And this is the real problem I have with this entire debate... Do you honestly believe that Tulak would not be a great fighter? Look he is said to be the greatest lightsaber duellist ever, or at least of his time. Even if other people used Sith Swords he would still have fought them, ergo it makes no real difference whether or not they used blades or not Tulak was more powerful... Why is that being debated?
Because it's not conclusive for Revan either way. Tulak Hord could be God himself and it would not make Revan more powerful unless they can establish that he learned and ascended to that level of power, which they can't.
Besides, there is no proof for Tulak Hord either. He is never depicted in canon.
True, but its the only evidence we have. Further we know that he is in the Valley of the Dark Lords and has a huge tomb there... Meaning he was a Dark Lord of the Sith. Now Kreia has been on Malachor for a very long time, if anybody could know what Tulak was it was here, she would know better then almost anybody since the fall of the Sith Empire. I personally trust her in this regard, and i'm arguing that you have no reason to not trust her. Because there simply is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
That's not the point. I don't care if we have 1 piece of evidence or 5 million. You could have 5 million suspect, questionable opinions and it wouldn't outweight 1 quote from GL himself. I you could ask 5 million imperials about the Emperor and not one of them will say he's a corrupt sith lord. Does that make it correct?
The fact of the matter is Kreia has never seen Tulak Hord, and any statement she says is naturally subjective. Ergo, inconclusive. Period. End of story. It does not matter whether or not you feel it should be made conclusive or whether or not it makes sense. It's questionable.
Malak was a lightsaber prodigy who could beat even the most powerful masters, Revan was better... Does not put him on the same scale as Exar perhaps... But still makes him a legendary duellist, seeing as he's also described as a legendaric fighter in the game.(By lots of people btw.)
Do we have any idea how powerful the KotOR era masters are in the grand scheme of things? Considering the Jedi Order lost many powerful masters and the trove of information on Ossus just 40 years earlier, it would make little sense in the way of comparing "many powerful masters."
Anakin/Vader defeated Count Dooku, Cin Drallig, and hunted down several Jedi masters described as "powerful," but that's not saying much.
You have to take into account circumstance, context, and continuity. The three C's.
There's a difference between legendary for his time and legendary for the grand scale of SW continuity. Exar falls in the latter category. For Revan to do the same, he'll need some more evidence in his favor.
I wasn't argueing that, I was arguing a redicilious claim that said Revan did not become more powerful from learning things.. Thats what I was saying. Thats what I found was strange.
Where was a claim like that ever mentioned without context?
Nowhere. It does not prove he's stronger than Exar, and that's the point being made.
How so? She said "You are the greatest I have ever trained"How does that say anything about Revan his potential? And if it was about the Jedi he would slay then that would mean Revan is Dark Side would it not?
The "Revan was power" quote more than likely refers to his potential and future.
And he did kill Jedi, because he did have a stint as a Dark Lord, that doesn't mean he ended the game in the Dark Side ending though.
When Kreia says that its very clear, but when she says something about Tulak Hord which is far less subjective it can be argued?? This is a subjective statement and her knowledge and the matter can be heavily doubted. With Tulak Hord its a completely objective statement and its very likely that she would have the knowledge, otherwise she wouldn't have said anything.
How is the statement on Tulak Hord less subjective?
In this case, Kreia is making a direct comparison out of experience between the Exile and her former students, which include Revan. She has first hand evidence and it is a conclusive statement.
When Kreia says "Tulak was the best lightsaber duelist of the Ancient Sith" it's very ambiguous.
First off, the rest of them used swords, so again, the point doesn't exist. Secondly, how would she know how Tulak would stack up against people that were not in his lifespan? She doesn't. She is merely speculating. Tulak never fought Naga Sadow, for example.
Thirdly, she has never even seen Tulak fight. Every evidence she has is from her own opinion. Again, it's a dubious source, like all character quotes are. Whether you like it or agree with it is irrelevant.
I know I could have added he was still the most important reason... However this is simply what it is. Revan was the most important reason for the war to turn. I never claimed nor will I ever claim that he is the only reason he could not have done so without the Jedi. However its a clear fact that the Jedi without him would have been far less effective then he would have been without the Jedi. This is made clear by every general and or stratigician in the game. The databank his quote on Malak also says that "Many believed" or at least thats the in Kotor description of Malak, so i'm assuming the databank and his profile on the Kotor site say the same.
Then it's a pointless assumption. First off, how is this conclusive? If many people believed Malak was equally responsible, it indicates Revan did not turn the tide by himself. We also know The Exile was a general under Revan.
Again, the point is moot.
No, and I wans't argueing that either... Like I said I don't believe Revan can beat Exar Kun I just think some of the statements made in this thread are strange. Statements made by both sides btw, its just that you were defeating the other guys his incredibly stupid points with some flawed logic yourself.
Which flawed bits of logic? I've justified all of my points.
And if you are trying to say where someone argued that Tulak was a horrible duelist, you'll have to quote it. You're misinterpretting it, perhaps because you like Revan, or perhaps some other impediment. But no one said "Tulak Hord sucks."
I said the equivalent of "Tulak Hord is an unknown who does not guarantee Revan victory in any way, shape, or form."
Misinterpretation or not, things like this are just wrong...
It's not wrong per se. Knowledge does not automatically become power. It has to be applied, and Revan does not show instances where he applied the knowledge he raided from Korriban or Malachor, while someone like Exar has shown his power numerous times.
Things like Revan taking Ajunta Pall his sword then? Kreia said Revan took it? Revan beating Yussanis and Mandalore then? Lots of people claimed Revan did it, does that make it official or not?
Those points were never contested. They are event based points that are agreed upon.
For Tulak, we have one person argue that he's the best thing since sliced bread. That one person was never around at his time and naturally would not have the knowledge to compare his fighting ability to other prominent sith lords. So she would know how?
Perhaps Tulak was the most prolific, but to argue that he could beat anyone else's ass because of Kreia's quote is faulty.
well the story is told through the characters, meaning that when characters make certain statements we can put a lot of weight into them, especially when they can be seen as objective. Kreia saying that looking at Revan was like looking into the heart of the force, of course can be doubted it seems biased. Kreia for instance saying Revan took Ajunta Pall his blade however.... See my point? It was only said in the game that Revan defeated Yusanis and Mandalore does that make it any less true?
As I already said, arguing factual/event-based argumens likely qualifies as part of the storyline. Arguing "Tulak Hord owns" or "Revan is a sabergod!" are not. For example, Naga Sadow says the Empire has not conquered new systems in however long, that's factual, event-based arguments that fit into storyline. Naga Sadow saying "I am the greatest" obviously has its flaws.
But answer me this, when we only have one source that could know and very likely does know when that one source is objective and has no reason to lie and even some very minimal evidence to support it, why would we consider it wrong? Why would you ask others to proof it right? Is it not your job to prove it wrong if you do not believe it?
The quantity of sources is completely irrelevant.
The honus is on you to prove a positive. Asking the opposition to prove a negative is logical fallacy.