Top 5 KOTOR 1 and 2 foes.

[DeathScepter]

Understatement of the Year: A n00bie, OPG really is. No logic he has when arguements are in debate.

[Darth Mortis]

But it is NOT HIS power. I am talking about if palps were to fight ONE ON ONE and ancient sith lord he would be in for s surprise.

 

And what did I say at the end of my last post...?;

Palpatine relyed on deception backed up by force, while Sith Lords before Darth Bane relyed on force backed by deception. In a battle of wits Palpatine would win, in a test of pure strength in a fight he'd lose against one of the older Sith Lords. But this would be less to do with their power than it would be the lack of experience Palpatine had in that type of conflict

 

You are just reading what you want to to read, not what is there.

 

What he said still made ZERO sense. No way in all logic that palpatine could BEAT nihulis. He's wrong. Yeah you heard me right. He either needs to go and rewrite the old history of the sith to make palps more powerful or except the fact that he ALLOWED creations of more power sith (mabey a different type of sith than palpatine though).

followed by;

And that is not a feat of HIS power according to me but others

.

 

Translation; I'm ignoring inconventiant truths-such as George Lucas being God as far as Starwars is concerned while in comparison I'm a turnip.

 

And intellegence is not POWER.

 

Some one else want to take that one up? Its too easy.

 

So palpatine on his own right isn't as powerful as everyone makes it out to be.

 

Niether is Revan, or Mace Windu, or Yoda....or Nillius for that matter.

[Guest The Architect]

Well, looks like you're doing a good job there arguing against OPG's garb ... comments Darth Mortis, so no need for me to repeat what you've said in probably a less articulate way.

 

All I'll say is, yes, Darth Nihilus would kill anyone in combat who isn't a wound or void in the Force, yet that doesn't make him more powerful than Palpatine. Huh you say? Well, clearly OPG you don't understand how Nihilus became the "thing" that he was in TSL. If you did, you wouldn't be arguing that Nihilus is more powerful than characters like Palpatine, Yoda, and Luke.

 

Perhaps {but not today} I'll start a thread discussing the connection between the Exile and Darth Nihilus, and maybe, just maybe if you read what I have to say and comprehend it, you'll see that Nihilus' ability to drain the life of an entire planet wasn't because he's an uber powerful Force God.

Edited June 27, 2007 by The Architect

[OverPowered Godzilla (OPG)]

Well, looks like you're doing a good job there arguing against OPG's garb ... comments Darth Mortis, so no need for me to repeat what you've said in probably a less articulate way.

 

All I'll say is, yes, Darth Nihilus would kill anyone in combat who isn't a wound or void in the Force, yet that doesn't make him more powerful than Palpatine. Huh you say? Well, clearly OPG you don't understand how Nihilus became the "thing" that he was in TSL. If you did, you wouldn't be arguing that Nihilus is more powerful than characters like Palpatine, Yoda, and Luke.

 

Perhaps {but not today} I'll start a thread discussing the connection between the Exile and Darth Nihilus, and maybe, just maybe if you read what I have to say and comprehend it, you'll see that Nihilus' ability to drain the life of an entire planet wasn't because he's an uber powerful Force God.

 

 

What does it matter how or why he could could do it all it matters is that he could meaning if he were to fight another force user he COULD kill them. If he BEATS palpatine that makes him more powerful in my opinion.

[Xard]

Frankly my dear you're opinions are nothing but loads of ****

[Rosbjerg]

What does it matter how or why he could could do it, all it matters is that he could, meaning if he were to fight another force user he COULD kill them. If he BEATS palpatine that makes him more powerful in my opinion.

 

A bear is physically stronger than a human, but is it more powerful?

 

Nihilus became powerful to a point where that power consumed him - he lost control - without control you are like a raging beast. It's hard to compare the two - Palpatine would never face Nihilus in a head on battle, because that would be suicide, he would use cunning and defeat Nihilus by exploiting his weaknesses - and I would argue that this is a stronger power than raw force.

