Originally posted by Beniboybling
So Ant, should we start doing rematches of Luke vs Vader, Qui-Gon vs Maul, Dooku vs Yoda etc. etc. considering their new feats and accolades?Yeah, this logic is retarded, and disturbing.
Originally posted by Dark-Kenshin
If new information came out suggesting that Vader definitely threw the fight on purpose, Qui-Gon had a nasty head cold at the time while he was dueling Maul, Dooku had too much respect for his old master to finish him off, etc, then absolutely! There are plenty of ways new information could destroy our current notions of all of those encounters and I think the power creep Vitiate seems to be going through is a great example of new information forcing us to reevaluate the old. Come to think of it, this happens all the time in comics (i.e. Flash's draw with superman in a race later being explained as the Flash not taking the race seriously and that he's really much faster).
You WTFpwned his argument. 😄
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Feats are *always* derived from primary and secondary sources. Accolades comparing characters from different sources, however, makes them inherently secondary or tertiary sources. After all, secondary sources are works derived from what is established from previous works. And tertiary are encyclopedias, etc. In the case of the Darth Plagueis blurb, the quote declaring him the most powerful is derived from a comparison across all-existing sources. Thus, the distinction between already established power-levels through combat, and the power-levels established through broad accolades, is that the former is universally solidified in a primary source, whereas the latter is always from a secondary and tertiary source. Thus, the introduction of new primary material, such as all the post-launch SWTOR expansions, holds not only blatant higher authority to the quote, but is not restricted by the content or claims the quote places. I'll concede that by merit of the holocron he is not superior to Darth Plagueis, since that's a tertiary claim, but to repeat, the actions seen in a primary source isn't restricted by a secondary.Now, this doesn't mean Vitiate is more powerful than Darth Plagueis, but rather he's not restricted to the quote, allowing for a new assessment to take place.
Originally posted by Dark-Kenshin
If new information came out suggesting that Vader definitely threw the fight on purpose, Qui-Gon had a nasty head cold at the time while he was dueling Maul, Dooku had too much respect for his old master to finish him off, etc, then absolutely! There are plenty of ways new information could destroy our current notions of all of those encounters and I think the power creep Vitiate seems to be going through is a great example of new information forcing us to reevaluate the old. Come to think of it, this happens all the time in comics (i.e. Flash's draw with superman in a race later being explained as the Flash not taking the race seriously and that he's really much faster).
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
👆You WTFpwned his argument. 😄
Nope. What Dark-Kenshin described is a retcon, which is special in the sense that it overrides previous conceptions by reinterpreting older sources, not by pretending they don't exist. "Vader threw the fight" and that's why it looked like he was superior is not the same as "that source is old so we're going to pretend that it doesn't exist."
Here, Ant hasn't introduced any new interpretation of the Plagueis blurb; he's just posited that we should outright discard an explicit statement for an incredibly weak theory based on a rather unremarkable new feat.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
The problem here is that your claim of a difference in authoritative power between "primary" and "secondary" sources is something you just made up. But even if we were to take it as a given, I still see no contradiction between the idea that Vitiate was a prodigy who could create holocrons as a child, and the fact that at his peak he's still weaker than the near-culmination of the Banite line, who could threaten the balance of the Force itself and manipulate the very midichlorians that control Force sensitivity. In the absence of the Plagueis blurb maybe you could argue either way; I would definitely favor the Plagueis side, but because there's that ambiguity, the blurb's explicit statement stands as the tipping point.
You get around this by just denying that you're defending the holocron putting Vitiate above Plagueis so irrefutably that it's grounds to ignore the blurb. But you clearly do hold that view, so where and when are you going to elaborate instead of just deflecting it?
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Nope. What Dark-Kenshin described is a retcon, which is special in the sense that it overrides previous conceptions by reinterpreting older sources, not by pretending they don't exist. "Vader threw the fight" and that's why it looked like he was superior is not the same as "that source is old so we're going to pretend that it doesn't exist."Here, Ant hasn't introduced any new interpretation of the Plagueis blurb; he's just posited that we should outright discard an explicit statement for an incredibly weak theory based on a rather unremarkable new feat.
The maximum we will get is statements like these:
The Sith Emperor has mastered the dark side's power to become the most dominating Force-user the galaxy has ever seen.
From (Star Wars: The Old Republic: Codex Entry titled "The Emperor's Fallen Jedi (Knight)."😉
-----
The Sith Emperor is the most powerful Force-user who has ever existed. Unless this implacable enemy can be defeated, the Jedi Order is doomed.
From (Star Wars: The Old Republic: Encyclopedia)
-----
Your stance is that we should treat any accolade as gospel unless directly contradicted in another source. This is not a sound stance for a cross-era comparison because TOR is not canon. TOR content developers and/or authors are unlikely to write about Sith Lords in their works who existed in the future. Older sources promoted Darth Bane as the most powerful Sith Lord in galactic history. However, Valkorion's showings outstrip that of Darth Bane by miles. Therefore, it is unwise to stick to an older source to determine where Darth Bane stands in the grand scheme of things. We are unlikely to get a book that covers entire galactic history and rank characters in terms of power.
Therefore, objectivity is the way forward. We should look at these matters on a case-by-case basis.
It's not as if TOR and Vitiate haven't had treatment from other sources that span all of history.
