Indexing overall power from Force mastery

So we commonly use Force mastery / knowledge / innovation as a proxy for overall power because the two tend to be correlated. We also frequently reject such arguments because the two categories aren't identical. However, I'd imagine that Force mastery presents a pretty good barometer for power if you properly adjust for separate variables, most notably:

- time
- resources
- interest
- intelligence

(though you also have to take into account the fact that these variables may influence Force power as well - but to a somewhat lesser extent)

As an example (that you can reject without rejecting the overall point), this is one reason why I have Plagueis and Palpatine above Valkorion. Imagine that you gave either of those two 1400 years to study the Force, without being able to grow in overall power. They might be godlike entities at that point. Both had not even a century to study the Force and were already pulling off tremendous showings of mastery - had the Force not intervened, how long would it have been before Plagueis's midichlorian manipulation abilities essentially made him invincible? Certainly not 1400 years. Now Plagueis and Palpatine weren't necessarily more dedicated or interested in studying the Force than Valkorion, and Plagueis had fewer resources while Palpatine had effectively the same. I suppose you could argue that they were so much more intelligent that they were close to haxxing the source code of the Force and all that other stuff in less than a tenth of the time with allegedly lesser or equal Force powers, but that seems unlikely, even if they are obviously smarter to some extent.

What matters is being able to prove who's actualised power is greater. X can have a better learning growth than Y, but that's ultimately irrelevant to who wins in a fight. If X is indeed superior to Y, it will be because you can prove it, not because of how rapidly they acquired their power.

At best it signals a higher upwards potential, e.g Luke vs Vader in RotJ, which can be tapped into on rare occasions, but again, that falls under the criteria of proving it's possible, like all things.

Originally posted by ILS
What matters is being able to prove who's actualised power is greater. X can have a better learning growth than Y, but that's ultimately irrelevant to who wins in a fight. If X is indeed superior to Y, it will be because you can prove it, not because of how rapidly they acquired their power.

At best it signals a higher upwards potential, e.g Luke vs Vader in RotJ, which can be tapped into on rare occasions, but again, that falls under the criteria of proving it's possible, like all things.

The question is whether mastery is predictive of power beyond merely signaling potential / learning rate. I'd say that it is - I doubt that Vitiate would've ended up mastering as many techniques as he did had he never performed Nathema but somehow still lived as long, for example. Likewise, we know explicitly that several feats of mastery require some nontrivial degree of power (e.g. Bane's musings about holocron creation). So if X is coming up with more impressive demonstrations of Force mastery than Y despite having less time and resources to do so, that's a pretty good piece of evidence that X is flat-out more powerful and not just higher in potential (though that may also be true).

The point about mastering various force powers being an indication of power can be correct.

Look at it this way. We know that not all force powers and techniques are the same, some inevitably are more complex and require more from the user. We generally take this "more" to be knowledge but it can just as well be that any particular force technique simply requires more "raw power" or energy of the force channeled into it in order for it to be actually effective. Indeed, that looks to be the more likely scenario( I doubt that the force powers in SW work the way magic and the occult do in the real world, i.e., just knowledge of the technique or the intricacies of it are not enough to perform the actual feat itself unless you cannot channel the required force energy to make the power work, which is not the case with with some occultists chanting a spell they have knowledge of and making magic work in our world as depicted in some media). Just my thoughts here.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
The question is whether mastery is predictive of power beyond merely signaling potential / learning rate. I'd say that it is - I doubt that Vitiate would've ended up mastering as many techniques as he did had he never performed Nathema but somehow still lived as long, for example. Likewise, we know explicitly that several feats of mastery require some nontrivial degree of power (e.g. Bane's musings about holocron creation). So if X is coming up with more impressive demonstrations of Force mastery than Y despite having less time and resources to do so, that's a pretty good piece of evidence that X is flat-out more powerful and not just higher in potential (though that may also be true).

So while being a master of a wide variety of powers, or having a deep mastery of specific powers can indicate one's power, it's not really an objective measure. It's not enough to say "X knows more of the Force than Y, therefore X is more powerful", which I'm sure isn't your point.

Originally posted by LordOfTheLight
The point about mastering various force powers being an indication of power can be correct.

