Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Just saw this ---- it's interesting the three Vader quotes are all from the same author.
Yeah, but if we’re going to apply authorial intent we need to have a consistent criteria. Plenty of the arguments you and others make against those quotes don’t stand up to authorial intent at all (ie your claim that Nick was delusional was not intended or a plot point at all).
Since Vader is usually a “protagonist” in his stories, he scales up and down to his opponents much as Anakin and Luke do. When Vader is a more distant villain he’s usually portrayed differently (aka TFU I/II Vader is monstrously powerful by authorial intent, regardless of us nitpicking the events). The only consistent facts are that his potential is below Anakin’s and that he’s weaker than Palpatine.
If Vader and Malgus were portrayed fighting in a publication regardless of the era, it would probably be a close fight with the winner being a matter of plot convenience. Then again that would also apply to a fight between Vader and Revan or Vader and the Outlander.
*17 Honestly I don’t think a lot of authors really tab that Vader’s power grows over time unless if it’s a plot point. Even KMC has only recently started doing that - back in 2010 everyone assumed Galen Marek > Vader and nobody would really note that TFU was before Vader’s prime. ILS’s antics aside, the cognitive bias I cited is actually something I tested in reverse when I made a few RotJ Vader vs. Galen threads and suddenly people were like “oh prime Vader might be a different story”. (Whether you think Galen > Vader is beside the point)
Vader doesn’t change aesthetically like, say, Anakin does so his power growth isn’t as intuitive.
My issue here is with what ant said: There is absolutely conflicting intent between authors on Vader's capabilities, and unlike with Luke, we can't really say Vader was holding back or what have you when it comes to his low, (really around this time period, average) showings. If it were up to me, it would make more sense that Vader was a relative feeb circa 19-17 BBY, then became more of a monster as he adapted to his suit, gained more knowledge from the most powerful sith of all time, natural growth, etc. By TFU, he's worlds away from where he was at this time period.
Relative to peak Vader or Anakin, I agree that 17 BBY Vader was a joke. But so is Malgus IMHO.
I see what you’re saying and I think the fact that Vader doesn’t steamroll random nobodies is a good case for the preponderance of evidence being against him. I have been responding to rather specific arguments that I think are faulty.
Not that this undermines my stuff in the debate because I do have some nuance to add there, but I don’t want to reveal it yet so for now I’ll say fair enough.
It's more than Vader just "not steamrolling" random nobodies, it's more that he's genuinely struggling mightily against random nobodies. And as you said, the preponderance of evidence is against Vader, whereas only one author is hyping up Vader to be supreme circa 19-17 BBY, and it's not even through feats, but opinions/statements.
Now, I'm not one to believe that character opinions/statements are invalid or hyper-easily fallible, quite the opposite. But to me, this is comparable to like, Corran Horn believing Kun to be as or more powerful than Luke Skywalker, despite knowing Luke has redoubled in power after his conflict with the Reborn Emperor, and yet we universally accept that even TPM Palpatine absolutely shits on Kun.
Meanwhile, baby Malgus is literally butchering the Battlemaster of the jedi order by getting a little pissed off. Similar to 17 BBY Vader -----> TFU Vader, Malgus is worlds away from Return/Hope/even mid Deceived compared to the end of Deceived.
Spoiler:
I also think there's a bifurcation between peak Vader and peak ROTS Anakin. 🙂
So from an IU standpoint it really strains credulity to think those three sources are all wrong when they’re pretty credible witnesses, so we have to rationalize. I say two things:
1. Vader still has ludicrous amounts of raw power but can’t figure out how to tap into it yet (which aligns with Sidious’s view).
2. Vader’s heavily inconsistent even IU at this time, which makes sense as “amateurs” with lots of potential but little actualization would fluctuate heavily.
I think going against an opponent like Malgus would logically draw out the high-end early Vader and not the low-end one, but am not particularly adamant that you agree.
Whereas, Malgus has been straight killing it for 20+ years straight, taking out one highly decorated prodigy after another, regardless of who is on their best day at the time.
Leaving you with no option but to declare that Kao Cen, Satele Shan, Ven Zallow and Aryn Leneer are all at worst nobodies and at best lesser than "amateur" Force wielders with a degree of nascent natural talent.
I'd feel pretty silly wearing those shoes, myself, but hey, they seem to fit you. Expect a full response sometime soon.
I completely agree that it strains credulity to think that all three sources are wrong, but that's what happens when you have so many authors writing a character: contradictions occur. Explicit evidence from actual fights Vader partakes in (the vast, vast majority, if not ALL of them circa 19-17 BBY,) don't paint Vader as a worldbeater by any stretch of the imagination.
This type of thing happens in comics all the time as well: one or more authors will paint Galactus ass a multiversal threat through statements (and even sometimes feats,) but the vast, vast majority of authors and statements put him at universal. Which one do you choose? IMO, the more consistent one.
1. Sure, but via showings, he lacks the ability to tap into that raw power to such an extent that he struggles with random nobodies 9.9 times out of 10.
2. Sure, but you'd have to show an inconsistency in terms of feats for Vader circa 19-17 BBY, because from where I'm standing, they're consistently "bad" (relatively speaking).
That's the thing...What exactly is high-end early Vader? We've seen it with Luke, but I don't think there's been much fluctuation in terms of Vader being "shit" or "not shit."