Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Both at their peak. Let's say they have a random encounter.


Can Palps one shot Revan?

I think the more appropriate question would be "Could Revan one-shot Sidious?" In which the answer is 'quite possibly.'

Interesting.

I am looking forward for more answers in this thread

Originally posted by Not_a_sock
I think the more appropriate question would be "Could Revan one-shot Sidious?" In which the answer is 'quite possibly.'

You are in need of mental hospital, my friend. Revan have nothing on Darth Sidious.

Revan would last at least a minute against Sidious, and wins if he's teamed up with someone of equal power to himself.

^^^

More nonsense.

Nah

Apart from surprising Valkorion with a burst of light plus dark force energy, Revan got owned. Don't see how it's gonna be any different against Sidious.

Revan can contend with Palpatine for a while; unlikely to be one-shot.

Originally posted by samappo
Apart from surprising Valkorion with a burst of light plus dark force energy, Revan got owned. Don't see how it's gonna be any different against Sidious.

1. Vitiate was on a nexus.

2. He was able to blocked a bolt of force lightning back to the Emperor as well.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenDofPT
You are in need of mental hospital, my friend. Revan have nothing on Darth Sidious.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Revan can contend with Palpatine for a while; unlikely to be one-shot.

Lmao

But yes, he can.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Lmao

But yes, he can. I see.

Sidious one-shots, yeah

Revan is the TOR version of Vader.

Sidious would toy with him; and then offer him a slow and painful death.

But Revan is the smarter duelist here, and not Sidious' b*ch. It doesn't grant him victory, but it makes him more badass than Palpatine.

Revan > Vader tho.

Hell no.

That's not even debatable, Revan reduces him to paste.

Sidious one-shots for sure

Sidious isn't one-shotting anybody of Revan's calibre.

Originally posted by AncientPower
Sidious isn't one-shotting anybody ever, without circumstance.

Originally posted by AncientPower
Sidious isn't one-shotting anybody of Revan's calibre.

He only stopped a little short of one-shotting vaapad-super-Mace and Yoda for that matter.

That's why Mace kicked his ass

If we choose to believe that Revan managed to deflect Nyriss' lightning without the moronic belief that he can wield both sides of the Force(drawing power from Dromund Kaas' dark side nexus). Mayhaps he could stand a chance against Palpatine. Nyriss' lightning is dang powerful. It turned Nyriss into ash when Revan backfired it at her.

If you punch yourself and it hurt are you strong or are you weak mmm

I mean, some might point to Vitiate besting Revan, but Vitiate's lightning was charged and amped. Given Vitiate is easily comparable to Sidious (post-ROTS imo) Sidious won't be one-shotting unless he's amped on a DS Nexus and charges his attack to a level stronger than his average lightning. Which is not impossible, and I don't believe Revan wins the fight by any means. But Sidious isn't one-shotting unless he meets the aforementioned prerequisites.

Originally posted by darthbane77
Given Vitiate is easily comparable to Sidious (post-ROTS imo).

Good thing your opinion means f-uck all.

Originally posted by cs_zoltan
Good thing your opinion means f-uck all. Means as much as yours.

Except post-RotS Sidious >>> Novel Vitiate isn't an opinion it's a fact.

Originally posted by cs_zoltan
If you punch yourself and it hurt are you strong or are you weak mmm
Truly baffling

Originally posted by cs_zoltan
If you punch yourself and it hurt are you strong or are you weak mmm

Are you paying attention to what I said?

The fact that Revan managed to backfire Nyriss' lightning without any external aid(if we don't hold anymore the wielding both sides moronic belief) on a dark side nexus that was crippling his Force-user condition proves he is a lot more powerful than PT/OT fans give him credit for.

Nyriss' lightning turned her into ash(this was not a charred husk, it was total consumption).
If I remember correctly, and I do, Sidious' lightning has never been potent enough to turn others into ash. He only turned three-five Dark Side Prophets into a pile of bones on the world where Maul fought Vader.
Yes, there is a comic-book(hardly could call it); it's more of a visual art where Sidious conjures a Sith worm, gets out of him, and disintegrates him. But honestly that's just a symbolic description of ROTS Sidious' true nature.




Back on topic, that means, in order for Revan to deflect her attack, he has to be beyond her strengths.

Originally posted by cs_zoltan
Except post-RotS Sidious >>> Novel Vitiate isn't an opinion it's a fact. "Fact"

lol

Sidious has nothing in his list of feats pre-DE putting him above any version of Vitiate Novel and afterwards. and feats>accolades.

So the idea that ANY version of Sidious is any more than a single ">" above Vitiate, is laughable.

Originally posted by darthbane77
"Fact"

lol

Sidious has nothing in his list of feats pre-DE putting him above any version of Vitiate Novel and afterwards. and feats>accolades.

So the idea that ANY version of Sidious is any more than a single ">" above Vitiate, is laughable.

Lol, so burying the Lusankya and TP'ing the imperial military are less impressive than whatever novel Vitiate has done via prepped rituals on a nexus?

Originally posted by darthbane77
"Fact"

lol

Sidious has nothing in his list of feats pre-DE putting him above any version of Vitiate Novel and afterwards. and feats>accolades.

So the idea that ANY version of Sidious is any more than a single ">" above Vitiate, is laughable. I hope you're pulling an bart

Originally posted by darthbane77
feats>accolades

Says who?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Lol, so burying the Lusankya and TP'ing the imperial military are less impressive than whatever novel Vitiate has done via prepped rituals on a nexus?

He didn't bury the Lusankya with TK or anything. He TP'd the military and civilians in that sector and had them do it. Something you Sheevites seem to conveniently forget.

From the "New Essential Guide to Characters", iirc. It's stated directly that the Imperials did it while under the mind fogging powers of Sidious' TP. Sidious had no direct affect on how the ship was moved, it wasn't done with TK like many of you wrongfully believe it was.

Originally posted by Ursumeles
I hope you're pulling an bart Nope. Going by feats, Sidious has nothing putting him above Vitiate.

Originally posted by cs_zoltan
Says who? Most debate circles treat feats better than accolades. Feats are legitimate showings of power, generally they aren't exaggerated, they're direct representations of what a character can do. An accolade of "____ is most powerful", despite having inferior feats to someone else, isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Originally posted by darthbane77
Nope. Going by feats, Sidious has nothing putting him above Vitiate. TKing the Lusankya, stomping Vader, outclassing Plagueis, beating Yoda, ragdolling Dooku & Maul vs nearly getting killed by a mid-tier Jedi & a droid on a DS nexus mmm
Originally posted by darthbane77
Most debate circles treat feats better than accolades. Feats are legitimate showings of power, generally they aren't exaggerated, they're direct representations of what a character can do. An accolade of "____ is most powerful", despite having inferior feats to someone else, isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Yarael Poof > Exar Kun confirmed.

Originally posted by Ursumeles
TKing the Lusankya, stomping Vader, outclassing Plagueis, beating Yoda, ragdolling Dooku & Maul vs nearly getting killed by a mid-tier Jedi & a droid on a DS nexus mmm

Yarael Poof > Exar Kun confirmed.

He factually did not TK the Lusankya, lmao, I literally JUST posted the scan proving that.

Being greater than Plagueis means nothing when Vitiate is likewise above Plagueis.

Vitiate borderline one-shotted Revan, who's near enough to Yoda in his own right, by feats.

Dooku and Maul are fodder to Vitiate as well, try harder.

lol @ "mid tier Jedi", Revan (who I'm assuming you're talking about) is easily within Yoda's wheelhouse in regards to power. Plus, Revan didin't really get that close to killing Vitiate.

Kun's feats>>>>Poof's, lmao

If Sidious mind-fogged Coruscant citizens. That means the power wasn't applicative on them at once, but Palpatine mind-fogged just those in the vicinity of the ship.

Thus, the claim that Sidious mind-fogged the entire Coruscant planet has been debunked.

Originally posted by darthbane77
He factually did not TK the Lusankya, lmao, I literally JUST posted the scan proving that.

Being greater than Plagueis means nothing when Vitiate is likewise above Plagueis.

Vitiate borderline one-shotted Revan, who's near enough to Yoda in his own right, by feats.

Dooku and Maul are fodder to Vitiate as well, try harder.

lol @ "mid tier Jedi", Revan (who I'm assuming you're talking about) is easily within Yoda's wheelhouse in regards to power. Plus, Revan didin't really get that close to killing Vitiate.
Has been debunked several times.

Based on?

