ChaosTheory123
Bored with sanity
Gotta preface this with the fact this is more fun I've had debating shit than I have had in a while :maybe
Kind of a given when my board is dead and full of lazy ****s or lemmings, but take what you're given
Originally posted by ILS
The thing is, a lot of times you're applying hard, real-world logic, to fiction. I've found that across fictional universes, they generally have their own system of logic that transcends what is possible, or what we're limited by, in the real world. Once you get used to that form of logic, you can start applying it effectively in situations like this - a versus format.
You're acknowledging the problem, yet failing to address it at the same time
Cross universe fight, naturally, some universes are going to behave differently than others
How do you compare them?
You need a common foundation to draw upon to even bother trying. Without doing so, I can claim destroying the universe takes less energy than flicking a light switch on and off for a 60 watt bulb and you'd have no way to challenge my assessment on the premise the universe given works on "magic".
I understand what you mean when you talk about telekinesis being far more powerful than lightning, making the epic lightning-tutaminis/lightsaber duels look pretty paltry in comparison, or how Vader should by all rights be able to vaporize Kanan. Star Wars logic has never worked that way, however. Telekinesis has always been a brute force weapon incapable of vaporizing anything Force sensitive, and lightning has always been treated as a killing tool.
Not really my problem if that's never been shown
One character can play ping pong with a guy that moves Star Destroyers
The other can levitate a decent sized rock
Comparing the feats, you'll find the latter is magnitudes weaker than the former
The conclusion you reach is Kanan is fleshy meat chunks on account of lacking feats to back up suggesting otherwise
Or, like I brought up above? Just say **** it to the hobby, you're not bothering using any actual form of objective comparison anyway
Another example is Satele absorbing the lightsaber energy - by all means, in the real world that might not have been enough energy to knock down the cliff face. But, Star Wars logic dictates that it was. For someone who doesn't care about the physics involved (the average SWTOR player watching the trailer), they grasp the authorial intent - Satele absorbs powerful energy sword, then projects powerful wave.
First?
Establish authorial intent for me, because I've never seen anything stating Satele needed to absorb power from something as pithy as a lightsaber to level that large cliff.
Another thing? Hiding behind "authorial intent" when the author is mum about an issue? Guess what, you're making an assumption without basis and dots to conenct based on what you personally think is going on
A logical mess, given people vary in how they think from person to person. Your experiences and theirs are unique
Without an established authorial intent? You're left with feats to draw upon, and you're lacking in support there to support either premise or conclusion.
tl;dr, become accustomed to the universe's logic, don't bring your own logic to the universe.
TL;DR?
You're free to be like Stan Lee, just don't expect this hobby to actually have objective conclusions without an actual foundation to make comparisons between feats from
I've said it many times, this hobby is a joke, inexact, and subjective. How you approach depends on preference.
If you want to try being objective? Better figure out a way to compare fictions across the board in a reliable fashion.
Anyway, sleep now. Had some fun. Not exactly expecting to change any minds, just trying to get some thinking going :maybe
Later dude.