[OverPowered Godzilla (OPG)]

What does it matter how or why he could could do it, all it matters is that he could, meaning if he were to fight another force user he COULD kill them. If he BEATS palpatine that makes him more powerful in my opinion.

 

A bear is physically stronger than a human, but is it more powerful?

 

Nihilus became powerful to a point where that power consumed him - he lost control - without control you are like a raging beast. It's hard to compare the two - Palpatine would never face Nihilus in a head on battle, because that would be suicide, he would use cunning and defeat Nihilus by exploiting his weaknesses - and I would argue that this is a stronger power than raw force.

 

 

The bear IS MORE POWERFUL. That's why humans RUN when they see them. If we use guns to shoot a bear that is not OUR POWER bacause it was done with the gun.

 

 

Ok with palpatines vast intelect how the hell is he going to beat him huh? And machines do not count for palpatines power. I am tlaking about their power in the force and it matters not if he is in control because he still has MORE POWER. Put them in a fight one on one. Nihilus wins with ease. To run and hide behind machines is *cowardly*.

 

 

 

 

Don't be mad the Exile would own palps in a FIGHT.

 

Don't be mad all it took was 4 jedi to beat palps.

 

 

Don't be mad luke beat this "all powerful sith *apprentice*".

 

Don't be mad yoda faught to a draw.

 

Don't be mad your dream character *is a* punk and hides.

 

 

Don't be mad palps has to rely off others to achieve power that he doesn't have because he is weak.

 

 

Don't be mad that you can't argue against me.

 

Don't be mad that palps can't win a saber duel with half the other ancient sith lords.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Rosbjerg
profanity

[Musopticon?]

Am I the only one who finds this to be the height of internet entertainment?

[Darth Mortis]

The bear IS MORE POWERFUL. That's why humans RUN when they see them. If we use guns to shoot a bear that is not OUR POWER bacause it was done with the gun.

 

That is, quite possibly, the most stupid comment I've ever read on these forums. Humans invented guns, and gun powder therefore the power is ours. You are talking purely about physical strength, and if that was all power of any kind relied on humans would be extinct. Human power comes from our minds and the ability to make tools.

 

Am I the only one who finds this to be the height of internet entertainment?

 

No, its not everyday you meet someone who can type while wearing a straight-jacket......

[Purgatorio]

Am I the only one who finds this to be the height of internet entertainment?

You're not alone.

 

OPG,

.... how difficult is it to understand the concept of slavery?

If Nihilus was in control of his power (force Slurp) he would be the master of his power and since it's so.... powerful, (such eloquence) he would be the most powerful.

However, he isn't, as has been explained countless times by Architect and Darth Mortis. You have ignored logic, which makes it difficult to explain in the simplest manner possible why Nihilus is weak. I wont bother with quotes, because you have this odd habit of thinking they're false even if it's an official source. Or that it's got lots of body piercing and a mohawk or something. So instead I will suggest you look at the conversations betwixt Exile and Kriea in regards to Nihilus.

 

Here is my very brief explanation, on the off chance that this makes sense to you.

 

Slavery is to be stripped of control.

Nihilus doesn't control his power.

It is the hunger that controls him.

Therefore he is weak.

 

 

There simple, and repetitive.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Purgatorio

[Darth Mortis]

Here is my very brief explanation, on the off chance that this makes sense to you.

 

Slavery is to be stripped of control.

Nihilus doesn't control his power.

It is the hunger that controls him.

Therefore he is weak.

 

 

There simple, and repetitive.

 

Or;

 

To have power one needs control.

 

To control something is to have power over it.

 

Nihilus has no control over his power,

 

His power controls him,

 

Nihilus has no power.

[OverPowered Godzilla (OPG)]

The bear IS MORE POWERFUL. That's why humans RUN when they see them. If we use guns to shoot a bear that is not OUR POWER bacause it was done with the gun.