Kek. "VITIATE DIDNT ONESHOT REVAN SO NEITHER CAN SIDIOUS" "VITIATE NEAR ONE-SHOTTED REVAN ON A DARK SIDE NEXUS SO HES >>> SIDIOUS". And Yoda >> Revan.

Based on what is Dooku fodder to NoVitiate?

I'm talking about Meetra ffs. Pathetic showing.

Can't recall Exar absorbing a planet-destroying explosion.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
If Sidious mind-fogged Coruscant citizens. That means the power wasn't applicative on them at once, but Palpatine mind-fogged just those in the vicinity of the ship. Correct, and then THEY buried the Lusankya.

The idea that Sidious somehow did it with TK, is ludicrous.

Originally posted by Ursumeles
Has been debunked several times.

Based on?

Kek. "VITIATE DIDNT ONESHOT REVAN SO NEITHER CAN SIDIOUS" "VITIATE NEAR ONE-SHOTTED REVAN ON A DARK SIDE NEXUS SO HES >>> SIDIOUS". And Yoda >> Revan.

Based on what is Dooku fodder to NoVitiate?

I'm talking about Meetra ffs. Pathetic showing.

Can't recall Exar absorbing a planet-destroying explosion.

The scan I provided hasn't been debunked, if there's something that disproves, then provide it.

Given Vitiate and Sidious are equals at the least, if Vitiate can't do it, then no, neither can Sidious.

Feats. A severely weakened Vitiate dominating the minds of the citizens on Ziost, and then casually draining the planet of all life, is VASTLY beyond Dooku's best feats. Plus, any being with a literal planet's worth of power is going to be in an entirely separate tier than anyone that isn't Sidious or Luke, meaning the likes of Vitiate or Nihilus are far more comparable to Sidious than you would be willing to think.

Meetra didn't come close to killing Vitiate, she had an opening to make the ATTEMPT to do so, but nothing proves that she would have succeeded.

lmao, now you're just being stupid. Kun is well beyond Poof.

Originally posted by darthbane77
Most debate circles treat feats better than accolades. Feats are legitimate showings of power, generally they aren't exaggerated, they're direct representations of what a character can do. An accolade of "____ is most powerful", despite having inferior feats to someone else, isn't worth the paper it's written on.

So a fictional event written by an author is more credible than a fictional accolade written by an author? lul

Originally posted by cs_zoltan
So a fictional event written by an author is more credible than a fictional accolade written by an author? lul Yes, considering the event itself is a direct showcase of power, an accolade isn't. If we treated accolades as 100% factual, as most of you seem to do, Skere Kaan's "embodiment of the Dark Side" quotes could be used to argue Kaan~The Son. Accolades should, in most cases, be considered in arguments or rankings, but almost never considered as total fact or truth.

Originally posted by darthbane77
Vitiate borderline one-shotted Revan, who's near enough to Yoda in his own right, by feats.

Revan (who I'm assuming you're talking about) is easily within Yoda's wheelhouse in regards to power.

Weird, I thought you'd put Revan above Yoda.

Anyway, accolades are usually far better to gauge the strenght of a character. Feats are inconcistent - Yoda struggling to lift a pillar in AOTC, and ragdolling huge ships in OCW. Luke struggling with Lumiya, and stomping Caedus. Caedus struggling with mandos and destroying Kyle.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
Weird, I thought you'd put Revan above Yoda. SoR Revan, I do. Novel/Reborn Revan, I put around Plagueis.

Originally posted by cs_zoltan
So a fictional event written by an author is more credible than a fictional accolade written by an author? lul For versus forum purposes, absolutely! NONE of these accolades are EVER made with the mindset of "who would win if suddenly dropped into a stupid random cage match with no knowledge or preparation whatsoever."

A detailed account of a feat at least allows us more information to use as a means of articulating what would happen in a hypothetical scenario.

Originally posted by Ursumeles
Anyway, accolades are usually far better to gauge the strenght of a character. Feats are inconcistent - Yoda struggling to lift a pillar in AOTC, and ragdolling huge ships in OCW. Luke struggling with Lumiya, and stomping Caedus. Caedus struggling with mandos and destroying Kyle. Easily attributed to growth over time, earlier iterations of a character are logically less capable of doing something than another character. Accolades can say whatever they want, but the actual demonstrated power of a character is vastly more reliable, imo.

Originally posted by Dark-Kenshin
For versus forum purposes, absolutely! NONE of these accolades are EVER made with the mindset of "who would win if suddenly dropped into a stupid random cage match with no preparation whatsoever." Despite what (I assume) is sarcasm, this isn't incorrect.

Originally posted by darthbane77
The scan I provided hasn't been debunked, if there's something that disproves, then provide it.

Given Vitiate and Sidious are equals at the least, if Vitiate can't do it, then no, neither can Sidious.

Feats. A severely weakened Vitiate dominating the minds of the citizens on Ziost, and then casually draining the planet of all life, is VASTLY beyond Dooku's best feats. Plus, any being with a literal planet's worth of power is going to be in an entirely separate tier than anyone that isn't Sidious or Luke, meaning the likes of Vitiate or Nihilus are far more comparable to Sidious than you would be willing to think.

Meetra didn't come close to killing Vitiate, she had an opening to make the ATTEMPT to do so, but nothing proves that she would have succeeded.

lmao, now you're just being stupid. Kun is well beyond Poof. http://www.killermovies.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=16227847

Dude, you do understand what circular logic is right?

Pretty sure that Az (arguably) debunked Ziost in his essay. Also, Valkorion =/= Novel Vitiate.

She struggled with her and a fugging droid lol. Not that it matters, as feats are inconcistent.

Give me a feat from Kun that's better.

Originally posted by darthbane77
Correct, and then THEY buried the Lusankya.

The idea that Sidious somehow did it with TK, is ludicrous.

That means Sidious mind-fogging the entire planet is also debunked. There are many rettarded fans who think he mind-wiped an entire planet.

Originally posted by darthbane77
Easily attributed to growth over time, earlier iterations of a character are logically less capable of doing something than another character. Accolades can say whatever they want, but the actual demonstrated power of a character is vastly more reliable, imo. 40 ABY Caedus:destroys Kyle
41 ABY Caedus: struggles with mandos
-> growth
mmm

Originally posted by darthbane77
SoR Revan, I do. Novel/Reborn Revan, I put around Plagueis.

Why you split them apart?

Originally posted by darthbane77
Despite what (I assume) is sarcasm, this isn't incorrect. I wasn't being sarcastic.

Originally posted by Ursumeles
40 ABY Caedus:destroys Kyle
41 ABY Caedus: struggles with mandos
-> growth
mmm

This is more of a plot problem than something to do with Force strength.

Originally posted by darthbane77
Yes, considering the event itself is a direct showcase of power, an accolade isn't. If we treated accolades as 100% factual, as most of you seem to do, Skere Kaan's "embodiment of the Dark Side" quotes could be used to argue Kaan~The Son. Accolades should, in most cases, be considered in arguments or rankings, but almost never considered as total fact or truth.

As if there aren't inconsistent feats...

Well yeah, in actuality literally every debating circle other than the SW one puts a premium on feats over statements.

Just Saiyan.

Originally posted by XSUPREMEXSKILLZ
Well yeah, in actuality literally every debating circle other than the SW one puts a premium on feats over statements.

Just Saiyan. Don't you accept the daizenshuu as evidence? mmm

Originally posted by Ursumeles
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=16227847

Dude, you do understand what circular logic is right?

Pretty sure that Az (arguably) debunked Ziost in his essay. Also, Valkorion =/= Novel Vitiate.

She struggled with her and a fugging droid lol. Not that it matters, as feats are inconcistent.

Give me a feat from Kun that's better.

Author opinion doesn't overrule the actual source. The text says it was the engineers that buried the ship, not Sidious, and no mention is made of TK. So no, it hasn't been debunked.

Yes?

I don't agree that he did. Also, I know, Valkorion>Novel Vitiate, though the difference may or may not be that significant. Valkorion~SWTOR Vitiate though.

Inconsistent or not, they're more relevant, due to the fact that they are the direct demonstrations of power from the characters.

Creating Force Screams that can be felt across the Galaxy.

Exar Kun let out a tremendous shriek that echoed across the galaxy, calling in despair upon Master Vodo, whom he had abandoned.

