Originally posted by twotter
Regarding your stance and authorial intent?The standing is made pretty clear. You believe what the author has in mind during the conception of a text is the correct and absolute interpretation of an event, and that a separation between the intent of the writer and what's written on paper doesn't exist.
You are a fan of word of god theory, and if every other Star Wars writer was an arch angel, or a prophet of God, Lucas is the Father almighty.
Not exactly. The Star Wars expanded universe has been worked on by at least dozens of authors, so you're bound to have incongruent interpretations of various characters and events. Since most of them are operating with equal authority despite that, you really can't deal in true absolutes unless the discussion is isolated to a single work. Generally, I treat these sorts of things as support for certain ideas, particularly if there are recurring trends.
But yes, semantics aside, I do think the intention behind the material matters. Of course, it's up to the fans to take things like contradictions and ever-changing lore into account when trying to come up with a consistent theory, but what point is there in arguing with the author about what a passage he/she wrote actually means? This isn't poetry.
The Hypothetical Anakin is meant to be 200% of Palpatine. That's a pretty clear and precise definition, even moreso than the Gillard tiers.
[...]
80% means 80%. You understand basic math right? If I bench 100Kg for 1 rep and you can do 80% of that, how much are you benching? Think of the same but with Telekinesis.
Jesus, you sound like a Dragon Ball fan. Do forgive me if I don't take lines like "Anakin could have been twice as good as the Emperor," and "Vader's maybe 20% worse," as something I should treat like a math problem. Besides, at what point George say he was comparing their ability as telekinetics in that interview? Does Sidious being 20% better than Vader mean he should be able to out-wrestle him, too? Because he sure didn't in RotJ.
How about you explain how to measure what "20% better as a swordsman" means, while you're at it?
You're fairly certain that Vader was eventually passed in between the ranks of bane and Tenebrous, based on...? Not much really. In the case of accolade wars, the best we can say is that neither receive scaling from the other.
I never said there was much to go on. Anyone could tell you that it's entirely guesswork; if you're not into that, you shouldn't have made a thread using a character with five pages of screentime.
If Darth Bane--who's hardly some great distance behind Vader himself--is the progenitor of a lineage of some three dozen Sith, each said to be stronger than the last, cumulating in Vader's definite superior, then I'd think it's not so unlikely that the last members of that lineage were his betters as well. There's not enough information to prove it one way or the other, but the impressive little we have seen of Tenebrous and his fellows hardly discredits the idea.
So now you're speculating the intent behind the authorial intent.
Of course? Why would I try to speculate the meaning behind various texts, only to take words at face value?
But 20% is what he said, and that what we have to go from. And as an exact percentage, the difference isn't substantial.
An unsubstantial difference between the abilities of Palpatine and Vader isn't exactly reflected in most of the material.
Originally posted by carthage
Vader tanked Sidious lightning (Vader #1)which left the Lylek queen a smoking husk (their carapace is stronger than Twileki rebel armor), Tenebrous's lightning isn't doing shit
Are we seriously considering this as an all-out Palpatine? I doubt he'd want to kill his apprentice just after he got him. And what even is the Lylek queen's best durability feat to begin with?
Originally posted by MythLord
Are we seriously considering this as an all-out Palpatine? I doubt he'd want to kill his apprentice just after he got him. And what even is the Lylek queen's best durability feat to begin with?
Why would he hold back against him when Sith historically are brutal to their apprentices? He's well aware of Vader's potential dwarfing Maul's or Dooku's and in subsquent issues sends him to prove his worth as a Sith in getting a lightsaber. He has no compunction about being brutal on Vader to prove his worth, its a great feat for Vader regardless of how you spin it.
Originally posted by carthage
Why would he hold back against him when Sith historically are brutal to their apprentices? He's well aware of Vader's potential dwarfing Maul's or Dooku's and in subsquent issues sends him to prove his worth as a Sith in getting a lightsaber. He has no compunction about being brutal on Vader to prove his worth, its a great feat for Vader regardless of how you spin it.
That's all well and good, but hardly addresses my point: what makes you think Palpatine's lightning in this instance was lethal? Sure, he might've wanted to torture Vader and he succeeded in bringing him down to his knees, but the lightning is obviously not nearly the same intensity as what he unleashed against the Lylek queen.
Originally posted by MythLord
That's all well and good, but hardly addresses my point: what makes you think Palpatine's lightning in this instance was lethal? Sure, he might've wanted to torture Vader and he succeeded in bringing him down to his knees, but the lightning is obviously not nearly the same intensity as what he unleashed against the Lylek queen.
I'll take your word when you offer proof that he wasn't seriously trying to down Vader.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Not exactly.
Not exactly what?
That you're an authorial intent proponent... or that Lucas, as far as Legends go, was the primera authority on all Star Wars content up until the rights were sold to Disney. Because both are true. For the former I can find statements made no longer than 3 days ago. For the latter, well you'll have to look at the old holocron tier system for Legends, and see how valued Lucas' personal statements are within that hierarchy.
The Star Wars expanded universe has been worked on by at least dozens of authors, so you're bound to have incongruent interpretations of various characters and events.
Blah blah blah blah. If you were denying authorial intent theory then this little anecdote might be relevant as it's one of the biggest counterarguments to it. This is especially true for Star Wars content. But seen as you've made your thoughts clear you'll have to begrudgingly accept the spoken word from the originator of Star Wars and the thoughts of his own creation, Darth Vader.
