own kids, that's what caused Maul's pain. Yet Maul is willing to die to resurrect her, which shows just how bullshit your argument is. Next.

Yeah, Maul is there to kill Kenobi. I've never disagreed with that. I've argued that it's a stupid, absolute change of objective for a man who spent ages trying to wipe out the Sith, only to decide to kill the only way to do so.

Maul got the same information as Ezra, both in the first and second ritual. So he'd know the same, no?

Maul doesn't ask how to kill Sidious. He doesn't constantly complain about wanting to kill only Sidious and Vader. No, he talks about wiping out the Sith, destroying the Sith. Not just Sidious. My arguments are all based off what Maul says and does, yet your argument seems to be "Maybe he didn't mean what he said, and maybe he threw away his Sith title just because, and maybe he wanted to kill his only way to defeat Sidious just because, and maybe he asked how to destroy the Sith rather than take down Sidious and Vader just because".

So, please feel free to come up with any new arguments. Don't bother bringing up the ones that you've said before, be it "Knowledge isn't power and!", "Maul doesn't want more power!" "Maul wanted to kill his only way to defeat Sidious because... reasons", "Maul IS a Sith despite his words and actions" or any of that drivel. Try make an argument based of the show, or really any star wars, not just your nonsensical drivel.

That's the point, dumbass. All the knowledge in the world won't help you if you aren't capable of pulling it off. It's safe to say that Maul hit his peak long ago while Sidious and Vader only grew stronger. He had them for a while while he was there? You mean that brief period where they were trying to activate the station? Yeah, he could have certainly learned a great deal from that holocron while focusing on his objective of activating the station and dealing with Kanan one ear and the Inquisitors trying to kill him. He knew what it could do, tell me how that proves that he used it personally. Tell me where we see him use it personally. You keep saying you're basing this off of what you saw on-screen yet you're basing your argument on things that must have happened off-screen even though there is no evidence backing it. Try again.

You lack consistency. So, he must have fallen to Kenobi because he just wasn't paying attention again? Right? This after he gained this bullshit holocron-based power up? Maul had no excuse to lose to Kanan in this instance. He had been battle tested more than enough times to not be taken by surprise the way you're describing it. Maul didn't even have to touch Kanan to beat him, he could have just used the Force to incapacitate or kill him at that point.

Wrong, Steve. He only uses the Jedi holocron in conjuction with the Sith holocron so he can find the key which led him to Kenobi. He's using a Jedi holocron, but I'd hardly call that taking from the Jedi unless you mean to literally steal from them. He didn't care for Jedi teachings or anything of the sort. Why would he? At this point, he had never encountered a Jedi that could match him in battle outside of Kenobi. And even that wouldn't matter at this point because Maul had later beaten Kenobi multiple times and thought he was dead. Maul only cares about vengeance, something he learned from the Sith; he fuels himself with negative emotion, something he learned from the Sith; he teaches the Sith code, something he learned from the Sith; he still calls himself Maul; a name given to him by the Sith. Kenobi even comments on this when they encounter each other. Kenobi rose above the past while Maul can't escape it.

I'm sure Maul's "survival of the fittest" way of doing things understands that when Sidious asks you to do something, you don't have much of a choice. He at no point showed that he had any ill will towards his mother which shows that he neither blamed her nor did he hold a grudge against her. You're arguing that he should is irrelevant because he clearly doesn't. So I don't know why you'd bring her up in the first place It's a non-point.

And I'm saying that it isn't a complete shift in his objective. He never said he didn't want to destroy the Sith anymore. He found out Kenobi was the key to do so. You foolishly thought this meant that Maul needed him because you don't seem to understand how vague Force visions always are. Maul arrives and realizes that Kenobi is protecting the actual key to defeat the Sith. If Maul wants that key, he'll have to go through Kenobi. Maul figures this out within a minute or two yet you still don't get it through the entirety of this discussion.