Look at it this way. We know that not all force powers and techniques are the same, some inevitably are more complex and require more from the user. We generally take this "more" to be knowledge but it can just as well be that any particular force technique simply requires more "raw power" or energy of the force channeled into it in order for it to be actually effective. Indeed, that looks to be the more likely scenario( I doubt that the force powers in SW work the way magic and the occult do in the real world, i.e., just knowledge of the technique or the intricacies of it are not enough to perform the actual feat itself unless you cannot channel the required force energy to make the power work, which is not the case with with some occultists chanting a spell they have knowledge of and making magic work in our world as depicted in some media). Just my thoughts here.

👆

Mastering arcane Force powers seem to depend on:

1. Having the power
2. Having the time / resources
3. Having the intelligence / understanding / intuition

If X always seems to master arcane powers as well as Y despite having far less of 2, X is likely has more of the combination of 1 + 3, and it isn't too much of a leap if you look at the specifics and conclude that at least some fraction of the disparity is due to 1.

There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, like some Sith apparently having a greater natural affinity for sorcery without necessarily being more powerful (e.g. Zannah vs. Tenebrous), and some people just being more interested and willing than others (i.e. Yoda would not try to cast Force storms even though in 900 years he could probably figure out how to).

Originally posted by ILS
To an extent, mastery implies power (and we can get pretty scientific about this when we go into the mechanics of midichlorians, the different powers they govern, etc), however as pretty plainly demonstrated by Plagueis and Sidious, Plagueis died with the knowledge of possibly the most advanced Force ability to date - immortality, life creation, etc - and yet Sidious transcended him in power.

Sure, but the fact that the correlation isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't still a useful piece of evidence - pretty much every line of analysis we can find would have exceptions, e.g. you can say Brakiss >> Vader in feats.

I'm also not sure to what extent your analogy is accurate, as the extent of Palpatine's own midichlorian manipulation abilities are a mystery. He claims by the end of the Plagueis novel that he could revive Plagueis if he wanted to, though that may be posturing (not sure why he'd posture to someone about to die, but eh). It doesn't seem like he can reverse his own aging process but it's possible that the dark side ravaging his body was just too overwhelming (given that he was, as you said, more powerful than Plagueis at that point) and indeed this is frequently cited as the main reason why he has to change bodies. Likewise, I'm pretty sure sources confirm that he does some midichlorian trickery to keep Vader alive for his post-Mustafar operation, and it therefore isn't that big of a stretch, though unproven, to suggest that he did this on himself to at least slow the effects of his dark side energies. Likewise, the only serious fight he gets into was vs. Yoda, and we don't know whether MM would work on him (he doesn't go all-out with Force abilities vs. Windu or DE Luke). I would agree that he likely never attained the levels that Plagueis had, but we can't be 100% certain.

As you say, useful but not definitive. And nah, midichlorian manipulation would have saved Sidious' chops in DE.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
So we commonly use Force mastery / knowledge / innovation as a proxy for overall power because the two tend to be correlated. We also frequently reject such arguments because the two categories aren't identical. However, I'd imagine that Force mastery presents a pretty good barometer for power if you properly adjust for separate variables, most notably:

- time
- resources
- interest
- intelligence

(though you also have to take into account the fact that these variables may influence Force power as well - but to a somewhat lesser extent)

As an example (that you can reject without rejecting the overall point), this is one reason why I have Plagueis and Palpatine above Valkorion. Imagine that you gave either of those two 1400 years to study the Force, without being able to grow in overall power. They might be godlike entities at that point. Both had not even a century to study the Force and were already pulling off tremendous showings of mastery - had the Force not intervened, how long would it have been before Plagueis's midichlorian manipulation abilities essentially made him invincible? Certainly not 1400 years. Now Plagueis and Palpatine weren't necessarily more dedicated or interested in studying the Force than Valkorion, and Plagueis had fewer resources while Palpatine had effectively the same. I suppose you could argue that they were so much more intelligent that they were close to haxxing the source code of the Force and all that other stuff in less than a tenth of the time with allegedly lesser or equal Force powers, but that seems unlikely, even if they are obviously smarter to some extent.

2. Tenebrae have demonstrated and/or executed some of the most sophisticated acts of Sith Sorcery in the mythos during the course of his existence. Your judgment is faulty.