 

That is, quite possibly, the most stupid comment I've ever read on these forums. Humans invented guns, and gun powder therefore the power is ours. You are talking purely about physical strength, and if that was all power of any kind relied on humans would be extinct. Human power comes from our minds and the ability to make tools.

 

Am I the only one who finds this to be the height of internet entertainment?

 

No, its not everyday you meet someone who can type while wearing a straight-jacket......

 

 

Bears are more powerful creatures. To rely on on guns is weakness. From your logic one human could be more powerful than an entire country if he nukes them but that was BECAUSE OF THE NUKE. HE DIDN'T have the power to do that. If you were to ask a scientist however on which creature is more power he would tell you the bear. That's why we humans use guns against them because WE HUMANS ARE WEAK (NOT POWERFUL). To rely of technology is weakness. Take the gun away and go fight the bear as you are. Who wins the bear because the bear is a more powerful creature. If I got into a fight (puting weapons aside) with some kid I could beat him but it would be because of MY STRENGTH and skill with my OWN POWER. The one who wins the fight fairly will be the respected and more powerful one. A child can pull out a weapon and shoot you. That's not power. That shows his/her weakness in the fact that he/she had to resort to a gun.

[OverPowered Godzilla (OPG)]

Look at it this way. A child could accidently press the botton on a trigger and kill someone. Who is more powerful though the child or the adult? Anyone can press a botton. If you were to be described through history and compared to braveheart as to which warriar is more powerful who would they say you cause you have a gun or braveheart? They would say braveheart. If I owned a death star and palpatine didn't I would still go down in history as less powerful cause anyone can press a botton. That is not power. I could not openly face palpatine I had to hide. That is a load of punk stuff. IT IS WEAKNESS to rely on others and it is weakness to rely on technology a mere child could do that and hey sh!t even a monkey could be trained to use a gun and kill like 20 people before it dies but it was NOT more powerful.

[DeathScepter]

I do think that Nilihus is a drug addict and his drug is force slurping ability.

 

 

And addictions is a form of slavery. Therefore Nilihus is a slave to his power but he is really an addict to it thus making him a slave to his power which is his hunger.

[Xard]

It looks like my "Force Slurp" has entered into everyday speak of this part of fora

[DeathScepter]

Force Slurp is cool, man............

[Darth Mortis]

Bears are more powerful creatures. To rely on on guns is weakness. From your logic one human could be more powerful than an entire country if he nukes them but that was BECAUSE OF THE NUKE. HE DIDN'T have the power to do that. If you were to ask a scientist however on which creature is more power he would tell you the bear. That's why we humans use guns against them because WE HUMANS ARE WEAK (NOT POWERFUL). To rely of technology is weakness. Take the gun away and go fight the bear as you are. Who wins the bear because the bear is a more powerful creature. If I got into a fight (puting weapons aside) with some kid I could beat him but it would be because of MY STRENGTH and skill with my OWN POWER. The one who wins the fight fairly will be the respected and more powerful one. A child can pull out a weapon and shoot you. That's not power. That shows his/her weakness in the fact that he/she had to resort to a gun.

 

Look at it this way. A child could accidently press the botton on a trigger and kill someone. Who is more powerful though the child or the adult? Anyone can press a botton. If you were to be described through history and compared to braveheart as to which warriar is more powerful who would they say you cause you have a gun or braveheart? They would say braveheart. If I owned a death star and palpatine didn't I would still go down in history as less powerful cause anyone can press a botton. That is not power. I could not openly face palpatine I had to hide. That is a load of punk stuff. IT IS WEAKNESS to rely on others and it is weakness to rely on technology a mere child could do that and hey sh!t even a monkey could be trained to use a gun and kill like 20 people before it dies but it was NOT more powerful.

