My issues with Banite scaling

Obviously, I've never really supported this stance that Darth Tenebrous is close to Darth Plagueis or whatever. To me, it doesn't make any logical sense, nor is it consistent with all the previous Star Wars eras, that thirty Sith are produced that are consecutively more powerful than the base (who is canonically one of the most powerful Sith Lords in history). Further, we would rather quickly reach a point where each Sith coming after is more powerful than the most powerful in all of history before it... maybe even ten times in a row. What are the chances that, say, Vitiate, who is the most powerful Sith Lord for 27,000 years before him, is surpassed ten times over consecutively by the leading powerhouse of that generation? To me, zero. Generational powerhouses are rarely galactic powers. Figures like Exar Kun or Revan, who's power can spawn across centuries without contest, are outliers. Most generations do not produce a figure that a name is even given to, let alone being comparable to the likes of Revan or Exar Kun. For example, the time-frame between the Revan novelization and The Old Republic generations featured over two centuries of births. Not one of these figures, as per Scourge, were more powerful than Meetra Surik. Further, for the "centuries" prior to Darth Bane, not one of the Sith were more powerful than him. Yet suddenly generations boom with Sith superior to Darth Bane over-and-over-and-over again? What's the statistical chance of that happening? Extremely low. And why the hell is Palpatine referring to Darth Bane's power in semi-awe and that he's one of his most powerful predecessors if Darth Bane's power is nothing special? A Sith Lord born with superior powers than him thirty times over makes his power incredibly un-unique.

I understand that many quotes state the Sith grew more powerful each generation, but I suggest a more loose interpretation of such. The likelihood of a new history-spanning powerhouse being born again and again is next to none. But the fact that the Sith were growing in knowledge and influence and slowly shifting the balance of the Force toward the dark-side could mean that the Sith were "growing in power" (not Force power, but other just-as-relevant aspects). And I imagine that the Sith overall did grow in Force power, but the graph was very much a weak and slow positive correlation (like this: https://image.slidesharecdn.com/correlation-1219636145574476-8/95/correlation-57-728.jpg?cb=1219610980) than a direct one (i.e. http://www.shortell.org/book/s18b.gif) like everyone suggests. I am sure that many Sith between the start and end of the lineage were more powerful than Darth Bane, but the notion they all were is just... next-to-impossible, for me at least.

Tbh I'm actually really curious to see if you're sway over this forum is powerful enough to make people fall into a line on this one. I mean, you managed to brainwash everyone into Anakin wank but I don't think EVEN YOU are powerful enough to get people to make such a large shift a second time.

Yeah I don't take Banite scaling too seriously

Oh shit... I think I may have overestimated them...

Originally posted by UCanShootMyNova
Tbh I'm actually really curious to see if you're sway over this forum is powerful enough to make people fall into a line on this one. I mean, you managed to brainwash everyone into Anakin wank but I don't think EVEN YOU are powerful enough to get people to make such a large shift a second time.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
I'm actually just voicing my opinion with this one.

You think I was born 564 days ago?

You make a good point.

But there are some counter arguments to it. Which I'm not interested in debating cuz lolno

Still Banite scaling is a thing, like it not.

I think the only counter (quote-spamming aside) would be that the slow shift in the galaxy's alignment contributed to the birth of dark-siders. However, this theory would suggest that there is a correlation between the power of dark-siders and the state of the galaxy or environment at which they were conceived, which seems like a stretch unless the Banites were born inherently evil like Vitiate or Palpatine.

Apparently the Darkside is more concentrated the less individual darksiders there are according to Bane in the DBT meaning that the influence of the Darkside on the Galaxy would be more closely tied to the individual members of the RoT line seeing as they're some of the only existing darksiders in the Galaxy and certainly among the most powerful.

I don't think there's any correlation between amount of dark-siders and the potential power of said dark-siders. That just... wouldn't make sense. I think Darth Bane's ideology was very ideological and symbolic in nature, not literal.

Personally, I think the idea has some merit. It sounds like something the SW writers would do and I could imagine the Force producing more powerful individuals inclined towards the Darkside as a passive way of keeping balance ( I.E. Sidious ).