Per your logic, Yoda was not a talented Force-user.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD

Per your logic, Yoda was not a talented Force-user.

No, because Yoda wouldn't use techniques like Force storms whether he could or not, so that's not a fair comparison. But in the case of Sidious vs. Valkorion, both had every incentive to master the dark side as fully as possible.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66

Since when are Force users Super Saiyans?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
No, because Yoda wouldn't use techniques like Force storms whether he could or not, so that's not a fair comparison. But in the case of Sidious vs. Valkorion, both had every incentive to master the dark side as fully as possible.

When you consider Tenebrae:-

01. Ritual of Nathema
02. Corporeal immortality
03. Transforming Dromund Kaas
04. Organic networking for extended reach (Hands; Children; Voices)
05. Drawing energy from external developments to replenish lost reserves (demonstrations in Yavin IV and Ziost)
06. Ability to affect external environment [in profound ways] in disembodied format (demonstrations in Yavin IV and Ziost)
07. Conjuring beings of pure dark side energy
08. Sophisticated/esoteric offensive powers
09. Proficiency in Sith Alchemy (Dark sciences)
10. Galaxy-consuming ritual*

*Foiled by enemies.

I can expand on each.

Tenebrae multi-tasked with his abilities to an extreme degree for an extensive period of time.

Nonetheless, external factors are known to influence course of behavior and/or stimulate advances in abilities. For centuries, Tenebrae did his best to conceal his deeds (and even Empires) from the prying eyes of the Republic and Jedi.

When Tenebrae went all-out, his demonstrations of power were/are in a league of their own. The entire Jedi Order felt helpless in the face of them.

Revan Mastered a State similar to oneness at will, within a short amount of time, if you go by the Novel. In which he was only around 40 years of Age.

If Revan had Vitiates time and resources. DE Sidious and possibly Luke would of been given a run for their money.

So, in practicality, you're suggesting a new way to judge the power of a comabatant in a combat? Or just hypotheticals on how much power , or mastery someone had?

Originally posted by Haschwalth
Revan Mastered a State similar to oneness at will, within a short amount of time, if you go by the Novel. In which he was only around 40 years of Age.

Originally posted by Haschwalth
If Revan had Vitiates time and resources. DE Sidious and possibly Luke would of been given a run for their money.

Time is but one factor. greatest potential, understanding of the force, resources, and special cases are all factored in. I don't know much about this era, so I don't want to make claims, but yeah, it doesn't seem likely to me that Revan of all people ends up having the most force potential.

Another concept which came to my head was the idea of how one accesses their powers.
Sidious' potential (midi-chlorains wise) was no greater than Maul's and certainly not greater than Tenebrae's. But both reaced their full potential, and Sidious was far more powerful than Valkorion, and more than all other force users beside Luke, even though there MUST have been many with greater midi-chlorian counts/force auras.
This is because he was so evil. He was darker than the dark side of the Force itself, making him more powerful than any being made purely of the dark side. Another thing which added to his power was the flow of the Force. The dark side kind of IS the concept of going against the natural will of the Force, and Sidious lived during a time where he and 3 generations of sith lords before him had worked to make the Force be shrowded by darkness. This obviously exacerbated his powers beyond what normal limits/talent would allow.
So there are things other than just talent/potential and mastery of the Force which affect how powerful someone is. Sidious is one example. There's surely to be many more exceptions like him. Luke is one example. And so is Anakin.
And I am aware this has already been mentioned, but having a knack for certain skills like telekensis, or magic, or telepathic powers also does not fall into either category, but still impacts the effectiveness of a user in a battle.
And this becomes even more interesting when you consider that through midi-chlorians manipulation, a dark side user could, if they mastered it completely, fill their cells with as many midi-chlorians as can fit, and all have the midi-chlorians potential of Anakin. That, other than not making them have the same level of mastery with the Force, doesn't make them as powerful, nor as talented or even have similar levels of potential.

"darker than the dark side" is just pure poetry.

But Sidious WAS still strong because he was so evil and naturally atuned to the dark side, which he'd always been since his birth, as stated in the Plagueis Novel. Darker than the dark side is debatable.