Again, you're completely missing the point. Sidious and Vader are the Sith. How do you not know this? There are only two. Maul knows this. Destroying the Sith would mean killing Sidious and destroying everything he has since the current Sith revolve around Sidious because he is the master. But as I said, even if he wanted a way to destroy Sidious specifically, it likely would have given the same answer since Luke was the only way. Get it?

You seem to be deluded on what I've been saying. Maul isn't a Sith but he still follows Sith philosophy. Know that shit already. A toddler just discovering Star Wars would be able to figure that out since he's as Sith as you can get without actually being one. Also, I've been the one that's actually proving evidence whereas you've provided nothing.

You wouldn't accept that Maul lost to Kenobi because...holocrons. I provide a source explaining that they're just information devices and how Kenobi mirroed Qui-Gon and Maul fell for it. You disregard the latter then keep arguing against the former despite it being a fact straight from the lore. You say Maul isn't teaching the Sith Code, so I provide the quote of him ripping from the Sith code. Then you say he's taking bits from both side but provide no evidence supporting that. You swear that Maul knew that he needed Kenobi, then I explain that Maul probably wanted to kill him and use Luke to destroy the Sith. Then I provide evidence and you promptly dodge it again. You're terrible at this.

Also, while we agreed that knowledge can equal power, you've been using power in a different way. You keep saying, "Oh, Maul had the power from the holocron. Ezra was given power from the holocron. Maul lost to Kanan because he didn't have the power from the holocron." You clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about and still think that holocrons increase someone's raw power. You're wrong, and you suck dick for pocket change. Accept it.

Yes, because one someone becomes too old, knowledge is no longer able to help them. Weak, next.

Oh, the scenes are in the same placed where he secretly plots to become a Sith. Next.

He's faced Kenobi, and had no reason to think Kenobi was defeated, unlike an apprentice you just blinded. Next.

Yeah he does, he uses their knowledge, just like he uses Sith knowledge. It just so happens Sith knowledge makes you more powerful, short term, at least, so he focuses on that. Next.

Ooh, an exception. He'd never faced a Jedi who could beat him, besides the Jedi that beat him. So he has faced Jedi who could face him and beat him. Good to know. Nice try, but next.

My pointing out how he should blame his mother is only as irrelevant as you saying he should blame Kenobi for someone else killing his brothers. Yeah, bullshit, if anything, he'd blame his Mother for being seduced by the Sith and failing to protect him. Next.

Maul KNEW that Kenobi was the key to defeating the Sith, as Ezra knew, and they shared knowledge, but he decided to kill him anyway. Ezra doesn't say Kenobi's protecting the key, he says he is. Which is true, as it's Kenobi's training that makes Luke able to defeat the Sith. Pathetic argument. Next.

Wrong again. If Maul follows the Sith philosophy, he is a Sith, and thus destroying the Sith would be killing himself as well. If he doesn't follow the Sith philosophy... well, you're wrong again. So no, you're fucked either way. Next.

Well no, I explained multiple reasons. Holocrons, the fact he's beaten him several times before, the fact Kenobi hasn't trained while Maul has only grown more and more powerful.  Next.

Maul takes from both sides, again, he's just as happy to use the ways of the Jedi through their holocron. Next.

Maul isn't a Sith? Huh, you've implied the opposite. Maul probably knew he couldn't defeat Sidious himself, but he was still set in his convictions to see if through due to his dedication to the Sith and their code." So even though he has dedication to the Sith and their Code, he doesn't like them? Even though he asks the Holocrons to destroy the Sith, not "Destory Palpatine and Vader"? Even though he talks about hating the Sith, not Palpatine and Vader, after being asked if he's a Sith? Shitty argument, stop making it. Next

So knowledge can equal power. "They don't, and never have, offered power." Seems you were wrong then. Good to know. Nex... oh, you're done. Weak.

Ooh, you tell me I suck a dick for money?! Oh my! Hurling insults like a rage-quitting CoD player isn't going to make your arguments any better, faggot. Let's see if you can rustle up any new arguments this time, or if you're going to continue whining about how despite Maul's words, actions and motivations, he's really actually a Sith, but not really, but he follows the Sith ways. Good look, try again next time.

