Would Pong Krell Have Been the Top Inquisitor?

Originally posted by Total Warrior
Yeah. Unfortunately they had to make Asajj somehow indebted to that Padawan, Lyco Strata. Still they could have written the fight differently, like she defeats the inquisitor after a brief but close exchange, she spares his life but he tries to backstab her as soon as she turns around, then Strata intervenes and kills him off.

Yeah they could have. Which makes me assume the intention there (not to sound like h1a8 from the comic book and movie versus forum) was to show shes out of shape/practice.

Originally posted by Total Warrior
Yeah. Unfortunately they had to make Asajj somehow indebted to that Padawan, Lyco Strata. Still they could have written the fight differently, like she defeats the inquisitor after a brief but close exchange, she spares his life but he tries to backstab her as soon as she turns around, then Strata intervenes and kills him off.

That said, the assumption that TCW Asajj > TotE Asajj isn't baseless at all, but it's still just that: an assumption. Yes, some characters can/have become weaker if they've been 'out of practice' in the conventional sense, and/or if they're massively conflicted or whatever... But other characters have significantly improved over the course of time, despite being out of practice. That's all I'm saying.

Because the way I see it, this assumption:
"TCW Asajj > GI > random TotE Inquisitor > TotE Asajj"

...Really holds no more validity than this assumption:
"GI > random TotE Inquisitor > TotE Asajj ~/> TCW Asajj"

...Until we get some legitimate confirmation one way or the other, of course. Imo.

*I know Filoni's years-old statement about GI being "near" [TCW] Ventress-level is a thing, but it's also possible that his opinion regarding powerlevels and whatnot has simply changed over the years(certainly wouldn't be the first time, lol.) Who tf knows anymore? ermm

But unless Filoni's opinions actually did do a complete 180 and he now has Inquisitors above Ventress for no reason, then it wouldn't make sense for GI and the others to have somehow become more powerful than TCW Ventress. It's not like their powers randomly got amped. :/

Originally posted by Eli Vanto
it wouldn't make sense for GI and the others to have somehow become more powerful than TCW Ventress. It's not like their powers randomly got amped. :/

People tend to sleep on the fact that immediately after the Inquisitorius was formed, Vader began "instructing" GI, who then "instructed" the other Inquisitors:
https://ibb.co/8LqBdk7z

IOW, Vader himself was continuously training GI, who was then tasked with training the others. And given that Vader demanded mandatory progress, we can assume that any Inquisitor who was allowed to live was constantly growing their powers/abilities -- Vader literally made it part of their job description.

Point being: it is canonically possible for GI(and perhaps some of the others) to have surpassed Asajj. We know the type of rigorous training that Anakin put Ahsoka through back when he was still a devout Jedi, and we saw how brutal Vader was with the Inquisitorius when they 'sparred'. GI was routinely getting [a mix of] that level of training, and then taking it back to the others... For years.

*Not claiming that most Inquisitors weren't still fodder, mind you. Just saying that some of them were not... Or at least, the potential(and canonical precedence) is there for them to be leveled-up as needed. 👆

Originally posted by Galan007
Not true.

People tend to sleep on the fact that immediately after the Inquisitorius was formed, Vader began "instructing" GI, who then "instructed" the other Inquisitors:
https://ibb.co/8LqBdk7z

IOW, Vader himself was continuously training GI, who was then tasked with training the others. And given that Vader demanded mandatory progress, we can assume that any Inquisitor who was allowed to live was constantly growing their powers/abilities -- Vader literally made it part of their job description.

Point being: it is canonically possible for GI(and perhaps some of the others) to have surpassed Asajj. We know the type of rigorous training that Anakin put Ahsoka through back when he was still a devout Jedi, and we saw how brutal Vader was with the Inquisitorius when they 'sparred'. GI was routinely getting [a mix of] that level of training, and then taking it back to the others... For years.

*Not claiming that most Inquisitors weren't still fodder, mind you. Just saying that some of them were not... Or at least, the potential(and canonical precedence) is there for them to be leveled-up as needed. 👆

Well either way, Kanan's a boss for defeating GI.

