Originally posted by ares834
That if she were freed she would bring ruin and chaos to the galaxy, and that the galaxy itself could perish. And that she owned the Son and Daughter.
Since the Killiks were one of the slaves of the Celestials, their word should be given a lot of weight. The only flaw I can see with this is that it's been like 30,000 years and therefore, it's not a first hand account.
Again I don't know enough about where this info is coming from to say if its credible. The Rakatan inscriptions are from the people who fought and imprisoned it (not the race, the actual people who fought it), inscribed into the walls of the prison that they built for it, which is why I find it highly credible.
Where are these claims coming from?
Well if Dudley's right about it being 30,000 years later and not being a first hand account then theres good reason to be a bit skeptical about it. I mean, if someone started talking about events that happened that long ago in real life without anything supporting it we wouldn't be so quick to believe him, would we?
Originally posted by Zampanó
This is a fundamental difference between the ways we enjoy fiction. I think that it has to do with suspension of disbelief. When watching Indiana Jones, I didn't think "oh man, all those stories about the Ark are going to be proven wrong if there are any Nazi faces left unmelted." Instead, I'm focused on what they say about the Ark: It is established as a potential army-killer. The fact that it kills only a few dozen people on screen does not mean that I am using a "no-limits" fallacy if I say that the Ark would singlehandedly turn the tide of Helm's Deep (for example).The level of confirmation that you seem to ask for is simply not available in fiction media outside of RPG systems that offer a method of inter-era comparison. "Existential threat from a bygone age" is a common trope in fiction; invoking that trope is enough, for me, to give a ballpark estimate of the severity of the threat. No editor is going to allow page-space for a thorough Archaeological inquiry (Tim Zahn notwithstanding).
Another example: In Fable, Jack of Blades is established as an eldritch abomination from beyond the edge of the world. If his plan goes through, the implication is extinction. So he is a potential world-ender, despite the lack of specifics about his origins and the extent of his abilities.
I understand that you're asking me to give such things the benefit of the doubt and indeed I would if we could agree to apply the same standards for all characters and events, not just ones we happen to like more than others.
As it stands, the only time anyone wants to genuinely consider authorial intent is when it bolsters the reputation of characters like Nihilus and Vitiate. But when I put into play such words for Palpatine, others call foul.
That inherent double standard is an obstacle to fair and honest discussion. You'll note that I don't bandy about the quote about Palpatine mastering "all the known powers, previously unknown ones" and inventing "new ones at his leisure" even though it was clearly, deliberately written into The Dark Empire Sourcebook for the purposes of determining the Emperor's abilities with respect to the game.
As it stands, I remain where I began: I am disinclined to allow such dishonesty to go unanswered.
Tl;dr version: If I'm not allowed to use purple prose, then no one is.
Originally posted by Zampanó
I think I have actually used the black-hole quote, but only within the context of relative attitudes and demeanors. The important facet of this particular quote is the way that the descriptions all reference the characters' intrinsic properties. A basic block of Kenobi's personality is his tranquil Jedi demeanor. It is not all that much of a stretch to interpret that line, and the passage as a whole, as a characterization rather than a power-meter.
Power is an intrinsic property, is it not? In fact, the text refers to Kenobi as "a sunlit meadow of the Force" and does not detail personality characteristics.
Originally posted by Zampanó
Meanwhile, the quotes against which you have fought so consistently (e.g. N.'s Ravager accolade, or this destroyer business) are almost always extreme accounts of physical actions. So while Sidious is described as a black hole of the Force, N. is described as accomplishing some magnificent application of Joules. That is less easily discarded as hyperbole, because it is a specific thing that actually happened.
This assumes that only biographical descriptions can be exaggerated and not account of actions or feats. But this isn't so.
Originally posted by Zampanó
(And tossing out 2/3 of the available information about non-movie eras just because we don't let you use 1/1000th of Sidious's accolades is mad churlish, broseph.)
Not at all. It's fair. The fact that Palpatine, by virtue of exponentially greater exposure and importance to the mythology, has a substantially higher number of feats and accolades than the likes of Nihilus or Vitiate to draw on for argumentation isn't my problem.
Just as it's not my problem that, in a dick measuring contest, your 3.7 inches is outclassed by my five dollar foot-long.
That doesn't mean we selectively bend units of measurement to manufacture a preferred outcome. Just as, if we were measuring personal height, we wouldn't let a 5'5" man stand on a foot tall box and say he's as tall as the 6'5" man standing next to him.
You'll notice that I'm not asking for any exceptions to be made for Palpatine. I'm not suggesting that you and others are banned from using certain kinds of quotes whereas I should be permitted. Arguing for Palpatine affords me the position of winning no matter the circumstances: feat-to-feat, he has more; accolade-to-accolade, he has more, too. And God help you in a purple-prose-pissing contest.
All I'm demanding is fairness.
M8s, Vitiate is da must powahfull mastar of da Dank Side since, like, forevah. He use ritualz and nexuseses in combat wit eeeeassseee. He destroyed a bunch of ships and lived for 4evar. Abeloths bodies are so vulnerable in da combats and Vitiate can live as a phantom(of the Opera)and possess her SOUL.
He would stomp her.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
She couldn't one-shot Darth Krayt
Her energies were split, she was facing Luke + Krayt together, and she wasn't anywhere near full power.
and you think she will one-shot Valkorion.
😬 Full power Abeloth was a threat to the Mortis Anchorites, who, BTW, never bothered to do anything about Valkorion. Vitiate isn't anywhere near her level. 👆
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Her energies were split, she was facing Luke + Krayt together, and she wasn't anywhere near full power.
She struck Darth Krayt first.
And she was strongest in the realm of Beyond Shadows.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
😬 Full power Abeloth was a threat to the Mortis Anchorites, who, BTW, never bothered to do anything about Valkorion. Vitiate isn't anywhere near her level. 👆
When Abeloth fought Krayt, she was not only already drained and injured, but it was an avatar that didn't even have half her real power. Not to mention her mind was split because several of her weaker avatars kept being killed across the galaxy, hindering her further, and she had to constantly keep an eye on Luke.
But lets just forget all of these circumstances and say: Valkorion stomps.