 

I can understand what you are saying here-Humans are physically weaker than most species. Just about everything else that lives on the planet has some form of natural defence-claws, teeth, physical size and strength, poison/fangs, armour plates, good senses to detect threats and so on. In that regards you are quite correct, a human who attempts to have a one on one fight against a bear is going to die....unless said bear gets so excited at the thought of a free meal it has a heart attack. On a purely physical level we should never have managed to avoid being eaten on a daily basis....but we changed the rules.

 

Human defences come from our intelligence, or given human history maybe I should say that our defence comes from the ability to invent and create tools. The tools that we can create provide us with the power to not only protect ourselves, but also to alter the enviroment we live in and control it to some degree. Control the enviroment and you also gain power as some species that would normally threaten you will not always be able (or want to) live there.

 

It is not weakness to rely on technology as such, it is our strength and without it we wouldn't be here. While the word technology often brings up a mental image of cars, computers and cell phones it is worth noting that technology simply means tools. A simple rock used to hit someone with is a tool, its also a bit of technology, it allows you to hit something harder than you could with your bare hands.....although against something like a bear you would need one hell of a large rock. That is part of what a tool does-it allows you to do things that normally you would be unable to do, or do things better than you could do unaided. Using the internet I can talk to someone 6000 miles away, and I quite often do, something I could not manage by shouting. This is power, it is just a different type of power than almost all other species on the planet have.

 

Of course while technology/tools are our greatest strength, they are also our greatest weakness when we rely on them so much we forget how to live without them. (I wonder how many people on this board would be able to go a month without using a computer or cell phone at all).

 

Power always comes at a price however, and tools are no exception. The price of us getting power from tools is twofold;

 

It can be too easy to get, and therefore misused or we fail to understand how dangerous using that tool can be-nuclear weapons being a prime example.

 

They can be used by almost anyone. As you pointed out a child could pick up and use a gun, and a trawl through police reports will tell you that happens more than we'd like in some places. That is the duel nature of power from tools-if you can use it so could someone else, which is why the military guards its armouries so well and tries not to let on exactly how their latest equipment works.

 

In simple terms whoever holds the tool has the power, as long as they choose to use that power. Having the power and using it are not the same thing. Just because I have a gun does not mean I have to use it....although a charging bear would tend to settle matters for most people...and even if I do decide to use it I don't have to shoot the bear, I could always fire into the air and hope the bear runs off at the noise. (If it doesn't I then have to hope I haven't just run out of bullets or the gun jambs, knowing my luck both would happen). Being able to choose how I use a tool involves being able to control it, and being able to control something means you have power over it. In the case of a monkey or baby with a gun the water is muddy here, since it could be argued that they are incapable of choosing to fire the gun and therefore have no real power as you said.(A monkey wouldn't know how to use a gun without being trained, in which case the monkey becomes a tool of the trainer. An untrained monkey, or a human baby, wouldn't be deliberatly firing the gun but doing so accidently, which again means they had no choice, therefore no control, therefore no power).

 

You also said it was a weakness to rely on others, again there is a small amount of truth in that, but this is over shadowed by the fact that humans are pre-programed to work in groups and rely on each other. This is the second way we survived. A single human with a stone axe is unlikely to be able to tackle a bear. But a group of humans armed the same way will make short work of it. True, there is a good chance that at least some of the humans are going to get hurt or killed, unless the know exactly what they are doing, so from the prospective of those individuals this is not a great stratagy. But from the view point of the species working together allows them to handle situations where an individual would fail, or finish a task in a shorter space of time. From an invididuals view point groups are a good thing too. To start with instead of being a single target, you are just one of several potential targets-hence the odds of you being picked out by a potential predator are lower making you less likely to be attacked and, therefore, less likely to need to defend yourself. Even if you are attacked if the group has a strong bond (and human groups, or at least the smaller ones, tend to be very strong in this area) then you are more likely to have someone else turning up to help you defend yourself against an attacker.