- The New Essential Chronology

Nadd offered Kun a way to live, and to repair his broken body: if he embraced the dark side, he would be healed. The betrayal of light was not an easy one for Kun, but the desire to live was stronger. He accepted the dark side, his screams reaching out across the galaxy and creating ripples in the Force

- The Essential Guide to Characters

Among others, such as casually taking the minds of thousands of Senators and an undisclosed number of Jedi, as well as being >>Luke despite being a severely weakened Spirit. I'd like to see a quote or scan for Poof's feat you mentioned though. I have a feeling there's something you're not telling me.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
That means Sidious mind-fogging the entire planet is also debunked. There are many rettarded fans who think he mind-wiped an entire planet.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
Why you split them apart? Because of what I believe to be an apparent growth in power from novel to SoR. Plus, they're different enough to be considered separate incarnations.

Originally posted by Dark-Kenshin
I wasn't being sarcastic.

Originally posted by cs_zoltan
As if there aren't inconsistent feats... I'm not saying there aren't, only that they're still more reliable than accolades.

Originally posted by XSUPREMEXSKILLZ
Well yeah, in actuality literally every debating circle other than the SW one puts a premium on feats over statements.

Just Saiyan.

shit, he can TP senators, hes >>> planetbusting. And being >> Luke was debunked tbh

As for Poof's feat - https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11115/111155790/4607510-4.png
https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11115/111155790/4607516-shaa2.png

I'm possibly missing something, but for me it's just a simple outlier. Yarael isn't beating Dooku, Revan or so because of this feat.

Anyway, you still haven't given reasoning for accolades being invalid other than "no one treats them as valid", and posting a example of blatlant hyperbole to "debunk" it.

I'm done here.

I really hope I'm missing shit for Poof though, because the scaling would be ugly.

The Poof feat was debunked on hangouts iirc.

It just hit me. But did Palpatine use dark side rituals on Byss to subject them to his will, keeping them like zombies while slowly leeching off their vital force?

Because Kam Solusar said to Luke that he's been freed from Sidious' spell(on top of that; he's been also tortured) Maybe Sidious needs spells if he wants to bend Force-sensitives to his will or an entire planet? Just a thought occured to me.

@Skillz Thank Sidious. And fugg u for never telling me. Superman > Goku.

Originally posted by darthbane77
Because of what I believe to be an apparent growth in power from novel to SoR. Plus, they're different enough to be considered separate incarnations.

So you dislike the conception of midi-chlorians being the proof of your Force strength?

Originally posted by Ursumeles
@Skillz Thank Sidious. And fugg u for never telling me. Superman > Goku.

It's treason, then.

Originally posted by Ursumeles
shit, he can TP senators, hes >>> planetbusting. And being >> Luke was debunked tbh

As for Poof's feat - https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11115/111155790/4607510-4.png
https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11115/111155790/4607516-shaa2.png

I'm possibly missing something, but for me it's just a simple outlier. Yarael isn't beating Dooku, Revan or so because of this feat.

Anyway, you still haven't given reasoning for accolades being invalid other than "no one treats them as valid", and posting a example of blatlant hyperbole to "debunk" it.

I'm done here.

I really hope I'm missing shit for Poof though, because the scaling would be ugly.

It's not that he TP'd the Senators, it's the ease with which he did it. As for Kun>>Luke, I don't see how it was debunked tbh, I agree it was proven to be less of a margin than it appeared, but spirit Kun is still superior to Luke at the time, regardless.

Eeeh, that doesn't say much. Those scans give very little context to the feat, and the wookiepedia page (which is regularly checked for accuracy as per a friend of mind who writes for them) doesn't seem to indicate that the feat was performed in the manner you're suggesting, there's context missing somewhere.

See, you're assuming I toss accolades out entirely, I don't. I only question the validity of an accolade when another character (such as Vitiate in comparison to Sidious) has several feats that are comparable to or superior to the character with the accolade in question. Feats only is a moronic approach, feats, close examination of accolades, and use of scaling all in conjunction are the most accurate method of ranking characters.

As I just said, accolades aren't "invalid". They just need to be treated with more skepticism than most feats do.

Okie-dokie, enjoyable convo, friend.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
It just hit me. But did Palpatine use dark side rituals on Byss to subject them to his will, keeping them like zombies while slowly leeching off their vital force?

Because Kam Solusar said to Luke that he's been freed from Sidious' spell(on top of that; he's been also tortured) Maybe Sidious needs spells if he wants to bend Force-sensitives to his will or an entire planet? Just a thought occured to me. A friend of mine debunked Sidious' Byss feat, lemme find the thread he did it in.

Originally posted by Ursumeles
shit, he can TP senators, hes >>> planetbusting. And being >> Luke was debunked tbh

As for Poof's feat - https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11115/111155790/4607510-4.png
https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11115/111155790/4607516-shaa2.png

I'm possibly missing something, but for me it's just a simple outlier. Yarael isn't beating Dooku, Revan or so because of this feat.

Anyway, you still haven't given reasoning for accolades being invalid other than "no one treats them as valid", and posting a example of blatlant hyperbole to "debunk" it.

I'm done here.

I really hope I'm missing shit for Poof though, because the scaling would be ugly.

What he tries to say is that accolades are created at a specific time(and even if they are universal, history-wise, they limit themselves at the time when they were created; not created with the purpose of containing new stories), and have a unique context.

E.g: Shao Kahn is the strongest MK Character because he conquered Earthrealm with his magic and skills.
Onaga isn't declared the strongest MK character, but he can warp reality.

So, who is stronger? Kahn based on accolade, or Onaga based on feat?

He did this during a debate he had about Sidious and Nihilus, for context.

]

Okay so this needs to be addressed first. BYSS WAS A STRONG NEXUS POINT BEFORE PALPATINE EVER SHOWED UP. The Rakata empire built it as a base of operations and built temples and other structures there. When Sidious eventually shows up he opts to allow such structures to remain while he orders the building of others. That's important to note because Rakata ships operated through Force empowered Hyperdrive systems, and they targeted worlds Rich in Force Energy to travel to and from.

Relevant sources:

Byss Nexus 1:
https://i.imgur.com/1527LpW.png
Byss Nexus 2:
https://i.imgur.com/XO6bZFL.png
Byss Nexus 3:
https://i.imgur.com/S2EFyZs.png
Byss Nexus 4:
https://i.imgur.com/KA7fcAp.png
Byss Nexus 5:
https://i.imgur.com/mV2qiYE.png
Byss Nesus 6 (Luke calls it the dark center of the universe:
https://i.imgur.com/dfchtxP.png
Rakata Nexus Planet Targeting:
https://i.imgur.com/ZS0nMs5.png
Rakata Owned Byss:
https://i.imgur.com/O6lzfu0.png

Special Extras, First Two Pages of Star Wars Evasive Action Recruitment. These two pages show that even during the *construction phase* of the planet when the site hadn't even been fully set up and optimized, it was greatly empowering Vader and Sids because of its Nexus state. It also shows that Vader who was not draining the workers on the planet, was able to easily and without effort draw upon the power the workers and nexus produced:

Pg 1.) https://i.imgur.com/uY5vmbD.jpg
Pg 2.) https://i.imgur.com/oXO1vaY.jpg
Pg 3.) https://i.imgur.com/kaNdReO.jpg

So it's true it takes little effort on Palpatine's part because the feat is empowered by the Nexus that is the planet itself. It's like saying you can push a tank down the road and it takes no effort, but oh, the tank is already turned on and in drive. Lol.
--------------
]

Eh, factually untrue.

https://i.imgur.com/gTOV5i4.png
---------
]

While his use of Force Storm light years away (iirc Byss is like 10k light years from Coruscant), his power is also being greatly enhanced by Byss. Technically both Nihilus and Sidious have the "Distant Power" Force Secret, which means their Peak reach (without being amped by anything) is "anywhere in the same Star System".

Distant Power: https://i.imgur.com/kH9fS98.png

Our Star System is 287.46 billion km in diameter so if we were to put Pluto on the furthest point away from the sun and then put a clone Pluto on the other side of the sun the same radius away, Nihilus and Sids would be able to use their power to effect anything in that range.

The difference is, Sids is being amped by Byss which dramatically increases his range, and Nihilus using his own power.

Honestly that's not as impressive since he's not doing it on his own power. Still impressive though.