Originally posted by Total Warrior
That’s a good point. However, still going back to that Filoni’s statement, he said that when talking about Rebels S1 GI, which is set in 3 BBY. Those Vader comics with him training the GI came out in 2017. That is, Filoni wasn’t referring that that iteration of the GI in 2015. So if the GI ever approached Ventress’s level, it was by 3BBY, not by 19-18 BBY or even 9BBY. So, if we’re still counting on Filoni’s assessment, the tiers system should resemble the following: TCW/DD Ventress>3BBY GI>Vader Comics/19-18 BBY GI.

Moreover, canon is fluid. Powerlevels can(and often do) change at any given time. Filoni made that statement before any real backstory on the Inquisitors had been developed at all -- so saying GI was "near" Ventress-level could have just been an arbitrary comparison he used at the time, without putting much thought into it. Who knows?

Fast-forward to current canon, however, and we now know that immediately after the Inquisitorius was formed, Vader himself began frequently training GI, who passed what he learned down to the other Inquisitors. We know that any Inquisitor who wasn't continuously progressing, was killed(therefore we know GI himself was constantly improving, as mandated by Vader.) And we know that one of GI's subordinates was capable of steamrolling Asajj by the time of TotE. IOW, I wouldn't automatically confine all Inquisitors to "sub-Ventress-level", simply because of Filoni's 10 year old comment -- especially when we keep getting more and more content featuring them. /shrug

Granted, that may still be a thing(ie. they're all weaker than TCW Ventress.) Just pointing out that a canon precedence has since been set for Inquisitors to be leveled-up if needed. 👆

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Well either way, Kanan's a boss for defeating GI.

He's especially boss-level if Asajj wasn't nerfed in TotE. Because then it would be: S1 Kanan > GI > random TotE Inquisitor > Asajj. ermm13

Originally posted by Galan007
Granted, that may still be a thing(ie. they're all weaker than TCW Ventress.) Just pointing out that a canon precedence has since been set for Inquisitors to be leveled-up if needed. 👆

Originally posted by Galan007
Well, random interviews/tweets and whatnot aren't irrefutably "canon" to begin with(as the storygroup has confirmed multiple times.) Published/officially licensed material is ultimately *the* authority.

That's true but I'd also be weary of written statements when it comes to power levels.

Like Lucasfilm will re-write comic history without hesitation when it comes to their Tv/Movie stuff, so I wouldn't expect Filoni (for example) to adhere to sourcebook quotes when directing his next fight between a Jedi and Sith.

Whereas at least director commentary gives us insight into the intention behind a fight (like when Ventress beat Grievous, it was Filoni's intention that she was just better, although we from the outside with other canon sources can speculate that it was because she is stronger on Dathomir).

The only real canon for power levels (IMO) is something everyone working at Lucasfilm understands, so for example the Emperor being the most powerful Dark Sider seems to be understood and accepted by anyone making a project.

That and of course previous fights that have been done. Like the fact that Kanan defeated the GI, that's canon and can't ever be changed.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
That's true but I'd also be weary of written statements when it comes to power levels.

Like Lucasfilm will re-write comic history without hesitation when it comes to their Tv/Movie stuff, so I wouldn't expect Filoni (for example) to adhere to sourcebook quotes when directing his next fight between a Jedi and Sith.

Whereas at least director commentary gives us insight into the intention behind a fight (like when Ventress beat Grievous, it was Filoni's intention that she was just better, although we from the outside with other canon sources can speculate that it was because she is stronger on Dathomir).

The only real canon for power levels (IMO) is something everyone working at Lucasfilm understands, so for example the Emperor being the most powerful Dark Sider seems to be understood and accepted by anyone making a project.

That and of course previous fights that have been done. Like the fact that Kanan defeated the GI, that's canon and can't ever be changed.