 

Anyway, the only part of this that is directly applicable to the thread is that about control and power. In order to have power over something you have to be able to choose to use that power-not for good or ill, just the ability to use it when you want to. Nilhus couldn't choose to use his power to drain life, he had to use his power to drain life-if he didn't he grew weaker, and as was mentioned in the game he would eventally have died regardless of what the Exile did-In fact he would have been dead even if the Exile had decided to stay away....That he had no control over his ability means that it did not make him powerful, in fact it means the opposite.

Edited June 29, 2007 by Darth Mortis

[OverPowered Godzilla (OPG)]

Well we have different ideas of power. I consider the person who wins a one on one match to be the more powerful one. True palps had one of the largest armies with the greatest technolgy and even a death star but I just don't see him as a powerful being when he has others fight for him. Just the way I view it. Also Nehilhus is more in control than most people think. Usually if he wills something to happen it simply happens. He is smart in the fact that he can break peoples wills and have them follow him. If he wanted to he could also gather a large army like palpatine. All his servents are pretty much lifeless though. I view him asa predator. A predator is also controled by hunger and must fead to stay alive yet it is smart enough to survive and defend itself against attacks. Nilihus isn't completley controled in that regard. He just needs to feed as a predator does in order to mantain his power. He could come up with a plan and gather armies like palps to if he wanted to but ruling the galaxy was not his goal it was the destruction of all force sensitives.

[Purgatorio]

Bears are more powerful creatures. To rely on on guns is weakness. From your logic one human could be more powerful than an entire country if he nukes them but that was BECAUSE OF THE NUKE. HE DIDN'T have the power to do that. If you were to ask a scientist however on which creature is more power he would tell you the bear. That's why we humans use guns against them because WE HUMANS ARE WEAK (NOT POWERFUL). To rely of technology is weakness. Take the gun away and go fight the bear as you are. Who wins the bear because the bear is a more powerful creature. If I got into a fight (puting weapons aside) with some kid I could beat him but it would be because of MY STRENGTH and skill with my OWN POWER. The one who wins the fight fairly will be the respected and more powerful one. A child can pull out a weapon and shoot you. That's not power. That shows his/her weakness in the fact that he/she had to resort to a gun.

 

Look at it this way. A child could accidently press the botton on a trigger and kill someone. Who is more powerful though the child or the adult? Anyone can press a botton. If you were to be described through history and compared to braveheart as to which warriar is more powerful who would they say you cause you have a gun or braveheart? They would say braveheart. If I owned a death star and palpatine didn't I would still go down in history as less powerful cause anyone can press a botton. That is not power. I could not openly face palpatine I had to hide. That is a load of punk stuff. IT IS WEAKNESS to rely on others and it is weakness to rely on technology a mere child could do that and hey sh!t even a monkey could be trained to use a gun and kill like 20 people before it dies but it was NOT more powerful.

 

I can understand what you are saying here-Humans are physically weaker than most species. Just about everything else that lives on the planet has some form of natural defence-claws, teeth, physical size and strength, poison/fangs, armour plates, good senses to detect threats and so on. In that regards you are quite correct, a human who attempts to have a one on one fight against a bear is going to die....unless said bear gets so excited at the thought of a free meal it has a heart attack. On a purely physical level we should never have managed to avoid being eaten on a daily basis....but we changed the rules.

 

Human defences come from our intelligence, or given human history maybe I should say that our defence comes from the ability to invent and create tools. The tools that we can create provide us with the power to not only protect ourselves, but also to alter the enviroment we live in and control it to some degree. Control the enviroment and you also gain power as some species that would normally threaten you will not always be able (or want to) live there.

 

It is not weakness to rely on technology as such, it is our strength and without it we wouldn't be here. While the word technology often brings up a mental image of cars, computers and cell phones it is worth noting that technology simply means tools. A simple rock used to hit someone with is a tool, its also a bit of technology, it allows you to hit something harder than you could with your bare hands.....although against something like a bear you would need one hell of a large rock. That is part of what a tool does-it allows you to do things that normally you would be unable to do, or do things better than you could do unaided. Using the internet I can talk to someone 6000 miles away, and I quite often do, something I could not manage by shouting. This is power, it is just a different type of power than almost all other species on the planet have.