Since most of them are operating with equal authority
Well as far as "canon" goes, none of them have any authority. The authority they have has to be written in whatever publication they're making at the time of it's conception. This rule of course, doesn't apply to Lucas, who's own statements are automatically "G-canon", and it's rather unfortunate for you that this is the only guy I'm quoting.
Generally, I treat these sorts of things as support for certain ideas, particularly if there are recurring trends.
I appreciate the backtracking but that's not what you said. You said the author knows the correct interpretation of his work. We can argue wether that's true or not another time, but it is what you said, going as far to defend Tom Vietch's controversial viewpoint on Palpatine vs Kun as a 'statement of it's time'. Even though by feats, it was clearly a false statement of it's time.
But yes, semantics aside, I do think the intention behind the material matters
Bingo. Why are we arguing this further?
Do forgive me if I don't take lines like "Anakin could have been twice as good as the Emperor," and "Vader's maybe 20% worse," and treat them like a math problem
Well, sorry, but it kind of is a maths problem... and not a very hard one at that. Vader is 80% the power of Sidious. If Sidious can TK a 100 tons, then following this statment of canon, Vader can TK 80. If you'd like to deny the nature of this statement despite it's canonicity for whatever reason, I might as well deny the articles claiming that the Rule of 2 is a linear progression. In which case, Tene has precisely jack shit to his name other then a failed Maxi-Chlorian project and the inability to quell a mass of energy ala Tott Doneeta.
Besides, at what point George say he was comparing their ability as telekinetics in that interview?
I never said he did. But he did so inadvertently as TK is merely an expression of raw power.
Does Sidious being 20% better than Vader mean he should be able to out-wrestle him, too? Because he sure didn't in RotJ.
😆
Can you point out the wrestling match that happened in ROTJ between the two?
Because from what I can see, Vader ussupectlingly picked his much smaller and lighter master up from behind, by the armpits and held him at arms length to throw him into a pit. Now, as a KMC Frequenter, I don't expect fighting, or physical activity of any sort is your strong suit. But you might at least know a bit a the human anatomy. So please tell me, what wrestling moves are available to Palpatine in such a position?
Considering one's shoulder and elbow joints only allow your arms to move in a certain direction, he can't effectively hit someone who's behind him. This is made worse considering that Vader is literally about a foot taller than the Emperor. Giving him a massive reach advantage. Which yes, does mean that Palpatine is helpless here. The 20% power differnce doesn't really hinder Vader from picking up a man who weighs 70 kilos. Unless you want to tell me that Super-Weight is a Force power now?
I'm really not sure what idea you were trying to convey with this non point. You originally mused that a 20% power difference is a rather substantial one, only to then say that the difference couldn't be seen in a non existent wrestling match between the two. So what exactly was the point here? That you don't think before you type or that your IQ is lower than 100? The funniest part of all of this, is that the specific scene from ROTJ, demonstrates exactly what one would expect if Vader truly and accurately had 80% of Palpatine's power. His Force lightning wasn't able to stop Vader or slow him down and only killed him by disabling his life support. And any TK attempt, either failed or couldn't happen in the first instance. Probably because Vader is too close to Sids in power
If Darth Bane--who's hardly some great distance behind Vader himself--is the progenitor of a lineage of some three dozen Sith, each said to be stronger than the last, cumulating in Vader's definite superior, then I'd think it's not so unlikely that the last members of that lineage were his betters as well.
Not really.
Sorry to say that every thing we know about Teneb makes him out to be lolworthy compared to his two successors and the same could probably be said for every banite Sith lord before him.
When you include machinations of Sidious and plagueis, their individual power growth at various points, which includes the unbalancing of the Force, Sidious' own massive Force unbalancing after hego's death and other events such as the draining of Byss' 20 billion popluce , you'd probably have a rather substantial increase of power (at least greater than 20%) between pre TPM Sids and Sidious as of ROTJ. For Teneb to be stronger than Vader, you have to deny that is the case.
And you're Correct, ROTJ sids is Vader's definite superior, he's also the definite superior of Tenebrous. The differnce is that he surpassed the latter much, much earlier in his life (before TPM), as did his weaker predecessor, Plagueis. The same is not necessarily true in regards to Vader. It might be, but the case is unconfirmed. And Vader is still better than Teneb by miles when you compare feats.
but the impressive little we have seen of Tenebrous and his fellows hardly discredits the idea.
The little we've seen of Tenebrous practically guarantee's that Vader's offensive Force output is more than the former can handle. And i just love how you're trying to group him in with his 'fellows' despite the two sith after him being vastly more successful in every convincible way than Tenebrous. Knowing that on his own merit, he has nothing.
An unsubstantial difference between the abilities of Palpatine and Vader isn't exactly reflected in most of the material.
Does that include the non-existent wrestling match you brought up where Vader got the better of him :roll eyes:. The only other thing that you can argue is that his feats are better, which is a ludicrous notion in regards to someone arguing for Tenebrous.
Originally posted by MythLord
Why would he try to kill his newest apprentice? LMFAO.Once again, common sense escapes you. 👆
I guess I missed the spot where if a Sith apprentice dies he was unworthy, but if he survives he's worthy of his spot. Its not like he was the chosen one or something, lel. Fail point is fail.
Originally posted by carthage
I guess I missed the spot where if a Sith apprentice dies he was unworthy, but if he survives he's worthy of his spot. Its not like he was the chosen one or something, lel. Fail point is fail.
So your argument is just "He's the Chosen One"? Which basically means it's PIS? Good to see you've come to your senses. 👆
Also, you do realize their dialogue before and after said lightning zapping notes Vader wants to live and Palpatine doesn't want to kill him, right?