As for the rest: I see what you're saying for sure. Some writers/directors respect and adhere to preexisting canon. Others just do whatever the hell they want with the franchise. That holds true in pretty much all media, though... But in the case of SW specifically, it's all *supposed* to be on equal footing -- so the comics and games are just as canon as the movies and TV shows. Those are Disney's rules, not mine.

Anymore I just look at it as: the most recent info = the most canon info. If the more recent info outright contradicts/retcons the older info, then we just disregard the latter and use the former as our new gauge. /shrug

Originally posted by Galan007
What do you mean by "written statements"?

I thought you were saying that if it's written somewhere then it counts. Whilst anything spoken (by a director or someone) doesn't.

Originally posted by Galan007
As for the rest: I see what you're saying for sure. Some writers/directors respect and adhere to preexisting canon. Others just do whatever the hell they want with the franchise. That holds true in pretty much all media, though... But in the case of SW specifically, it's all *supposed* to be on equal footing -- so the comics and games are just as canon as the movies and TV shows. Those are Disney's rules, not mine.

Anymore I just look at it as: the most recent info = the most canon info. If the more recent info outright contradicts/retcons the older info, then we just disregard the latter and use the former as our new gauge. /shrug

Fair enough. Personally even though it's not stated I'm assuming an old EU Levels of Canon, simply because they so far haven't outright overwritten anything that you can watch on Tv. But even then I'm sure they'd ignore an episode of Rebels if it suited them before any live action. Certainly the movies will remain untouchable. So the whole G, T, C still seems to be in place even if they don't explicitly admit it.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
I thought you were saying that if it's written somewhere then it counts. Whilst anything spoken (by a director or someone) doesn't.

Random online Q&A's and whatnot, though? Not so much(the Storygroup has been very clear about this.) Not saying these kind of sources aren't usable to some extent; just saying that licensed material always takes precedence.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Fair enough. Personally even though it's not stated I'm assuming an old EU Levels of Canon, simply because they so far haven't outright overwritten anything that you can watch on Tv. But even then I'm sure they'd ignore an episode of Rebels if it suited them before any live action. Certainly the movies will remain untouchable. So the whole G, T, C still seems to be in place even if they don't explicitly admit it.

That's why, when contradictions occur nowadays, we just default to using the most recent info provided, and essentially throw out what came before. So instead of trying to figure out where the contradicted material might fit within various tiers of canon(as was the case with Legends), we just consider it "retconned", and therefore inadmissible. This can be absolutely annoying at times, sure, but it really is a pretty simple system. /shrug

Agree with GI>Pong.

Originally posted by Galan007
Only if the written statements come from an officially published/licensed source, like a comic, novel, guidebook, etc. Then it is irrefutably canon.

Disney's rule is literally "everything is equally canon"(outside of a few canon-adjacent works, like Visions and the Lego stuff, obvs.) There are no 'levels of canonicity', like there were in Legends.

You see I find it very hard to take words like "irrefutable" and "equally canon" seriously when retcons clearly happen and when it's Only stuff outside of the movies and canon animated series that get retconned. They've made a rule which they're clearly not sticking to.

The Andor comics and the Andor Tv show were obviously not equal canon. The comic wasn't retconned because the Show came after, it was retconned because it wasn't seen as important as the show. It was not seen as necessary to be canon.
Whilst the Andor series did not and would not retcon Rogue One. So as with the old EU, comics and novels do their best to align with the movies and Tv stuff, whereas the movies and Tv stuff have the liberty to retcon the other stuff.

But that's just how I'm seeing it. I can see how it's easy to take your stance as "canon until retconned". And hey for these boards you make the rules!

Guidebooks usually leave room for interpretation, like Luke's journals was based on what he knew/thought, so not as much of an issue IMO.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
You see I find it very hard to take words like "irrefutable" and "equally canon" seriously when retcons clearly happen and when it's Only stuff outside of the movies and canon animated series that get retconned. They've made a rule which they're clearly not sticking to.

The Andor comics and the Andor Tv show were obviously not equal canon. The comic wasn't retconned because the Show came after, it was retconned because it wasn't seen as important as the show. It was not seen as necessary to be canon.
Whilst the Andor series did not and would not retcon Rogue One. So as with the old EU, comics and novels do their best to align with the movies and Tv stuff, whereas the movies and Tv stuff have the liberty to retcon the other stuff.