 

Of course while technology/tools are our greatest strength, they are also our greatest weakness when we rely on them so much we forget how to live without them. (I wonder how many people on this board would be able to go a month without using a computer or cell phone at all).

 

Power always comes at a price however, and tools are no exception. The price of us getting power from tools is twofold;

 

It can be too easy to get, and therefore misused or we fail to understand how dangerous using that tool can be-nuclear weapons being a prime example.

 

They can be used by almost anyone. As you pointed out a child could pick up and use a gun, and a trawl through police reports will tell you that happens more than we'd like in some places. That is the duel nature of power from tools-if you can use it so could someone else, which is why the military guards its armouries so well and tries not to let on exactly how their latest equipment works.

 

In simple terms whoever holds the tool has the power, as long as they choose to use that power. Having the power and using it are not the same thing. Just because I have a gun does not mean I have to use it....although a charging bear would tend to settle matters for most people...and even if I do decide to use it I don't have to shoot the bear, I could always fire into the air and hope the bear runs off at the noise. (If it doesn't I then have to hope I haven't just run out of bullets or the gun jambs, knowing my luck both would happen). Being able to choose how I use a tool involves being able to control it, and being able to control something means you have power over it. In the case of a monkey or baby with a gun the water is muddy here, since it could be argued that they are incapable of choosing to fire the gun and therefore have no real power as you said.(A monkey wouldn't know how to use a gun without being trained, in which case the monkey becomes a tool of the trainer. An untrained monkey, or a human baby, wouldn't be deliberatly firing the gun but doing so accidently, which again means they had no choice, therefore no control, therefore no power).

 

You also said it was a weakness to rely on others, again there is a small amount of truth in that, but this is over shadowed by the fact that humans are pre-programed to work in groups and rely on each other. This is the second way we survived. A single human with a stone axe is unlikely to be able to tackle a bear. But a group of humans armed the same way will make short work of it. True, there is a good chance that at least some of the humans are going to get hurt or killed, unless the know exactly what they are doing, so from the prospective of those individuals this is not a great stratagy. But from the view point of the species working together allows them to handle situations where an individual would fail, or finish a task in a shorter space of time. From an invididuals view point groups are a good thing too. To start with instead of being a single target, you are just one of several potential targets-hence the odds of you being picked out by a potential predator are lower making you less likely to be attacked and, therefore, less likely to need to defend yourself. Even if you are attacked if the group has a strong bond (and human groups, or at least the smaller ones, tend to be very strong in this area) then you are more likely to have someone else turning up to help you defend yourself against an attacker.

 

Anyway, the only part of this that is directly applicable to the thread is that about control and power. In order to have power over something you have to be able to choose to use that power-not for good or ill, just the ability to use it when you want to. Nilhus couldn't choose to use his power to drain life, he had to use his power to drain life-if he didn't he grew weaker, and as was mentioned in the game he would eventally have died regardless of what the Exile did-In fact he would have been dead even if the Exile had decided to stay away....That he had no control over his ability means that it did not make him powerful, in fact it means the opposite.

Needed repeating.

[Xard]

Hmh, now I undertand why you have Hulk as your avatar. He is nothing but pure strenght and idocy.

 

"Hulk was made so stupid people would have superhero too" is one of best quotes ever, too bad I can't remember the source of it.

 

Now listen, genius, science is humanity's power. We humans didn't become "crown of creation" by dumb luck. Evolution is not forgiving. In physical strenght we have little against many predators. No, it is because humans were clever. Humans were smart. Humans were able to outwit their enemies. ( Hell, as a proof our malice geniousness [beings of power without wisdom] humans created things that could result end of whole world. )

 

This is why "intelligence triumphs over brute strenght" is one of key facts on this planet.