On a side note, we don't ever get a reason for why Nihilus likes to roll up on planets to drain them but I suspect it has to do with his Wound Aura. Just as Malachor V has Wound Aura (or area around the planet where the Force doesn't travel), Nihilus also projects this aura. When it comes to people "becoming one with the Force" if they are hindered by something (like the Star Forge's Force Prisons), they will be stuck in limbo until their Force Energy is expended and they become nothing (KOTOR 1 Malak Fight with Description). If a person were to be draining these trapped souls, they would be able to get THE MOST they can get out of them without them dying and becoming one with the Force thereby retaining some Force Energy. So its not really a matter of range, its a matter of squeezing out every single drop possible.
----------
]

ALSO through the huge machine that is Byss' nexus power. I mean you're acting like this is proof that he is powerful because he's using all these powers at once... when he's practically sitting on a nuclear reactor letting it flow through him.

There's also the fact that these were people who were ALREADY in a worshipful state of mind towards him, which makes it far easier to mentally dominate them. So I mean...

a.) They are already enthralled by him
b.) They are on a beautiful disarming paradise planet
c.) They are saturated in Dark Side energy that pushes them towards accepting his power.

The number is big yes, but the feat when closely examined... eh still not really him doing it on his own, but doing it through the nuclear reactor he's squatting on.

Additionally Nihilus didn't just drain their life force, he caused the flow of the Force to stop existing wherever he fed. The places he touched became wounds in the Force. Sure, draining people is cool and all, but when you give the Force itself a black eye and busted lip and tell it not to come around those areas again... well that's something different isn't it? Lol.
-----------
]

In all actuality it would be easier to drain Byss in Sidious' position than it would be Nihilus draining Katarr. Reasoning?

Examine this description of the power being used:

https://i.imgur.com/gyTyYEy.png

As you can see I highlighted each thing that adds difficulty in yellow, orange, and red, and red for the bonus difficulty.

YELLOW = Easy for willing, worshipful subjects.

This is definitely the Byss residents. They were enthralled and worshipful of Sidious in their paradise kingdom.

ORANGE = Difficult for ambivalent or apathetic individuals.

These are people who just don't have an opinion. Now Byss was indeed a planet 19.7 strong, but 2% of that (394,000,000) were aliens who were tricked to go there, and then were trapped on the planet as slaves. Those guys definitely hated Sidious especially after seeing and knowing of so many other (this is why the Essential Atlas states MOST of Byss' population was in a dream-like state lol) non-humans butchered over the years (the Evasive Action Recruitment comic shows "one way trips" with alien possessions incinerated upon leaving). Still, even if 394,000,000 Million were at least apathetic to Sidious, 19,306,000,000 worshiped and adored him, cancelling them out.

RED = Heroic for ENEMIES, +10 For each individual imbued with the light side of the Force.

Sidious was beloved by the people of Byss, and carefully selected through applicants who were not force sensitive at all.

This is definitely NOT the case with the Katarr residents. Katarr had millions of Force Sensitive Miraluka who HABITUALLY joined the ranks of the Jedi Knights. There was a conclave on Katarr where nearly a hundred senior Jedi were present. The Miraluka were light side oriented.

So in regard to which of the two is a more difficult feat, Nihilus is literally performing his feat through THE MOST DIFFICULT of circumstances, and he does so with casual ease.
------------

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
What he tries to say is that accolades are created at a specific time(and even if they are universal, history-wise, they limit themselves at the time when they were created; not created with the purpose of containing new stories), and have a unique context.

E.g: Shao Kahn is the strongest MK Character because he conquered Earthrealm with his magic and skills.
Onaga isn't declared the strongest MK character, but he can warp reality.

So, who is stronger? Kahn based on accolade, or Onaga based on feat? Apt comparison.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
What he tries to say is that accolades are created at a specific time(and even if they are universal, history-wise, they limit themselves at the time when they were created; not created with the purpose of containing new stories), and have a unique context.

E.g: Shao Kahn is the strongest MK Character because he conquered Earthrealm with his magic and skills.
Onaga isn't declared the strongest MK character, but he can warp reality.

So, who is stronger? Kahn based on accolade, or Onaga based on feat? And the context of Sidious being the MVP is Sidious being the MVP

I don't know what to do with your example, because I don't know the rules of the Universe, the canon of the Universe and what the context of these feats and accolades

Originally posted by darthbane77
He did this during a debate he had about Sidious and Nihilus, for context.

Okay so this needs to be addressed first.<...) BYSS WAS A STRONG NEXUS POINT BEFORE PALPATINE EVER SHOWED UP. The Rakata empire built it as a base of operations and built temples and other structures there. When Sidious eventually shows up he opts to allow such structures to remain while he orders the building of others. That's important to note because Rakata ships operated through Force empowered Hyperdrive systems, and they targeted worlds Rich in Force Energy to travel to and from(...).

Hey, I was about to make a similar thread.

IIRC, there was a white&black comic book featuring Vader and Sidious on Byss; and there was a panel where Palpatine said something similar of:

"They give me their life-energy to me. They feed me."
-Sidious

This could support the argument that the Byss people were willingly giving their life-energy to Sidious and his adepts. It was also mentioned that he(and his adepts too?) kept them in a blissful state using spells or experiments in the Dark Empire comic books.

I think Palpatine did with the Byss people the same thing Obi-Wan did with Luke when Obi-Wan allowed Luke to let his Force signature flow through him by creating a temporary Force bond(but Sidious and his Adepts did it violently and vicious)

Originally posted by darthbane77
Apt comparison. It is pretty reasonable but the cucks known as the Sheevaginas will try to bend reality to their desires Trumpian style.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
Hey, I was about to make a similar thread.

IIRC, there was a white&black comic book featuring Vader and Sidious on Byss; and there was a panel where Palpatine said something similar of:

"They give me their life-energy to me. They feed me."
-Sidious

This could support the argument that the Byss people were willingly giving their life-energy to Sidious and his adepts. It was also mentioned that he(and his adepts too?) kept them in a blissful state using spells or experiments in the Dark Empire comic books.

I think Palpatine did with the Byss people the same thing Obi-Wan did with Luke when Obi-Wan allowed Luke to let his Force signature flow through him by creating a temporary Force bond(but Sidious and his Adepts did it violently and vicious) Yeah, I know what you're talking about. I have the scan, but it's too big to attach to a comment.

Originally posted by Ursumeles
And the context of Sidious being the MVP is Sidious being the MVP

I don't know what to do with your example, because I don't know the rules of the Universe, the canon of the Universe and what the context of these feats and accolades

1. I don't know what MvP means.
2. It's not even that hard. Accolades are created at the moment a story is written on the paper where the writer creates some characters within the time frame of their story and does not deviate from it; and if they do, they still make sure it is compressed in their time frame(likely when they want to continue a story). Accolades serve as an important plot device to distinguish the main character from the other characters, to make it more/or "special" Hence, you have Lucas saying that Anakin is the most powerful Jedi(hence: the midi-chlorian count story element). Yet, we have enough material about him in Legends; and he isn't up to the accolades, because Legends doesn't focus on Anakin's background. Yes, Luceno is a big Anakin fan(or Lucas canon fan, better said) In his works, there are always some references to Lucas' canon, but mainly he does it out of respect for Lucas' masterpiece. This can be seen at best in the Darth Plagueis novel at the prologue of the story or when Plagueis meets Sidious and we see his thoughts about him; yet Luceno still does it by using character perspective. Luceno, on the other hand, hates the TOR writers, mainly Drew, because of creating Vitiate. That's why he wrote in the Darth Plagueis novel that Vitiate was dead for good.


On the other hand, Drew Karpyshyn and BioWare totally hate Lucas' canon and his characters.

Even Timothy Zahn hated Lucas for allowing Veitch to bring back Palpatine as the Emperor Reborn. Jade says something along the lines in a book, post-DE Palpatine:

"I loved to believe that wasn't Palpatine, just someone who pretended to be him."

Heck, even Veitch hates Lucas now for making DE Palpatine. You even see his Facebook comments changing his perspective about Sidious.

Only Drew is a chicken. He hates Lucas' canon, but he is afraid of admitting Vitiate's superiority over Sidious. That was his response to a TOR fan. So, he'd rather dissect Lucas' canon behind his back than facing him.

1. The best
2. What? Dude, the point of a accolade that says that Sidious is #1 is to say that Sidious is number #1. And yes, the accolades focus on main chars, because main chars are usually the most powerful ones (Anakin, Yoda, Sidious, Vitiate, HoT, Revan, Exar etc). Doesn't means anything.

Not sure why you ramble about authors hating Lucas, but whatever.

And you continue to miss the point.