But that's just how I'm seeing it. I can see how it's easy to take your stance as "canon until retconned". And hey for these boards you make the rules!

Guidebooks usually leave room for interpretation, like Luke's journals was based on what he knew/thought, so not as much of an issue IMO.

And just to reiterate: the "everything is canon" rule isn't something I randomly came up with on my own. That is Disney's official stance on on the matter, whether people agree with it or not. I am only suggesting an easy/logical way to help others try and reconcile these retcons, when they inevitably occur(ie. the exact same way we'd handle anything else in fiction: the most current = the most canon.)

Originally posted by Galan007

And just to reiterate: the "everything is canon" rule isn't something I randomly came up with on my own. That is Disney's official stance on on the matter, whether people agree with it or not.

Oh I get that. It's just that they clearly break that stance and only in one direction i.e. Movies and Tv can ignore books but not the other way around.

Originally posted by Galan007
I am only suggesting an easy/logical way to help others try and reconcile these retcons, when they inevitably occur(ie. the exact same way we'd handle anything else in fiction: the most current = the most canon.)

Completely reasonable and fair. It's just the reality seems to be that they're following more of a G > T > C formula, rather than Newer trumps Older.

Though I admit there's nothing to prove your logic false. And if we were to ask The Story Group they'd likely back your logic (given their official stance of equal canon).

I’d just like to add something to this discussion. I’ve recently rewatched one scene from Kenobi. After the Grand Inquisitor is “killed” by Reva, we see the Fifth Brother taking the initiative and when Reva claims she has been chosen as the next Grand Inquistor he replies “I am next in line”. There is no reason not think the hierarchy is based on power so that would scale 5th bro above the likes of Marrok. Too bad Kenobi is set in 9BBY and we have no way to know if the 5th Bro scaled above the TotU Inquisitor as well

Well all the Inquisitors want the GI title, and probably think they deserve it more than the others... Their personal desires are ultimately irrelevant, though.

Vader made his opinion on the matter very clear: the strong lead, the weak improve or die -- their numerical designations do not factor into that type of metric at all. IOW, if GI wasn't the strongest among the Inquisitorius, Vader would have [very quickly] chosen his successor... And he certainly would not have entrusted GI to pass his own one-on-one teachings down to the other Inquisitors if he felt someone else was more worthy.

As an aside, I think a story centered around "The Last Inquisitors" could be fun. Flesh-out exactly what happened to any remaining Inquisitorial stragglers after RotJ... Sort of flip the script on what the Jedi had to do during Order 66 to survive. 👆

I was reading some discussion recently, I'll have to see if I can remember where. But apparently the one thing the Story Group insists on is making sure the total number of Inquisitors is never specified. Seems the numerical designations of the Inquisitors are also non-sequential and intended purely to make people question just how many there might be. A lot like how the first Special Forces unit in the US was designated the 10th, so if information ever leaked abot them, the US's enemies would think there are ten times as many special forces as there actually were at the time

👆 The total number of Inquisitors has always been left intentionally ambiguous(I think we're up to like 17ish of them now, right?), as is their ranking system in general. I mean, aside from the GI himself(who is obvs #1), we have no real indication on *why* they are given a particular numerical designation to begin with. What we do know is that their number seemingly has nothing to do with their status within the Inquisitorius.

In Kenobi, for instance, the 5th Brother stated that he was next in line for the GI role, despite the 3rd and 4th Sisters being in the room with him at the time:
https://ibb.co/4Zbn6WbJ
*We also know the 3rd Sister was considered the lowest in their hierarchy.

...And in Rebels, it seemed like the 5th Brother was subordinate to the 7th Sister, iirc. It's totally random by design.

All I'm confident of is that GI was the strongest of the lot(up to his death, of course.) Vader would not have allowed anyone but the strongest to lead them(he was already disgusted enough by the program as it is.)