KMC Forums - Just How Powerful Is The Outlander?

quote:
1. We don't always take the most direct definitions when they don't align with the context they're taken in. To take this term literally would be accepting a falsehood, regardless of the perspective it's written in. And generally speaking sh!t like undefeatable, unbeatable, or unparalleled is hyperbolic because the literal definition of these words is rarely literally true.

The quote is false, by virtue of contradiction, even taken as hyperbolic.

quote:
2. Nowhere is it stated anywhere that Scourge saw an equal amount of visions for either side. That Scourge was overwhelmed with the number of scenarios he saw doesn't prove that one outcome wasn't significantly more likely than another. That there were an equal amount of scenarios is at best speculation. Unfortunate, I know. sad

Ignorance is not a response.

The fact that Scourge saw every possible scenario, but then was unable to determine which was the most likely, therefore means the scenario of Vitiate winning was not dominant.

It's simply following a logical conclusion to the end.

quote:
3. Ant, you do realize that you can't identify the perspective of narration from a single sentence? In order to identify what perspective narration is coming from, we need to look at the whole of the passage, not a single sentence. And yes Ant, a sentence about Scourge will include Scourge's name. Much like the first sentence here mentioned Revan when it was talking about Revan: This doesn't change regardless of whether the narration is third person or from a specific character's perspective. That a single sentence had Scourge as the subject does not prove that this is from Scourge's perspective. We can tell this is objective because the subjects of the sentences here are continuously being alternated:

Let's go through your examples:

Revan is determined to keep the galaxy safe for his child.

Revan is the subject and performing the action (is) from a third-person narrator.

Scourge, Meetra, and Revan enter the Emperor's citadel and challenge the supreme ruler.

Scourge, Meetra, and Revan are the subjects and performing the action (enter) from a third-person narrator.

The Emperor�s power is too much for Revan.

Power is the subject and performing the action (is) from a third-person narrator.

Recognizing that the Emperor is undefeatable, Scourge kills Meetra and betrays Revan.

Scourge is the subject and performing the action (kills, betrays) from a third-person narrator.

The quote also has a dependent clause, still with Scourge has the subject, performing another action (recognizing).

(For the record, I think you completely misread my argument pertaining to perspective and narration. Cringe).

Anywho, so we have a third-person omniscient narrator describing Scourge as "realizing the that the Emperor is undefeatable."

Stating the only interpretation of such a quote is that Scourge is recognizing a "universal truth" is false for two reasons:

a.) A different definition for the word "realize" means to simply "perceive to be true," not "to be true."

b.) The quote would foster a direct contradiction with the lore, even in this instance, and will be dismissed.

I am trying to state, over and over, that the quote reads merely as follows, and when taken as true, no contradiction arises:

"Perceiving to be true that the Emperor is undefeatable, Scourge kills Meetra and betrays Revan."

That is a legitimate interpretation of the text, supported by factual evidence and a desire to avoid contradiction.

You are under the impression the fact Scourge "realizes" something must therefore mean his realization is what the narrator knows.

This is false.

quote:
Vitiate got the opportunity he needed to catch Revan off guard, yea. That he wouldn't have won otherwise is a baseless conclusion.

If he could have done it otherwise, as in destroy him with lightning, the text would not have remarked that Revan's distraction provided him "the opportunity he needed."

If Vitiate can straight-up stomp Revan, he would not need such an opportunity, or opening. He would be capable of just storming through any time he wants.

quote:
That Revan's companions are one-shottable doesn't change they're distractions, which seems to be Vitiate's kryptonite. As we've repeatedly seen, he's absolute trash when dealing with multiple opponents.

Only one instance comes to mind, in which Vitiate's attention was solely focused on Revan's, where multiple opponents almost killed him.

All other examples have Vitiate performing against multiple opponents fine. The Dark Council. The Jedi strike team. Hero, Lana, Theron. Arcann, Vaylin. Etc.

Based on the confrontation between Revan and Darth Nyriss, Vitiate would be capable of instantly killing the Exile and Scourge - they are not a threat, distraction or not.

quote:
You could argue against the semantics of using the term one-shot for vitiate instantly defeating Revan with a charged up blast, but the point stands, Revan remained outclassed by Vitiate as clearly shown here:

If the same situation happened to any slightly stronger character any slightly weaker character, the same would have happened.

The charging of energy would exaggerate the gap. Your comparison is flaw.

__________________

"There is only Revan. Only he can shape this galaxy as it is meant to be shaped."