 

And since pure destruction is power for you... I'm not one of those corny "love is teh all" Hollywood people, but I truly pity you and wonder what kind of life you must've lived to gain that idea.

 

That or you're just middle class teenager whose mommy brings him coke and chips from mall, who "makes money from hustlein" for buying newest Gundam figure which he so dearly wants, argues over internet should Eva-01 and RX-78 Gundam "get it on" and who has these fantasies of power and strenght, seeing himself as sort of

Edited June 29, 2007 by Xard

[Omelette]

Well said.

[Darth Mortis]

"Hulk was made so stupid people would have superhero too" is one of best quotes ever, too bad I can't remember the source of it.

 

That sounds like something Stan Lee would say....not that I'm going to say he did say that, just that it sounds like he might. He did create the Hulk didn't he? So he should know.

[Darth Mortis]

Well we have different ideas of power. I consider the person who wins a one on one match to be the more powerful one.

 

Thats fair enough, and in terms of survival it is a viable stratagy. I think I wrote something a while back to point out that all species can pick one of two stratagies-be very strong individually (Like Bears and Tigers to name just two species), or to to gain strength from groups (Rabbits and humans for example). There are advantages in both cases.

 

Just using food as a quick example it is easy to see that a single animal needs a smaller territory since a smaller amount of food will tide it over, while a group will require a larger area to provide food for all its members. Soloitary animals also tend to be stronger, and therefore taking food is easier for them. Group animals are, of course, not quite as good getting food as individually they are weaker, but as they have more eyes (members looking for food that is) they are more likely to find food.

 

This is the macro viewpoint, but the microscopic view point is very different. If you view all animals with half an eye at the micro world you would see that grouping of organisums is by far the best strategy. The simple fact is that all 'higher' creatures-from humans, to bears, to earth-worms-are in essence a group animal on their own. Their bodies are composed of millions of cells-orginisums-that work together to increase their chances of survival. Even the cells themselves (and this includes single celled organisums too) are not just a single entity, but are composed of different organelles working together to mutual benefit-The primary example would be microcondra in human cells. These were, once, sepperate orginisums that migrated into larger ones to the benefit of both. (Microcondra make energy production of the cell over all more efficent, while gaining significantly better protection for themselves).

 

Also Nehilhus is more in control than most people think..... I view him asa predator. A predator is also controled by hunger and must fead to stay alive yet it is smart enough to survive and defend itself against attacks. Nilihus isn't completley controled in that regard. He just needs to feed as a predator does in order to mantain his power. He could come up with a plan and gather armies like palps to if he wanted to but ruling the galaxy was not his goal it was the destruction of all force sensitives.

 

I would have to agree that Nilhus did have more control than he is sometimes given credit for-he did have enough control to stay hidden for quite some period of time, although it is not clear if he was feeding during this time. The analagy that has been used between Nilhus's power and drug addiction is an apt one, since an addict can sometimes keep some measure of control over themselves if they are getting smaller 'hits', but the urge will eventally take over-and if they are offered the chance to get a big hit it can be next to impossible for them to refuse or stop themselves from taking it. It is worth noting that while Nilhus was able to keep enough control over himself to remain hidden for quite sometime, it was the (False) information that Telos had a large number of Jedi (His best food source it seems) that led him to attack that world without checking to see if that information was correct first, and therefore placing himself in a no win situation-Even if the Exile hadn't killed him Nilhus would have starved to death anyway.

 

I'm not sure that destroying all force sensitives was Nilhus's real goal, I got the impression that they just provided the best and richest food source for him. I'm not even sure that he had a goal, I'm unclear if his image of a lifeless Galaxy was what he intended all along, or if that was the logical outcome of him continuing to feed off living things.

[Dark_Raven]

The grey matter between your ears is the most powerful arsenal at your disposal.

[DeathScepter]

argees with Dark Raven and others about Intelligence