Originally posted by darthbane77
Yeah, I know what you're talking about. I have the scan, but it's too big to attach to a comment.

At least you know the name, I forgot it?

Originally posted by quanchi112
And you continue to miss the point.

He is a stormtrooper.

Freddon, what is you criticism about? That they're main chars?

It sounds like you're saying that they're only the most powerful inside the story the accolade is written in - but in the case of Sidious, we have over a dozen seperate accolades from various authors, in and out of Universe. If he's the most powerful Sith, he's the most powerful Sith.

Originally posted by Ursumeles
1. The best
2. What? Dude, the point of a accolade that says that Sidious is #1 is to say that Sidious is number #1. And yes, the accolades focus on main chars, because main chars are usually the most powerful ones (Anakin, Yoda, Sidious, Vitiate, HoT, Revan, Exar etc). Doesn't means anything.

Not sure why you ramble about authors hating Lucas, but whatever.

1. Wrestling MVP?
2. You also ask yourself why is he the most powerful if you take it as universal fact despite new stories appearing with new characters(Valkorion)

You just said it yourself, actually: The main characters are the most powerful because the story focuses on them. So, each story has their own "most powerful" characters. Thus, instead of using accolades, you switch to feats.

All those accolades that claim Sidious as the supreme Sith are either part of Lucas canon, they are either "outdated"(that means it doesn't take into consideration the new time frame of stories; whether those stories are distant sequels or prequels) or just compressed in the 1000 years during Darth Bane's reign as a Dark Lord of the Sith-'til to his time.

IIRC, he was only classified as the greatest Dark Lord of the Banite Sith Order. Even so, it was due to his wealth of Sith knowledge, his military and political power.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
1. Wrestling MVP?
2. You also ask yourself why is he the most powerful if you take it as universal fact despite new stories appearing with new characters(Valkorion)

You just said it yourself, actually: The main characters are the most powerful because the story focuses on them. So, each story has their own "most powerful" characters. Thus, instead of using accolades, you switch to feats. 2. Some of Sidious "most powerful" accolades were created after the creation of Vitiate, though. (Or, to be more precise, after Revan was published).

3. No. That characters are the most powerful chars in their own stories doesn't means that they can't be the most powerful outside of their own stories. Especially considering that many of the accolades are from sourcebooks and similar sources.
For example, Exar is a main char in TotJ, Muur isn't. Exar has accolades placing him above Muur -- that means he is superior to Muur, not that Exar is more powerful because he's a main character

You continue to miss my point. I am afraid.

I never said that main characters aren't the most powerful. I said that they are the most powerful because they are the main characters in the story.
But each character is the most powerful in their own stories. Valkorion/Vitiate is in his with his accolades, Exar is with his, Sidious is with his.
But their powers aren't dependant on their accolades. Their accolades are dependant on their powers; if you get me.
And that's where feats come into play.
I one am of the action proves the word philosophy. Maybe for you the word is more important than the action. I can't blame your perspective.


Tell me when those accolades appeared that put Sidious above Valkorion/Vitiate in the Legends canon?

I have no memory of them. Unless it is a re-publication of "outdated" sources.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
You continue to miss my point. I am afraid.

Tell me when those accolades appeared that put Sidious above Valkorion/Vitiate in the Legends canon?

I have no memory of them. Unless it is a re-publication of "outdated" sources. Your point just doesn't makes sense to me. That's it.

Sorry, I don't have the accolades on my hand right now. Pretgy sure Az does, though.

I'm not interested in continuing this debate, and I need to respond to make my opener againsr Ell anyway.

So good day I guess

Sidious' accolades don't apply to Tenebrae for the millionth time, Vitiate was just another mask. He's never been Sith, he used the Sith as part of his plan. The best you could argue was that he maintained Sith ways until the Revan novel and even that is sketchy.

Pretty sure Vitiate was Zakuulan even prior to the Revan Novel, based on what Akghal Usar says on Yavin.

True.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
At least you know the name, I forgot it? https://i.imgur.com/Jx8LynJh.jpg

You might want to use instead of a link.

Originally posted by AncientPower
You might want to use instead of a link. I tried attaching the image already, it was too big.

Originally posted by AncientPower
Sidious' accolades don't apply to Tenebrae for the millionth time, Vitiate was just another mask. He's never been Sith, he used the Sith as part of his plan. The best you could argue was that he maintained Sith ways until the Revan novel and even that is sketchy.

Sidious' accolades only apply to him in the context of the Banite Sith era.
I already explained to him the importance of the context when a story is written. But he just won't get it.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
Sidious' accolades only apply to him in the context of the Banite Sith era.
I already explained to him the importance of the context when a story is written. But he just won't get it. Yeah, that's how I look at it. The Banite Sith and the original Sith are two different orders, "he Order of the Sith Lords", so it's not unreasonable to argue or believe that any of Sidious "GOAT quotes" aren't just referring to Sith within the order that Sidious himself was a member of.

Originally posted by darthbane77
https://i.imgur.com/Jx8LynJh.jpg

This panel alone also reveals that draining Byss didn't make Palpatine more powerful in the Force, just that it prevented his bodily and mindily degeneration. Therefore, DE Sidious isn't stronger than his TPM-ROTJ counterpart, but more knowledgeable and masterful. And it also proves that those citizens allowed Sidious to steal their life-energy via Sidious Force-bonding with them. So, they were feeding him, not the other way around. Sidious just kept eating them. That explains how he was able to do it when he was not present on the planet with them or in its vicinity. It was due to a perverted and sick Force bond.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
This panel alone also reveals that draining Byss didn't make Palpatine more powerful in the Force, just that it prevented his bodily and mindily degeneration. Therefore, DE Sidious isn't stronger than his TPM-ROTJ counterpart, but more knowledgeable and masterful. And it also proves that those citizens allowed Sidious to drain them via Sidious Force-binding with them. I wouldn't go that far. There are quotes stating that Sidious DID increase in power from ROTJ to DE, and to assume he had no growth between TPM and ROTJ is pretty stupid. The AMOUNT of growth is arguable, but that he grew, is not.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
Sidious' accolades only apply to him in the context of the Banite Sith era.
I already explained to him the importance of the context when a story is written. But he just won't get it. Dude, disagreeing =/= don't getting it.

We also know that DE Sidious did grew stronger:


Source: The Ultimate Visual Guide: Updated and Expanded

Edit: Credit to Nova

Originally posted by darthbane77
Yeah, that's how I look at it. The Banite Sith and the original Sith are two different orders, "he Order of the Sith Lords", so it's not unreasonable to argue or believe that any of Sidious "GOAT quotes" aren't just referring to Sith within the order that Sidious himself was a member of.

To be honest, doesn't Sidious' supremacy only revolve around the Banite Sith Lords? That would also make sense in the context of Lucas' canon. Sidious can still be the most powerful Sith Lord in Legends in Lucas' canon(1000 years), but also allow other Sith characters to hold that title under the banner of another Sith Order.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
To be honest, doesn't Sidious' supremacy only revolve around the Banite Sith Lords? That would also make sense in the context of Lucas' canon. Sidious can still be the most powerful Sith Lord in Legends in Lucas' canon(1000 years), but also allow other Sith characters to hold that title under the banner of another Sith Order. That makes complete sense, yeah. Plus, Sidious actually has accolades proclaiming his superiority among the Banite line specifically. So we have specific quotes for the Banite line, and we have more vague quotes that could easily just mean he's the greatest Sith in THAT order.

Originally posted by Ursumeles
Dude, disagreeing =/= don't getting it.

We also know that DE Sidious did grew stronger:


Source: The Ultimate Visual Guide: Updated and Expanded

Edit: Credit to Nova


"(...)Studying the dark side of the Force to become more powerful(...)"

Observe that he becomes more powerful due to his studies of the dark side. In this line, it isn't implied his growth in the Force(Force strength), but his growth in dark side knowledge.

Originally posted by darthbane77
That makes complete sense, yeah. Plus, Sidious actually has accolades proclaiming his superiority among the Banite line specifically. So we have specific quotes for the Banite line, and we have more vague quotes that could easily just mean he's the greatest Sith in THAT order.

