darthbane77
Senior Member
Originally posted by The Merchant
What about accolades made by characters whom are knowledgeable, such as Luke comparing Kun and Palps being the strongest sources of Dark Side energy ever known.
He wasn't making a direct comparison. He said that Sidious and Kun were the strongest focuses of DS energy he'd ever encountered. That doesn't even remotely equate to Kun being ~ Sidious. Despite my desire to boost ToR rankings, misinterpreting quotes like that only hinders the movement.
Originally posted by Ursumeles
I mean, I'd rank them differently, and probably would add Nadd (and quite possibly Darth Revan), but I thought the difference would be immense.
I flip between Ragnos and Nadd a lot, tbh. I don't think I'd add Darth Revan as one of the strongest Sith though, not the top 5 anyway. Top 10 probably, around Vader's level.
Originally posted by SunRazer
They're available on either my DE Sidious RT or Azronger's super Sidious RT. Didn't you say you'd been through all of Sidious' RT's?No, it isn't. The quotes are abundantly clear in what they say, and they have a very clear distinction from the quotes that do establish Sidious as the most powerful of the Banite Sith or the modern Sith. They're obviously distinct.
First of all, I hold Palpatine's feats in higher esteem.
Secondly, feats vary in reliability from medium to medium. Just compare the movies to most of the EU's works. Unless you can establish for me a perfect scaling system between different media, then objective statements should take precedence.
Obviously you can attack quotes for unreliability, inaccuracy, subjectivity, hyperbole, etc. but if they're objective and reliable, they're obviously the most valid thing to take. And if you apply them scientifically, you can pretty much always reconcile discrepancies between quotes without the need to introduce other factors. Those things come in when there's absolutely nothing else to help you distinguish.
Feats are perfectly fine if it's between two characters within the same medium. Once you start cross-comparing between media, it gets diluted. The other thing is that inconsistencies in feats are more common and more easily argued than inconsistencies in quotes, which also makes the latter more reliable as a measuring stick. [/B]
1: Let's assume your interpretation of the accolades is wholly correct, and mine isn't. His accolades are still challenged by any feats of comparable impressiveness to his own that come from other Sith Lords, which is pretty much the crux of a feats>accolades stance.
2: Which is your right, and I hold some of Sidious' feats above some of Vitiate's, and vice versa. It's all subjective, in that respect, hence why these debates happen in the first place.
Hence why I compare film novelization feats to other EU sources, rather than using the film versions specifically. The films are limited in what they can show, novels are not, and so in an EU debate, using the film's version of events is generally somewhat unreliable.
Of course, I'm not saying feats are never inconsistent, someone mentioned that to me earlier, and I said the same to him as I'm saying to you. The fact remains that feats are direct representations of a character's power, they are what can be easily seen, specifics are known about them, etc. If an "objective" statement from a sourcebook or Leland Chee came out stating that Darovit or Zayne Carrick was the most powerful Jedi in history, would we believe them, despite the fact that their demonstrations of power and skill are below those of many other characters, despite the fact Zayne was bested by Lucien Draay? The answer is that no reasonable person would assume a statement such as that would be inarguably correct, obviously using Darovit and Carrick is an exaggeration, but I'm trying to make a point. So there's no reasonable reason to assume accolades are 100% factual off hand.
Most feat comparisons come from the EU anyway, novels, comics, games, etc. Also, the ease with which one can argue "well that's inconsistent" means relatively little, and should have no bearing on a character ranking. Iirc, characters like Superman are stated to have no upper limit, yet we often see Superman show great strain, even when he's not in a setting that requires restraint, examples of things like this exist everywhere. Sometimes Superman is capable of pushing half the weight of a massive ship through space with help from Martian Manhunter, and sometimes he can (seemingly) casually benchpress the weight of Earth for days straight (both of which, iirc, are New 52 continuity). So these inconsistencies exist in practically every single mythos, Star Wars isn't an exception, yet still, every debate circle I've been in holds feats>accolades. So no, just because feats CAN be inconsistent, does not mean accolades automatically become a more valid measuring stick.