If that knowledge is a technique that requires a level of stamina or raw power that you don't have or can't obtain, yes.

I've seen all the instances where Maul is with the holocrons and he never uses them for any reason outside what I stated.

Let's see: He just killed Kenobi's master, then kick Kenobi's ass, pushed Kenobi into a pit where Kenobi would cling desperately as to not fall to his death, and for good measure he kicked Kenobi's lightsaber down said pit to render it useless. Maul had every reason to think he was defeated. Kenobi was a slip of a finger away from plummeting to his death and, as far as Maul knew, he didn't even have a weapon.

So now you're moving the goalposts. First you were saying that Maul was taking the best bits from the Jedi and Sith, now Maul was just using that one piece of knowledge. The implications of the former don't match the latter, Steve.

Right, did you miss the rest? Maul knew what led to his defeat and came back and kicked Kenobi's ass every time that followed up until Maul's death. Stop dodging.

Wrong again. His loss to Kenobi was within Maul's control. Kenobi actually cut him in half and sent him into madness as he fought for survival. Maul clearly doesn't blame his mother for anything, but he does blame Kenobi. It's just that simple.

Wrong again. Have we been watching the same show? Maul, just seconds before his final fight, realized that Kenobi was protecting the one that would destroy the Sith. Hence his final words. It doesn't matter what Ezra thought because he and Maul don't think alike. Also, Ezra never said Kenobi was the key. All he said was "Twin suns," then they were blasted back. Then he commented on how Kenobi was alive. Maul was able to realize that there was more to it than just "I need Kenobi." The Force rarely if ever gives such a direct answer to these kind of visions.

You don't understand how it works then, Steve. Allow me to educate you. Two there must be, a master to hold the power and an apprentice to crave it. Maul considered himself a Sith even after his initial loss to Kenobi because he was still working to aid Sidious's efforts. Maul himself says this before he fights Sidious. However, during this duel, Sidious tells him that Maul had been replaced and is no longer his apprentice. At this moment, Maul knows that, based on the Rule of Two, he was not a Sith. That's why I said he is not a Sith in the traditional sense because that would require Sidious to give his title back. That being said, he clearly follows Sith philosophy, but he isn't recognized as a Sith because of the Rule of Two. Look at Darth Vader, he is a Sith but Maul follows the code better than Vader ever did. Windu was said to pull from Sith teaching (it's how he developed his lightsaber form), but he's not a Sith. Kreia followed Sith teachings, but she wasn't a Sith until she reclaimed it. I could go on. In Maul's case, he pulled exclusively from the Sith code and not the Jedi or anywhere else. He also believed in the Rule of Two, which is probably what prevented him from claiming he was a Sith while he still followed the teachings.

He's grown more powerful yet he still lost to a scrub. Hell, Maul even had a hard time with Ashoka. Any excuses for that too? I already told you why he lost to Kenobi. Kenobi was able to take advantage of Maul's inability to let go. Also provided you with a source. There is no evidence suggesting Maul has grown in power, quite the opposite.

He uses the "Ways of the Jedi" through their holocron? You do realize that unlike Sith holocrons, Jedi holocrons don't require you to use the light side of the Force to open them? And that they can contain literally anything? Maps, recordings, visions, etc. Maul doesn't even need to use Jedi teachings in order to see it. If anything, you could say that Maul needed Ezra for that since Maul couldn't initially see the vision until after Ezra was able to. Maul clearly isn't pulling anything from the Jedi.

You can't be this stupid, Steve. Sidious and Vader ARE the Sith. What about that are you not getting. There are only two. Remember? That Rule of Two that dictates how many Sith there are at any given time? The Rule of Two that even Sidious (loosely) follows. The rule that Maul taught Ezra about? You, once again, are skipping over parts of what I'm saying. I just told you that the vision he received would have been the same if he asked for a way to destroy either of those two or the Sith because it would all go back to Luke. Especially since those two are the Sith, it's the same shit. And no, Maul isn't a Sith for the reasons I've stated above.