That's just theory crafting though.

Well, another potential counter is that power breeds power, and as talented as individuals like Revan and Kun were, it was their study of the Dark Side (and in Revan's case the Light) that allowed them to achieve great actualised power. Revan was a prodigy yes, but he had to learn a lot to actually reach his height.

It's possible that most Sith in history never reached that peak due to the climate they lived in, with Valkorion and Kun being notable exceptions to that rule. The Rule of Two Sith however would almost always reach their peak, and they'd have unrestricted access to a library of Sith knowledge that allowed to them do it, quickly.

PS: Ant, how seriously do you actually take that Scourge quote?

I more or less agree with Sel. I think most of the powerful Sith, let's say, from KOTOR/TOR era would be far more powerful if they had access to RoT training and knowledge.

Especially since they wouldn't have to watch their backs constantly, I mean yeah they had to watch their apprentice....but I mean that's better than 1,000s of other Sith breathing down your neck that wanna kill you.

I'm in complete agreement with Ant on this one. I think it's far more likely that each Banite Sith became more powerful in a different sense than just the Force. Whether it was amassing wealth, political power, a criminal network, or what have you. The idea that the RoT created dozens of Sith consecutively, more powerful than Bane, is ludicrous to me, quotes or not. While I'm not opposed to the idea that SOME of those Sith were far more powerful than others, the prospect of each one being exponentially more powerful than the last, is laughable.

@Selenial: I can't respond in-full now, but I find that unlikely because otherwise the Jedi Order should have consistently produced powerhouses since they are in a perfect opportunity to reach their full-potential. Yet we get Jedi like Qui-Gon Jinn, hailed as one of the greatest ever, but blatantly not anything to the Sith greats. I'd also wager Revan's more powerful than any Jedi who came before and after until Yoda. I would think there would be a lot less Adi Gallias and Kit Fistos are more Dookus in the Order's history otherwise (but we know that not to be the case).

If we go by mere logic on this one, Ant's right. I brought up a similar point in the past, which was dismissed due to the fact that RoT Sith growing more powerful is a canonical fact [without room for interpretation, apparently].

However, I personally strongly dislike this particular canonical fact. It doesn't make much sense to me. Knowledge can only take you so far if you don't have massive potential.

Agreed, I've argued for this in the past only to be called biased and stuff. You could also add the argument that the Sith Order's main goal, as per Bane, was to grow in power to defeat the Jedi in anything but an all out war so those quotes saying that they grew more powerful with each generation could easily be reduced to different aspects of power.

It's true, Palpatine is only the most powerful sith politically.

Bane kicks his ass.

No, it's probably the opposite. You underestimate the scope of the galaxy, and overestimate the idea of talent. Force sensitive beings are present in every corner of the universe, and excepting the few thousand that are nurtured by force-using organizations, the unbelievably vast majority of them never amount to anything. Kyp Durron, Revan, Palpatine, each of them was born into an insignificant family and would likely have continued to live a (relatively) insignificant life were they among the 99.999% of force-sensitive individuals who weren't indoctrinated into a force-sect. It's silly to assume they're the only folks in the galaxy who could have become who they did; just because we can't see it through the pinhole we observe the SW mythos through doesn't mean it's not there.

Furthermore, the vast majority of even those who are indoctrinated obviously don't live up to their full potential. Conversely, with the kinds of resources available to the lineage of Bane, and years of investment on the part of some Sith Lord of legendary prowess, I'm pretty confident even an unremarkable force-sensitive would become a remarkable Sith. Kinda like someone of average intelligence who diligently studied under a world-class tutor scoring higher on a test than a genius who was put through a standardized class. Although, like I was saying before, it's not like a fully-fledged Banite Sith wouldn't be able to locate an exceptionally talented apprentice with some years of searching. It only took Bane a few hours after assuming his mantle to find someone stronger in the Force than himself, after all.

Oh, and lastly, you're just wrong. It's a fact that each generation surpassed the last. Stupid thread.