Originally posted by Gideon
It does make sense. From the looks of it, you were wanting us to except Tobin's testimony on the fact that he was clearly being used as a conduit by the game designers to give the audience exposition regarding Nihilus's power -- something that all in universe thoughts and documentations are used to do -- to convey the thoughts of the author regarding a person or event, but on a personal level. That makes him no greater a source than Kreia or tNEC.
Again, what? If you read the previous page, you'd see I didn't say anything about the game designers intent. In my initial reply, you can see that the devs didn't impact my conclusion. I was just explaining that characters (in this case, Tobin) didn't say things like that for the sake of saying them to truejedi, essentially I was rehashing what you just said into simpler terms. Never did I mention that it held a relevance to my argument.
Notoriously ambiguous? How so?
Keeping in mind that you haven't beat KOTOR2, I would still assume you've escaped Peragus; the newb level. If you recall, when you talk to Atton for the first time after talking to Kreia, you both discuss how cryptic she is. This is only the beginning, I don't think I could count the number of times she's extremely vague and leaves things open to interpretation.
"Staring into his eyes was like staring into the heart of the Force." Translation: notoriously ambiguous. One of many.
And she is fallible solely because of her status as a liar? Tobin is not? And how do you know for certain? The fact that he "calls her out" for lying is irrelevant; Palpatine exploits and brings to light the deception of the Jedi Council to Anakin. Does that make him an honest man?
No, there's several reasons actually. I listed one right before I called her a liar. What she says about Revan is certainly open for interpretation and it is her personal view on Revan. Otherwise known as an "opinion". What Tobin said was a statement of fact from an in-universe standpoint, Canderous and the loading screen confirm this. And to question whether or not he is honest would just be daft. Being that two valid sources back up Tobin, it's indication that he is correct.
Furthermore, Kreia being a liar is important insofar that she has an established record of being dishonest in the past. Which suggests that she may not be completely truthful in every instance. Tobin has no such record.
As for Palpatine, he also had a purpose to lie. Tobin did not. You're continually using examples that are incomparable, invalid.
But that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is you suggesting that Tobin's validity as a source be based (partially or otherwise) on the fact that he's clearly trying to convey the thoughts of the game designers, that he hasn't been proven to be a liar, and that he possesses intimate knowledge of Nihilus's workings.
This isn't a debate, but that'd quite clearly be a strawman. I'm not going to fully address it, but I will reinforce the point: the devs are completely irrelevant to my point, lmao. Take away that one sentence and what's left? Everything is still standing. Since my conclusion doesn't rely on it at all, nor am I using it as a basis for assuming anything.
Well, tNEC accounts for the first: it's a chronology given as an in-universe source for the same reason. Second, it hasn't proven to be blatantly dishonest or the intent of lying. Third, it possesses immensely intimate knowledge about events -- pertaining to the Emperor's motives, thoughts, and schemes. Lastly, as an in-universe source, it is the recording of a historical council of a galactic hyperpower. Far, far, far greater than the beliefs of one broken, semi-corrupted man.
I'm wondering whether or not you even read or understood what I wrote. Not to be insulting, but this is far from the complexity of other issues you've dealt with before.
Not a single person that was alive during the period the NEC was written witnessed Exar Kun's power. Or Bane's. Or Sith Lords X, Y, and Z. Even if they were, we would be assuming that historian A could feel XYZs full power in the Force and could compare it to Palpatine's.
We would also be assuming that historian A felt Sith who never revealed themselves (post-Bane, pre-Sidious). These are Sith no one knew about. It doesn't work out because historian A--or Voren Na'al here--doesn't have all the necessary information to make such an absolute assessment.
The conclusion being: if those are your qualifications for Tobin's validity, there are other sources who meet them in excess.
My qualifications are:
- Not ambiguous.
- Not opinion.
- Supporting out-of-universe source or objective in-universe source (or both, like in this case).
There are about a million different facts that come primarily from a character. But that is the difference: facts. Kreia and Voren Na'al are giving in-universe opinions, that can't be supported by the information available, etc. What Tobin says is an in-universe fact. Much like a random PT Jedi stating Coruscant is the location of the Jedi Temple or that Yoda is the Grandmaster of the Order.
I'm not saying that Kreia or Voren would be incorrect in every word that comes out of their mouths, but certain statements like the ones you provided would certainly be considered fallible. Along with any other in-universe opinion.