Yes it does but not in the sense that you're using it. Which I said, and you ignored, again, because you can't help but be intellectually dishonest when you're getting your ass handed to you.

There you go being all homophobic again, Steve. You probably do, and you hate yourself for it. I see it in you whenever you get rattled in a debate. It reminds you of those nights on the corners of the street with dick in your mouth because you're being fucked in both cases. So you vent your anger towards others by hurling insults like "faggot" at them because it makes you feel good. But I see right through you, Steve. You have so much anger within you, but you don't use it properly.

Yeah right, after seeing Maul's abilities is taking out Inquisitors, he clearly wasn't able to learn any of the Force secrets. Nah, try again.

Same one where he plots with the Sith, mate, try again.

No, we're not talking about that time, idiot. We're talking about the second time, where he's faced Kenobi before, knows how powerful he is, and sees he's armed. You're the one who brought this up, don't know how you made that mistake. Try again.

Maul is willing to take the best bits from both Jedi and Sith. We see him do so. Your response isn't one. Next.

What question? Your example was "Maul never lost to a Jedi" before you pointed out how he did. You're proven wrong by your own statement. There's not even a rebuttal here, so... try a first time?

And his mother actually made deals with Sith, and failed to protect him, sending him down a road of hatred and pain, killing his two brothers, getting him cut and in half and sending him down a path of madness. There's no rebuttal here, just you saying "No, I'm right" and not justifying it. Try a first time.

Nope, Ezra, who has the same information as Maul, says that Kenobi is the key, which he is, as he sets Luke down his path. Followed by the fact when he went there to kill him, he definitely didn't know of Luke. Try again.

Wrong. Maul claimed he was a Sith while knowing Sidious and Dooku both existed as master and apprentice. Try again.

And again, you're failing. Maul takes from the Jedi, just as easily from the Sith. He uses their holocron and knowledge. Try again.

Nope, Maul says he hates the Sith, not referring to the people, but the entire Sith. The Rule of Two is meant to display a rule to be followed, it's not solid. Dooku has Ventress at the same time Sidious is around. So wrong, try again. Good attempt at a new argument, though.

Weak. Not even an argument, just you fumbling words. Doesn't even deserve a "Try again". Fuck off, faggot.

Oh, am I homophobic for insulting you? Don't worry, it's not your closeted homosexuality, it's your faggotness. Come on then, give it another go. You came up with a whole new argument this time! It was awful, but I liked that you tried! God boy! Now, stop being a faggot and keep trying, you pathetic fuckwit, or maybe just go choke on your mum's dildo. Either works. 

And still he lost to a Jedi scrub.

Cool, so it doesn't exist. At what point are you actually going to provide evidence to back up what you say?

Sounded like you were referencing their very first fight. In any case, you still never addressed that point. You're saying that with all of these power-ups that Maul should have won, but he didn't. I told you why he didn't, and provided sources confirming it int he canon, you have nothing.

Okay, prove it.

The question is why would Maul feel the need to pull anything from the Jedi. He has no reason to think it would make him stronger. I told you he's never lost to any Jedi aside from Kenobi whom he would later repay in defeat multiple times over. Thus, Maul would be rightfully think that the Jedi are weaker than the Sith, especially given that when Kenobi did beat him that first time, it was due to Maul fucking around, not because his combat ability was inferior.

Again, Ezra's thinking doesn't matter. Steve, did you know that you can give the same information to two people and they could process said information in a different way and have a different perspective on it? I know, this must come as a surprise to you, that people aren't hive minds and are actually capable on independent thought. You're right, he didn't know about Luke...until he figured out Kenobi was protecting someone. I gave you the quote of that scene above if you took the time to read it. Oh yeah, you probably ignored that too.

Okay? That doesn't disprove my point. Maul was still doing what he was doing for Sidious's favor. It wasn't until Sidious told Maul that he has become a rival that Maul would stop seeing himself as a Sith.

No he doesn't.