This is how I see the major Sith Lords:
1. Vitiate/Valkorion
2. Exar Kun
3. Darth Sidious/4. Darth Plagueis(not decided)
5. Darth Bane
6. Darth Krayt

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
This is how I see the major Sith Lords:
1. Vitiate/Valkorion
2. Exar Kun
3. Darth Sidious/4. Darth Plagueis(not decided)
5. Darth Bane
6. Darth Krayt

1: Vitiate/Valkorion~ROTJ/DE Sidious (respectively)
2: Sarasu Taalon (post pool)
3: Nihilus
4: Plagueis/Kun/Caedus/FOTJ Krayt
5: Marka Ragnos

Originally posted by darthbane77
1: Vitiate/Valkorion~ROTJ/DE Sidious (respectively)
2: Sarasu Taalon (post pool)
3: Nihilus
4: Plagueis/Kun/Caedus/FOTJ Krayt
5: Marka Ragnos That is actually surprisingly similar to mine, outside of Plagueis / Vader.

Bane gets along with Nadd on this forum. After all you took his holocron.

By the way, you got your friend's Byss drain debunked respect thread's link address? Can you give it to me?

Originally posted by darthbane77
1: Vitiate/Valkorion~ROTJ/DE Sidious (respectively)
2: Sarasu Taalon (post pool)
3: Nihilus
4: Plagueis/Kun/Caedus/FOTJ Krayt
5: Marka Ragnos

Glad, Nihilus is in your top 3. Lol

I said I just numbered the major ones.

SunRazer, it would be an honor if you left the source names to these texts.

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.

Originally posted by Ursumeles
That is actually surprisingly similar to mine, outside of Plagueis / Vader. Really? Huh, interesting.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
Glad, Nihilus is in your top 3. Lol

I said I just numbered the major ones. Ah, I must have misread.

mine for the major Sith is (using the same Sith as your list):

Vitiate~Sidious
Kun
Krayt
Bane

Originally posted by darthbane77
Really? Huh, interesting. 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.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
SunRazer, it would be an honor if you left the source names to these texts. Don't expect objectivity from Sunrazer.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
SunRazer, it would be an honor if you left the source names to these texts.

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?

Originally posted by darthbane77
A fair POV, but still, it's easy to argue that many of those quotes are referring only to the Sith Order that Sidious belonged to. Especially given feat comparisons, the easiest way to reconcile Sidious' GOAT quotes

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.

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.

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.

The most absurd part of the Sidious is factually the most powerful bad guy pre new trilogy actually makes debating null and void if these biased bunch of posters achieved their ultimate goal. Basically they want a source to tell them debating is irrelevant and just to wait on Pablo Hidalgo to tell them how to think.

Originally posted by darthbane77
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.

Well that explains why you don't have Sidious above Vitiate, lol, and why I don't. I understand the difference in our thinking, we just don't agree (obviously).



Of course.



Yeah, I misspoke. The films are a bad example because they all have EU novelisations. Maybe TCW episodes that lack novelised counterparts would be a better example.



I don't see how accolades are any less direct or more open to interpretation than feats.



If there's nothing contradicting accolades, there is absolutely a reason to assume they're 100% factual. We dispute them on the grounds that there are a contradiction. If there's nothing else, why wouldn't we take given material that points to one character being stronger than another? If there were no accolades or any other material, we would resort to feats for comparison between characters, and that's fine as well. Heck, if there were absolutely no feats, no accolades, nothing else at all, I would accept author intent as a means of distinguishing between two characters in terms of power or whatever the topic was. You can't question anything until you have something to contradict or dispute it, naturally. So of course you can assume accolades are 100% factual until you have a good reason to question it. That goes for feats as well; I say they're inconsistent, but unless such an inconsistency actually arises, I can't dismiss a feat just because I don't like it. I have to have some sort of reasonable grounds (contradiction, circumstances, etc.) before I question it.

I personally assess both quotes and feats on a basis of accuracy (how accurate they are to/how well they fit in with other established facts, though this isn't relevant in a number of cases), reliability (how trustworthy the sources are, how many times we see the accolade being stated, whether or not we see the feat or accolade being contradicted, etc.), and from that I determine how valid the feats or accolades are.

EDIT: Now, when I say 100% fact, I don't mean gospel, just trustworthy. All accolades are open to dispute to scrutiny in the same way that feats are. Things like Sidious' supremacy just happen to have an overwhelming amount of reliability because they're reiterated on so many occasions across so many different times, sources and perspectives, such that even if every single narrator in those quotes was untrustworthy (we know that's not the case), the actual message would still be highly reliable.



Both Darovit and Zayne Carrick would never have such quotes taken seriously, first because they'd never be published (lol), and secondly because they're already contradicted. We already know such sentiments to be inaccuracies.



There are plenty of comic book debaters on the Vine who still go for accolades over feats, though to my understanding the general comic debating community has a more feats-based mentality.

But Star Wars is certainly not a consistent mythology (even within the EU), and this is just differing methods of attempting to construct a clear and consistent hierarchy with characters, something which, let's be honest, authors don't actually care about and never factored in when they wrote their works. So it's up to us, which is why we tolerate debate on whether feats or accolades are better.

The "every other debate circle" thing doesn't really mean much to me. That's an argumentum ad populum.

Originally posted by SunRazer
Well that explains why you don't have Sidious above Vitiate, lol, and why I don't. I understand the difference in our thinking, we just don't agree (obviously).



Of course.



Yeah, I misspoke. The films are a bad example because they all have EU novelisations. Maybe TCW episodes that lack novelised counterparts would be a better example.



I don't see how accolades are any less direct or more open to interpretation than feats.



If there's nothing contradicting accolades, there is absolutely a reason to assume they're 100% factual. We dispute them on the grounds that there are a contradiction. If there's nothing else, why wouldn't we take given material that points to one character being stronger than another? If there were no accolades or any other material, we would resort to feats for comparison between characters, and that's fine as well. Heck, if there were absolutely no feats, no accolades, nothing else at all, I would accept author intent as a means of distinguishing between two characters in terms of power or whatever the topic was. You can't question anything until you have something to contradict or dispute it, naturally. So of course you can assume accolades are 100% factual until you have a good reason to question it. That goes for feats as well; I say they're inconsistent, but unless such an inconsistency actually arises, I can't dismiss a feat just because I don't like it. I have to have some sort of reasonable grounds (contradiction, circumstances, etc.) before I question it.

I personally assess both quotes and feats on a basis of accuracy (how accurate they are to/how well they fit in with other established facts, though this isn't relevant in a number of cases), reliability (how trustworthy the sources are, how many times we see the accolade being stated, whether or not we see the feat or accolade being contradicted, etc.), and from that I determine how valid the feats or accolades are.

EDIT: Now, when I say 100% fact, I don't mean gospel, just trustworthy. All accolades are open to dispute to scrutiny in the same way that feats are. Things like Sidious' supremacy just happen to have an overwhelming amount of reliability because they're reiterated on so many occasions across so many different times, sources and perspectives, such that even if every single narrator in those quotes was untrustworthy (we know that's not the case), the actual message would still be highly reliable.



Both Darovit and Zayne Carrick would never have such quotes taken seriously, first because they'd never be published (lol), and secondly because they're already contradicted. We already know such sentiments to be inaccuracies.



There are plenty of comic book debaters on the Vine who still go for accolades over feats, though to my understanding the general comic debating community has a more feats-based mentality.

But Star Wars is certainly not a consistent mythology (even within the EU), and this is just differing methods of attempting to construct a clear and consistent hierarchy with characters, something which, let's be honest, authors don't actually care about and never factored in when they wrote their works. So it's up to us, which is why we tolerate debate on whether feats or accolades are better.

The "every other debate circle" thing doesn't really mean much to me. That's an argumentum ad populum.

First, apologies for not quoting. I don't really debate here often, so I'm not really acquainted with the formatting.

1: Right. I understand where just about everyone on this forum comes from, I just disagree with way most of you guys rank the characters. Just a simple difference in thinking,

2:

3: Yeah, the TCW example is definitely better, imho. Since it kinda straddles the line between the EU and the films, in that it's designed to better fit the films, but is also a little bit beyond the films in regards to showing the power of individual characters.

4: Because a feat is a direct showing of a character's capabilities. Feats performed without circumstances surrounding them can be used to place a character accurately, feats performed with special circumstances can be used to do the same in different ways, or to better analyze and learn how the universe of tat mythos works, etc. An accolade is just a statement. Pablo Hidalgo could say Ahsoka>Vader if he wanted to, as an accolade in some sourcebook, but the feats demonstrated by them both, being direct manifestations of their individual power, obviously contradict that statement. Basically, I place characters more based on what I can see and analyze more in depth, rather than just what's said in some random sourcebook. Again, that's not to say I just disregard accolades altogether, I only disregard the ones I feel are contradicted by feats.