If we're running off authorial intent, then Sidious is still supreme, since he's been touted as such for decades by a variety of authors, in all manner of books and from all sorts of perspectives, in-universe and out-of-universe. There's literally no way around it.
As far as "objectivity" goes (which is an entirely fantastical concept, I hope you know), then Plagueis is remarkably close to the pinnacle of Sith power (Sidious), and he was so powerful that he could basically influence life and death on a physical scale and the very midi-chlorians of the Force itself.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Darth Plagueis existed in an era that is beyond the scope of TOR. Therefore, TOR content developers are unlikely to consider Darth Plagueis for comparison.
The point is that the Plagueis blurb does cover Vitiate.
The maximum we will get is statements like these:The Sith Emperor has mastered the dark side's power to become the most dominating Force-user the galaxy has ever seen.
From (Star Wars: The Old Republic: Codex Entry titled "The Emperor's Fallen Jedi (Knight)."😉
Right, and "has ever seen" is the present perfect tense, .i.e. it would not cover any of the Banite sith.
Your stance is that we should treat any accolade as gospel unless directly contradicted in another source.
Or if you could make a very strong theory from the surrounding evidence, yes.
This is not a sound stance for a cross-era comparison because TOR is not canon.
Neither is the Plagueis novel. But we're assuming their existence in one EU continuity. That makes sense, since they're all labeled Legends, and reference one another (Plagueis mentions the Sith Emperor, Bane mentions Revan, etc.)
TOR content developers and/or authors are unlikely to write about Sith Lords in their works who existed in the future. Older sources promoted Darth Bane as the most powerful Sith Lord in galactic history. However, Valkorion's showings outstrip that of Darth Bane by miles. Therefore, it is unwise to stick to an older source to determine where Darth Bane stands in the grand scheme of things. We are unlikely to get a book that covers entire galactic history and rank characters in terms of power.Therefore, objectivity is the way forward. We should look at these matters on a case-by-case basis.
...but you haven't presented any reason to discard a direct statement in this particular "case by case basis". Just pointing out that you think other blurbs are wrong is not a reason to discard any you see on your whim; by that logic, I can discard all the novelizations by pointing out that the RotJ one claimed Ben Owens was Kenobi's brother.
So what is your case for tossing out the blurb? Why is it so obvious to you that, say, absorbing Ziost is more impressive than presenting a cosmological threat to the balance of the Force that you think we can literally pretend an official source doesn't exist?
Remember, your burden is especially large because you aren't even trying to reinterpret the blurb - you literally want to discard it.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
The point is that the Plagueis blurb does cover Vitiate.
Del Ray's stance on the matter is 'secondary' and should be perceived like that.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Right, and "has ever seen" is the present perfect tense, .i.e. it would not cover any of the Banite sith.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Or if you could make a very strong theory from the surrounding evidence, yes.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Neither is the Plagueis novel. But we're assuming their existence in one EU continuity. That makes sense, since they're all labeled Legends, and reference one another (Plagueis mentions the Sith Emperor, Bane mentions Revan, etc.)
Originally posted by The Ellimist
...but you haven't presented any reason to discard a direct statement in this particular "case by case basis". Just pointing out that you think other blurbs are wrong is not a reason to discard any you see on your whim; by that logic, I can discard all the novelizations by pointing out that the RotJ one claimed Ben Owens was Kenobi's brother.So what is your case for tossing out the blurb? Why is it so obvious to you that, say, absorbing Ziost is more impressive than presenting a cosmological threat to the balance of the Force that you think we can literally pretend an official source doesn't exist?
My argument rests upon the observation that an older source called The Official Star Wars Fact File promotes Darth Bane as the most powerful Sith Lord in galactic history. Should we continue to take this revelation at face value?
+
Star Wars is a continuously evolving and expanding lore. From time to time, new information emerges that may challenge credibility or truthfulness of information (published earlier) in certain aspects, directly and/or indirectly. Due to this factor, we witnessed release of 'revisions' of several sourcebooks.
Analogy:
- The Ultimate Visual Guide to Star Wars (2005)
- The Ultimate Visual Guide to Star Wars: Updated and Expanded (2012)
Now, that statement about Darth Bane covers the entire galactic history up to that point in time. And new content about characters - who existed earlier - is unlikely to challenge its credibility (explicitly) because Darth Bane would be beyond the scope of such works. Therefore, it is up to the readers to formulate an informed opinion about this matter.
In the case of Darth Plagueis, the accolade in question is from a 'secondary' source; not from the author of the book (James Luceno) or a component of the story of Darth Plagueis.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Remember, your burden is especially large because you aren't even trying to reinterpret the blurb - you literally want to discard it.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenDOlder source? Than what exactly, given it was published in 2014?
My argument rests upon the observation that an older source called [B]The Official Star Wars Fact File promotes Darth Bane as the most powerful Sith Lord in galactic history. Should we continue to take this revelation at face value? [/B]
And also, simply because Vitiate can consume a planet, that in itself does not prove Plagueis cannot do the same. If you really want to discard the accolade, then prove that Plagueis' limit (which he never showed in any source) is below Vitiate's. You must accomplish this without an argument from ignorance.
Unless the accolade is discarded absolutely (i.e. in the respect that it is proven non-canon) then the fact remains that Plagueis > Vanilla (2012) Vitiate, who himself > weakened Ziost Vitiate per the ground realities of the source material. 🙂
And that will remain true until somebody substantiates the idea that Vitiate has been retconned into being more powerful.