The entirety of the Sith includes Sidious and Vader. If there are any other Sith out there, perhaps you could provide me with a source to prove me wrong? No? Then stop arguing a point you can't win on. Ventress wasn't a Sith, she was a Dark Jedi. There is a difference. At no point was she called Darth anything. Not by Dooku, not by Kenobi, not by Anakin, not by Sidious. So, Steve, tell me who else the Sith could be besides Sidious and Vader. A source or two would help you're argument considerably.

Not an argument because you know you can't counter it.

Yes, you are very homophobic. Not towards me, of course because I don't swing that way. I already told you that your self-hate is obvious in your chosen methods of verbal attack, Steve. It's unfortunate that you can't find a better way to deal with your homophobic self-hate aside from slapping your own labels on to others. Did I touch a nerve when I mentioned you sucking dick pocket change? Did it bring back some bad memories? Now, from what you're telling me you also practiced dick sucking with your mother's sex toys, which tells me she must have been a very depraved woman and you were a weird, sick, sick boy. This would explain why you pretend to like both dick and vagina, you're confused. God isn't going to be able to save you, Steve. No matter how much you beg for him to. What's especially disturbing is that you want me to stop being a faggot but then beg me to keep fucking you as I am in this debate. Your sadism has no place in this discussion, Steve.

Yeah, people get taken surprise. Unless you're going to argue that Maul is such a bitch that he's weaker than Jedi Apprentices. If not, we're agreed, and you've conceded this point.

No, seeing as you brought it up. Again, he was taken by surprise in the first fight, as said. Nothing there, though. Next.

Wrong again. Ezra and Maul exchange the information they got in the second ritual, and Ezra knows. He doesn't think, he knows. Because that's what the Holocron told him,, clearly enough that he knew it. This might surprise you, but most people aren't the kind of idiots who when given information they try to strangle it into their view point. Next.

Already done, he takes from the holocrons. Next.

Lost to Kenobi, knows tales of the Jedi defeating the Sith before, and all the legendary Jedi masters. Next.

Already defeated this point, and then you lying about me not answering your point, even though it's clear Maul didn't know of Luke, and went to Tatooine to kill Kenobi, which is what was incredibly stupid. Next.

You skipped the point on Talzin, so I'll consider it conceded. Nice.

Yeah it does. Maul still was a Sith when both Sidious and Dooku existed. So he doesn't believe there can be only two Sith. Next.

He does use the Jedi Holocron and it's knowledge, thus taking knowledge from the Jedi. You're lying. Next.

Either Maul considered himself a Sith and was going to continue the order afterwards, in which case you're wrong, or Maul wasn't a Sith, in which case he again wasn't bound by their principles and wouldn't have gone after Kenobi. Maul doesn't say he wants to destroy Palpatine and Vader, he refers to the entire Sith organization. Prove any evidence whatsoever that he planned to restart the Sith afterwards or you've lost.

Not an argument because you don't disagree. "The Holocrons give power" is what I said. You agreed, but then not really, because power was being used wrong. If you have any disagreement, provide the definition of power you were using.

A little bit advice for your future, the "I hit a nerve" bit only works when you actually hit a word. Like, I'd have to actually appear upset afterwards. I mean, the idea that I literally was given pocket change for fellatio clearly isn't true, so the idea that you hit a nerve is absurd. Also, "I know you are, but what am I" is possibly the weakest response someone can give, so avoid using that. Then there's a boring appeal to God, which I don't think you believe in, but you might, I'd put in in the realms of your stupidity. Never mind. Oh yeah, last bit, when you're trying to find a persona to fit in, be consistent. Not this "Aw, you're a homophobic meanie and words can upset me! Also, you're a filthy bisexual and that's wrong!" Try more one or the other. Now you're more akin to the product of a Cogite being raped by a Westboro Baptist.  Anyhow, I truly hope you take this advice so I at least have someone have worth arguing with. If not, I suppose you can just keep withering on like this, it's amusing to watch you squirm, if nothing else. Best of luck.