Vitiate - Shedding Limitations

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
To clarify and summarize the preexisting material. Some sourcebooks even create new content, in which those claims would be primary.

Clarify material with a lifespan of however long it takes for material on the same subject to come out? That's ridiculously short - you're proposing a method of continuity so fluid that we can never have an established universe that doesn't get reorganized every week.

And your distinction between primary and secondary would serve our point - if the purpose of the latter is to clarify the former, then the blurb clarifies that Plagueis's claim to being the most powerful ever was accurate. Done.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
You're late to the party. Refer here:

Not what I was referring to. 😉

Also,

The overarching issue here is whether you want to break the fourth wall and take evidence into consideration with respect to the real life date and context of their publication. I think our models should try to minimize acknowledgment of the fictional nature of the universe; the logical conclusion if we follow out of universe meddling to its extreme is that to look at vs. debates we should just analyze what the writers would think would make the best story/most money.

Really, the fact is that again continuity does and always will exist, whatever fan rules we care to invent.

When BioWare decide to slot in some new continuity to the story of Vitiate, they do not do so with the mindset that "hurr durr we dontz have to pay attention to the stuff we wrote 4 years ago", rather the opposite, they ensure what they write is continuous with what they wrote four years ago. Ergo the nature of Vitiate remains unchanged, the capabilities of Vitiate remain unchanged, there is no need for a reassessment because Vitiate is unchanged, the lay of the land is unchanged.

This is what happens when old material is embellished on and added to, this is how continuity works.

Obviously there will be instances in which the lay of the land is changed, these are called retcons, and are easily identifiable as such. However in so far, Vitiate has not been retconned, therefore no "reassessment" of his character is needed.

So again, we can invent as many rules as we please in regards to how new content bears on old content and vice versa. But practically speaking its a fruitless endeavour relative to the unalterable mechanics of the universe, that continuity (by design) remains the same, as far as it does not become retroactive.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
whatever fan rules you care to invent.

And that's what this really comes down to Ant. You'll never be the authority on the validity of sources on this forum or any other. 🙂

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Really, the fact is that again continuity does and always will exist, whatever fan rules we care to invent.

When BioWare decide to slot in some new continuity to the story of Vitiate, they do not do so with the mindset that "hurr durr we dontz have to pay attention to the stuff we wrote 4 years ago", rather the opposite, they ensure what they write is continuous with what they wrote four years ago. Ergo the nature of Vitiate remains unchanged, the capabilities of Vitiate remain unchanged, there is no need for a reassessment because Vitiate is unchanged, the lay of the land is unchanged.

This is what happens when old material is embellished on and added to, this is how continuity works.

Obviously there will be instances in which the lay of the land is changed, these are called retcons, and are easily identifiable as such. However in so far, Vitiate has not been retconned, therefore no "reassessment" of his character is needed.

So again, we can invent as many rules as we please in regards to how new content bears on old content and vice versa. But practically speaking its a fruitless endeavour relative to the unalterable mechanics of the universe, that continuity (by design) remains the same, as far as it does not become retroactive.

👆

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
A simple argument in this matter involves the case of Darth Bane. This character has blurbs under his belt that imply that he was superior to all practitioners of the Dark Side that came before him. Objectively speaking, this is not true, but the blurbs are there.

However, we are looking at double-standards of Sheevites here. They want to take Darth Plagueis's blurb seriously but ignore Darth Bane's.

What double standards? I'm willing to accept the quote.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
What's the point of having sourcebooks if any new published material automatically invalidates them even if no direct contradiction exists?

The purpose of a sourcebook is to supplement the primary sources and to embellish on details that weren't available in said sources.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Clarify material with a lifespan of however long it takes for material on the same subject to come out? That's ridiculously short - you're proposing a method of continuity so fluid that we can never have an established universe that doesn't get reorganized every week.

And your distinction between primary and secondary would serve our point - if the purpose of the latter is to clarify the former, then the blurb clarifies that Plagueis's claim to being the most powerful ever was accurate. Done.

