Feats vs. Accolades

So when we construct our character hierarchies, we inevitably have to weigh the relative importance of different mediums of information. What criteria to use really depends on what kind of continuity you want to optimize for. Do you care about creating a continuity that's thematically and narratively consistent, one that follows authorial intent, one that reconciles the most factual events, or something else? Especially as the old EU canon system no longer really "exists", it becomes a little more arbitrary.

Reasons to use feats:
[list]
[*]They're events that actually happened, as opposed to statements from invisible narrators, so it seems harder to dismiss them without outright dismissing events in the continuity.
[*]They may be more meaningful calculations and make for more substantive debate than semantics games.
[/list]

Reasons to use accolades:
[list]
[*]They're easier for authors/narrators to calibrate and thus may better reflect authorial intent - it's easier to say X > Y than to carefully calibrate everything X does to everything Y has done.
[*]They're usually more definitive and fluctuate less by medium / animation studio budgets.
[*]They may better reflect some sort of thematic/narrative intent than feats that may not really mean much from a storytelling perspective.
[/list]

I do think that we need to take into account both (and a wide range of other factors like preponderance of sources, thematic weight, clarity, etc.). I think a good metric to use is how much does this MEAN for the character's identity? And this can go both ways for both kinds of evidence. A random game guide claiming this character is more powerful than that character doesn't mean much, while Anakin having the most potential in the mythos is pretty central to his character. That random Brakiss solar flare feat is just stupid, while DE Sidious's Force storms are central to his storyline in that particular comic (however much you may dislike it).

Of course, this method runs into problems too (like how circular / confirmation-bias pleasing it can be). I do think that there has to be some sort of collection of evidence that adjusts for confounding factors, i.e. feats having different magnitudes in different mediums, some characters jobbing frequently but fighting well against important foes, etc.

What are your thoughts?

Accolades, if they make sense, what they usually do.

Also, you could very well use accolades as feats -- Palpatine being the most powerful Sith is a feat in itself, for example.

If accolades contradict something, they get flown out of the window. If they contradict nothing, they're indisputable facts.

Originally posted by Azronger
If accolades contradict something, they get flown out of the window. If they contradict nothing, they're indisputable facts.

What if accolades seem to contradict feats?

"Seem" or actually do?

Brakiss merely shows Palps power tbh. Sorta like how 2 no name Dark Councilors busted the Dark Citadel.

They're both valuable but fallible pieces of evidence that should be used harmoniously to construct a continuity in which characters fit. It's not feasible to aim for 100% consistency in SW, especially with characters in a lot of sources, but we should be able to determine a clear trend as to how the character is portrayed in comparison to others.

I don't think it's a useful distinction to say "feats > accolades" or "accolades > feats". Just construct the least contradicted and most logically consistent position with what you have.

Originally posted by Ursumeles
"Seem" or actually do?

Well feats almost never definitively 100% disprove an accolade.

There needs to be feats backed with accolades, and portrayal within context.
To make a sound judgement.

In two different settings, where the context if different, when comparing the two, I'd compare feats, as the better indicator. But those with feats, and accolades will trump, those with just feats or accolades individually.

Ignoring Context of the story would be like putting Brakiss a no name, compared to those who were continuously hyped as the most powerful Sith/Jedi of their time.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
What if accolades seem to contradict feats?

I just answered that.

Originally posted by Haschwalth
There needs to be feats backed with accolades, and portrayal within context.
To make a sound judgement.

In two different settings, where the context if different, when comparing the two, I'd compare feats, as the better indicator. But those with feats, and accolades will trump, those with just feats or accolades individually.

Ignoring Context of the story would be like putting Brakiss a no name, compared to those who were continuously hyped as the most powerful Sith/Jedi of their time.

I was about to Google search for that meme but seems Neph beat me to it.

Ellimist treats literature like law study and no one says anything about it.

Originally posted by Azronger
I just answered that.

You did not.

What Ellimist said is if a character isn't up to their accolades, are they still available?

Originally posted by Ursumeles
Accolades, if they make sense, what they usually do.

Also, you could very well use accolades as feats -- Palpatine being the most powerful Sith is a feat in itself, for example.

Nope. Most of his feats are either misunderstood or take place in the presence of dark side nexuses. E.g: Byss, the Eclipses.

What occurs is most posters use their inherent bias to formulate their opinions as to what counts and what doesn't. Mental gymnastics ensure and soigné standards run wild. Sidious fans are the worst tbh.

My biggest problem with accolades is when they're misleading or simply wrong. Not always, but there are plenty of examples.

The biggest problem with feats is that a lot of absolute scrubs (Tott Doneeta, Rivi Anu, Darth Wredd, Brakiss, etc etc) have some of the best feats in the mythos, so debates become less about X vs Y, but more about how far we can measure X's dick vs Y's dick based on scaling.

Cause the thing is, if we were to say Mace is >>>>> Rivi Anu, and Rivi Anu has better TK feats than Malgus, therefore Mace >>>>>>>>> Malgus... it would be equally fair to assume that Malgus is more powerful than Rivi, and would beat her if he was around during the Clone Wars.

So feats can become meaningless, unless you dispense with scaling altogether and just measure individual feats, and then you run into other problems like the limitations (or lack of) of certain mediums vs others.

Best option IMO is to agree on what metric you're using beforehand and then see who wins, then try a different metric, etc. You could even compromise and say X has better feats, Y has better scaling, X has the best accolades. Trying to reach one definitive, non-contestable verdict on every fight just doesn't work. Too many moving parts.

A character must be constructed and put into context with his feats and accolades. Then, if possible, we need to compare if the feats can sustain said accolades, in relation with the medium they're portrayed.

It's like an investigation: if character A has certain collection of accolades that place him at position X and he has at last some feats (feats displayed also by characters estabilished in position X) that support those accolades, then I see little reason to further discuss his position in the mythos, even if he's less documented than others. The evidence of him being at X is greater than the contrary.

In terms of feats only, it gets tricky. When one is analyzing feats only, it must take in consideration the whole collection of feats, including failures and low showings and put into perspective in order to build a general structure that can sustain the character.