5: I think my above paragraph answers this as well.

6: Right, that's exactly my point. Accolades can be just as insane as feats, there's no reason to treat them as literal truth. I'm just pointing out the "what if" of those two characters being given accolades that would place them above the likes of Yoda or Sidious, and how based on what I've seen of this forum, those accolades would be treated.

7: Eeeh, tbh, I find CV to generally be pretty cancerous. More so than even this forum, lol.

Oh I agree completely with this, no mythology is entirely consistent, and there's no real answers concerning many of the topics that are debated here and elsewhere. Although I do wish authors would keep VS debates in mind sometimes, it would make things SOOOOO much easier for us, haha.

Fair enough, I was just pointing out what seems to be the general norm, and how KMC is an outlier.
--------
Personal sidenote, I kinda hope these last couple debates I've had in the past day or two (with you, Urs, ILS, among others) proves the forum that I'm not an idiot, and that I CAN actually debate. lol

On this sidenote, you seem to have improved quite a bit solely debating wise, certainly.

Originally posted by darthbane77
First, apologies for not quoting. I don't really debate here often, so I'm not really acquainted with the formatting.

1: Right. I understand where just about everyone on this forum comes from, I just disagree with way most of you guys rank the characters. Just a simple difference in thinking,

2:

3: Yeah, the TCW example is definitely better, imho. Since it kinda straddles the line between the EU and the films, in that it's designed to better fit the films, but is also a little bit beyond the films in regards to showing the power of individual characters.

4: Because a feat is a direct showing of a character's capabilities. Feats performed without circumstances surrounding them can be used to place a character accurately, feats performed with special circumstances can be used to do the same in different ways, or to better analyze and learn how the universe of tat mythos works, etc. An accolade is just a statement. Pablo Hidalgo could say Ahsoka>Vader if he wanted to, as an accolade in some sourcebook, but the feats demonstrated by them both, being direct manifestations of their individual power, obviously contradict that statement. Basically, I place characters more based on what I can see and analyze more in depth, rather than just what's said in some random sourcebook. Again, that's not to say I just disregard accolades altogether, I only disregard the ones I feel are contradicted by feats.

5: I think my above paragraph answers this as well.

6: Right, that's exactly my point. Accolades can be just as insane as feats, there's no reason to treat them as literal truth. I'm just pointing out the "what if" of those two characters being given accolades that would place them above the likes of Yoda or Sidious, and how based on what I've seen of this forum, those accolades would be treated.

7: Eeeh, tbh, I find CV to generally be pretty cancerous. More so than even this forum, lol.

Oh I agree completely with this, no mythology is entirely consistent, and there's no real answers concerning many of the topics that are debated here and elsewhere. Although I do wish authors would keep VS debates in mind sometimes, it would make things SOOOOO much easier for us, haha.

Fair enough, I was just pointing out what seems to be the general norm, and how KMC is an outlier.
--------
Personal sidenote, I kinda hope these last couple debates I've had in the past day or two (with you, Urs, ILS, among others) proves the forum that I'm not an idiot, and that I CAN actually debate. lol

Yeah, it's ok, KMC's formatting is a nightmare. I'll just do numbers as well to make this easy.

3 & 6. Yes, that's exactly my point. TCW is a nightmare to try and reconcile with other feats. There's a few quotes like that as well, of course. I don't think saying "accolades > feats" is an accurate representation of my stance, regardless. It's just that given an instance in which a comparison of feats involves significant ambiguity, and accolades are very clear on the matter, I take the accolades. That's obvious enough.

4. Accolades already put Vader above Ahsoka, though. You're assuming Pablo or anyone else is going to make some sort of absurd statement, which they won't. As I said, we can resolve most of these issues without even having to touch feats or go outside the realm of accolades. If we were in an absurd enough position to have a quote saying X > Y but a fight involving Y literally one-shotting X without circumstances, I would pick the latter as well and treat the quote as a simple inaccuracy. But that doesn't accurately capture the issue of Sidious vs Valkorion, or most instances where we're using accolades. They're not examples of absurd conflict between accolades and feats, which are extremely rare in the mythos. So we don't need to deal with that.

7. Alright.

As for your side note, don't worry about debating reputation. I mean, if you're fine with being a nerd like the rest of us, just debate a lot, learn from it, keep evolving and you'll keep rising through the ranks. I don't think it's that important outside of forum politics and shit like that, lol. Though I understand why you'd feel the need to be elevated, particularly out of the shitter tiers.

Originally posted by Ursumeles
On this sidenote, you seem to have improved quite a bit solely debating wise, certainly.



Honestly, before these last couple days, I've never really debated seriously here. Generally I debate in Facebook groups, with the occasional outing to another site. Personally, I'm not concerned personally about my skill as a debater, as far as I'm concerned, I'm as good as just about anyone here (with a few notable exceptions), I just don't like people thinking that I can't debate, when I can.

If you have enough sources and you aren't an illiterate it's not hard to be as good as the majority.

Originally posted by SunRazer
Yeah, it's ok, KMC's formatting is a nightmare. I'll just do numbers as well to make this easy.

3 & 6. Yes, that's exactly my point. TCW is a nightmare to try and reconcile with other feats. There's a few quotes like that as well, of course. I don't think saying "accolades > feats" is an accurate representation of my stance, regardless. It's just that given an instance in which a comparison of feats involves significant ambiguity, and accolades are very clear on the matter, I take the accolades. That's obvious enough.

4. Accolades already put Vader above Ahsoka, though. You're assuming Pablo or anyone else is going to make some sort of absurd statement, which they won't. As I said, we can resolve most of these issues without even having to touch feats or go outside the realm of accolades. If we were in an absurd enough position to have a quote saying X > Y but a fight involving Y literally one-shotting X without circumstances, I would pick the latter as well and treat the quote as a simple inaccuracy. But that doesn't accurately capture the issue of Sidious vs Valkorion, or most instances where we're using accolades. They're not examples of absurd conflict between accolades and feats, which are extremely rare in the mythos. So we don't need to deal with that.

7. Alright.

As for your side note, don't worry about debating reputation. I mean, if you're fine with being a nerd like the rest of us, just debate a lot, learn from it, keep evolving and you'll keep rising through the ranks. I don't think it's that important outside of forum politics and shit like that, lol. Though I understand why you'd feel the need to be elevated, particularly out of the shitter tiers.

3&6: Yeah, TCW seems to be almost entirely irreconcilable with the rest of Legends. I've actually been trying to get confirmation from Hidalgo as to whether or not TCW is considered both Legends and Canon, so great are the differences between TCW and Legends.

4: That's fair. I'm not saying Hidalgo would actually put out an accolade like that, again, I'm just making a point as to how I think most on this forum might treat the accolade IF it was somehow made.

7: Yeah, I don't generally care what other people think, unless what other people think is that I'm an idiot. Then I'll make the effort to try and prove otherwise.

Originally posted by cs_zoltan
If you have enough sources and you aren't an illiterate it's not hard to be as good as the majority. True enough I guess.

What the hell happened in this thread

I used the power of the dark side and warped the very fabric of reality of this thread.

Heh, no, you very clearly are. Moreso than literally anyone else who comes to mind, actually.

Originally posted by cs_zoltan
If you have enough sources and you aren't an illiterate it's not hard to be as good as the majority.

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?

Obviously I know some of them, but not all. Nevertheless, I'll check them out to re-fresh my memory.

the only thing newguy does nowadays is seek lol shits sad

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Heh, no, you very clearly are. Moreso than literally anyone else who comes to mind, actually.

You forgot SithMaster.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
Obviously I know some of them, but not all. Nevertheless, I'll check them out to re-fresh my memory.

Alright.

Originally posted by darthbane77
3&6: Yeah, TCW seems to be almost entirely irreconcilable with the rest of Legends. I've actually been trying to get confirmation from Hidalgo as to whether or not TCW is considered both Legends and Canon, so great are the differences between TCW and Legends.

4: That's fair. I'm not saying Hidalgo would actually put out an accolade like that, again, I'm just making a point as to how I think most on this forum might treat the accolade IF it was somehow made.

7: Yeah, I don't generally care what other people think, unless what other people think is that I'm an idiot. Then I'll make the effort to try and prove otherwise.

1. I assume it would have to be both. If TCW has no place in Legends, then that just makes several Legends works make no sense as they're derived from TCW.