This seems to be a pretty hysterical reaction. Its not nearly that dramatic, facts would only change if contradictory information was created. Which is the systems we use right now.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Obviously there will be instances in which the lay of the land is changed, these are called retcons, and are easily identifiable as such. However in so far, Vitiate has not been retconned, therefore no "reassessment" of his character is needed.

Uh, you sure about that? Because I'm pretty sure he was retconned into Valkorion fairly blatantly.

Yeah and what I've been asking is, what is that contradictory evidence? That he made a holocron?

I believe that Ant's argument is that the new information about Valkorion recontextualises his character and respective level of power. That Valkorion was apparently fantastically powerful even as a child, before a century of darkside exploration, before absorbing 8000 Sith Lords and all life on Nathema, before another millennia + of constant growth and deepening mastery, before draining Revan for 300 years, before absorbing Ziost...... indicates that he's blatantly superior to Plagueis by a nautical mile.

Personally I don't really see how Vitiate was ever intended to not be a being far beyond Plagueis' comparably feeble capabilities from day one, but there you go.

Originally posted by Nephthys
I believe that Ant's argument is that the new information about Valkorion recontextualises his character and respective level of power. That Valkorion was apparently fantastically powerful even as a child, before a century of darkside exploration, before absorbing 8000 Sith Lords and all life on Nathema, before another millennia + of constant growth and deepening mastery, before draining Revan for 300 years, before absorbing Ziost...... indicates that he's blatantly superior to Plagueis by a nautical mile.

Personally I don't really see how Vitiate was ever intended to [b]not be a being far beyond Plagueis' comparably feeble capabilities from day one, but there you go. [/B]

Yet despite all that, Vitiate was one to hide away so that no one would be able to kill him? If he has all this ridiculous power, I don't see why anyone would be a threat.

Him being Valkorion doesn't recontextualize anything, since he's still officially referred to as Sith. The quote applies to him.

Well I mean Sidious died by being thrown over a railing. Revan fell over and got brain cancer. Nihilus just happened to have a Jedi-shaped kryptonite. The Outlander actually does kill him, several times. Valkorion isn't invincible and he knows it. A part of his character is that he's got godlike power but is terrified over losing it. He's kind of like a shittier Diavolo.

Originally posted by Nephthys
That Valkorion was apparently fantastically powerful even as a child

Originally posted by Nephthys
Well I mean Sidious died by being thrown over a railing. Revan fell over and got brain cancer. Nihilus just happened to have a Jedi-shaped kryptonite. The Outlander actually does kill him, several times. Valkorion isn't invincible and he knows it. A part of his character is that he's got godlike power but is terrified over losing it. He's kind of like a shittier Diavolo.

Still think that's the dumbest thing ever.

But anyway...I get that, but at the same time with all these power increases and what not...I feel like that claim just doesn't make sense. Why should he fear anyone, if he has all this power? Going by all these quotes, no one should have come close to killing any of his bodies.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
He already was lol. Nothing has changed.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Really, the fact is that again continuity does and always will exist, whatever fan rules we care to invent.

When BioWare decide to slot in some new continuity to the story of Vitiate, they do not do so with the mindset that "hurr durr we dontz have to pay attention to the stuff we wrote 4 years ago", rather the opposite, they ensure what they write is continuous with what they wrote four years ago. Ergo the nature of Vitiate remains unchanged, the capabilities of Vitiate remain unchanged, there is no need for a reassessment because Vitiate is unchanged, the lay of the land is unchanged.

This is what happens when old material is embellished on and added to, this is how continuity works.

Obviously there will be instances in which the lay of the land is changed, these are called retcons, and are easily identifiable as such. However in so far, Vitiate has not been retconned, therefore no "reassessment" of his character is needed.

So again, we can invent as many rules as we please in regards to how new content bears on old content and vice versa. But practically speaking its a fruitless endeavour relative to the unalterable mechanics of the universe, that continuity (by design) remains the same, as far as it does not become retroactive.

Originally posted by Nephthys
I know, but nobody actually believed that for some reason.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
And your tears are supposed to mean something to me?

Was that sentence supposed to mean something to me?

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
You didn't remotely respond to my post.

But then I actually did just fine.