2. Well, I've explained my stance on the matter.

3. Alright, lol.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
Some of these sources are "outdated"(Dark Empire); some only focus on the time frame of Lucas' canon(the one with Yoda, and most of them amongst these sources you have posted) and do not deviate it from it(if they do; they do it only 'til Darth Bane's era per Lucas' "command" one is from the perspective of an historian character who hasn't lived during the TOR times; another focuses only on the present moment, the one with emperor Zaarin. The last one is clearly from Luke's perspective.

The sixth quote refers to him as the most powerful who ever lived, but is also alluding to his status as a Sith Master/teacher. I think we can all agree that you can be (called)a Sith Lord without being a Sith Master, because that's the title every person takes when they want to become a Sith Lord.

Something tells me that this is made during the movie events. And at that time; Sidious was the only most powerful Sith Master who ever lived, because Maul and Dooku were below him in Force strength.

You're making an awful lot of thin complaints. You do realise the multitude of quotes in of themselves practically negate any point in making minor nitpicks about them, right? They correlate far too strongly for individual questions of reliability to matter. It would only be valid if you seriously believed that all of these quotes referred only to his time frame and not all of history, which of course isn't true.

Most of these, if not all, have nothing to do with Lucas, so I don't know why you're constraining them to his time frame. Even the Insider quotes are clearly mentioning all of history. How does the one with Zaarin only focus on the present moment when it literally states "the galaxy has ever known"? Complaints about it being a historian or something (which is just to provide the source with an identifiable lens) are always blown out of proportion. At best, you show that the quote is fallible, not that it is wrong, and the fallibility issue is again irrelevant due to the sheer quantity of sources reiterating the same point: that Palpatine is the most powerful Sith Lord in history.

The "Sith Master" complaint is ludicrous. Vitiate counts as a Sith Master, as he trained Exal Kressh from the comics. And I know English is not your first language, but that's some seriously poor reading there. Most powerful Sith Master "who ever lived" suddenly only applies to the movie era because that's when Sidious lived? What? "Who ever lived" means just that; who ever lived in the history of Star Wars, be it Nihilus, Revan, Vitiate, Tenebrous or Plagueis.

There's no such thing as "outdated" quotes, unless they've actually been retconned. Quotes aren't milk cartons with expiry dates, in the same way that feats aren't. Until an actual contradiction arises, they stand perfectly fine. By your logic, every time a new Sith character is introduced, every single quote about being the most powerful (whether it be Sidious, Vitiate, Plagueis etc.) is instantly discarded, which fails to construct any degree of continuity, which is what I am to achieve when debating SW. Sequels would instantly decanonise their prequels; again, continuity could never be constructed. So I don't consider that a valid approach.

Oh ffs Nova, spend your free time better than talking to that noob since you seem to have it now.

SoR Revan > DE Sidious

Honestly more and more I'm considering Revan to be beyond RotS Sidious and Yoda.

lol

Comprehend the new ground realities, fool!

I've got enough difficulty comprehending that there was a time when that was the mainstream opinion.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Heh, no, you very clearly are. Moreso than literally anyone else who comes to mind, actually.



No, I'm concerned that people don't think I'm shit. I'm not worried about being one of the best, I just don't like people thinking I can't debate.

Originally posted by SunRazer
I've got enough difficulty comprehending that there was a time when that was the mainstream opinion.

Was there ever? Every time a new Valkorion amp comes out the TOR brigade comes on and starts to uber-wank Valk but it always quickly settles back to the regular order of things.

Originally posted by SunRazer
You're making an awful lot of thin complaints. You do realise the multitude of quotes in of themselves practically negate any point in making minor nitpicks about them, right? They correlate far too strongly for individual questions of reliability to matter. It would only be valid if you seriously believed that all of these quotes referred only to his time frame and not all of history, which of course isn't true.

Most of these, if not all, have nothing to do with Lucas, so I don't know why you're constraining them to his time frame. Even the Insider quotes are clearly mentioning all of history. How does the one with Zaarin only focus on the present moment when it literally states "the galaxy has ever known"? Complaints about it being a historian or something (which is just to provide the source with an identifiable lens) are always blown out of proportion. At best, you show that the quote is fallible, not that it is wrong, and the fallibility issue is again irrelevant due to the sheer quantity of sources reiterating the same point: that Palpatine is the most powerful Sith Lord in history.

The "Sith Master" complaint is ludicrous. Vitiate counts as a Sith Master, as he trained Exal Kressh from the comics. And I know English is not your first language, but that's some seriously poor reading there. Most powerful Sith Master "who ever lived" suddenly only applies to the movie era because that's when Sidious lived? What? "Who ever lived" means just that; who ever lived in the history of Star Wars, be it Nihilus, Revan, Vitiate, Tenebrous or Plagueis.

There's no such thing as "outdated" quotes, unless they've actually been retconned. Quotes aren't milk cartons with expiry dates, in the same way that feats aren't. Until an actual contradiction arises, they stand perfectly fine. By your logic, every time a new Sith character is introduced, every single quote about being the most powerful (whether it be Sidious, Vitiate, Plagueis etc.) is instantly discarded, which fails to construct any degree of continuity, which is what I am to achieve when debating SW. Sequels would instantly decanonise their prequels; again, continuity could never be constructed. So I don't consider that a valid approach.


You know that I have nothing against Sidious as a character. And this is available for any character regarding accolades, not just Palpatine. You keep using accolades as if they are the holy graal of versuses and contain the absolute truth.

Tell me something:

If a character doesn't stand up to their accolades and claims, are those still "valid"?

It's a logical question.

And if you still like to go with accolades(which I believe is dumb as f**k in a versus) then you should know that Yoda has been established as the most powerful light side avatar alongside Sidious in the ROTS novel, IIRC. So that means it is 100% true and Yoda>Luke. But we all know, by using feats, this isn't true at all. That's why I am of the philosophy that feats>accolades. Accolades of a character do not take account of potential new stories and characters, you know. That's because they are written by people like us. There's no way any writer can predict what's gonna happen in the future.

And when I talked about those most sources as being Lucas' canon. I meant as in they had the purpose of expanding Lucas' limited world and the view of his world(continuity: the movies) in the Expanded Universe's canon.

Take this for example:
In 4999 BBY Tenebrae is regarded as the history's most powerful dark side master when he absorbed Medriaas' Force energy.

But we have older accolades before the appearance of Vitiate where it says the Exar Kun is the darkest or greatest power in the galaxy and he was the most powerful Sith Lord.

See the inconsistency? Why accolades s**k?

Or you want to say that Exar Kun>post-Medriaas Vitiate based on accolades?

Accolades do not determine the power of a character; the power of a character determines whether the particular accolades are true or not. This is not mathematics. This is common sense.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Honestly more and more I'm considering Revan to be beyond RotS Sidious and Yoda.

@SunRazer

While accolades are meaningful for evaluating characters, it is not wise to perceive them as indisputable facts unless explicitly contradicted or retconned. One must keep an open mind. Otherwise, a lot in Star Wars will stop making sense.

Your is so open the brain fell out a long time ago.

^^^

Try ranking every character on the basis of accolades (only) and you might realize the error in this approach. Accolades are important in their own right but it is not wise to rely upon them for assessing stuff in an ever-expanding lore.

Nobody uses accolades only, not me, not Nova. So what's your point?

The powerscaling goes like this:

By near the end of the Plagueis novel, Darth Plagueis is powerful enough to replicate the sorcery of the ancient sith *by sheer force of will* despite lacking the natural affinity for sorcery - compare this to Darth Bane, who admits he can't do a lot of sorcery due to a lack of natural affinity, yet is still powerful enough to mentally dominate Andeddu's spirit. Revan himself is implied to still need rituals and prep to do his stuff.
Darth Plagueis at some point reaches the title of "most powerful sith who ever lived".
Before the end of TPM, Darth Sidious is already described as the most powerful sith of all time, implying that he has surpassed Plagueis.
On Plagueis's death, Sidious gets a power boost that rearranges the balance of the Force in Star Wars to what appears to be an even greater extent than what Sidious and Plagueis with intense concentration could do *together*.
Sidious then presumably grows more powerful through to RotS.
Sidious intensively studies all aspects of the Force for two decades, accomplishing numerous insane feats like burying a super star destroyer, mentally dominating the entire imperial military from across the galaxy on a constant basis, reading every thought in Vader's mind and bringing him to his knees from across the galaxy, etc.
Sidious grows even *more* powerful through to Dark Empire, by which point he's a walking Force nexus who can destroy moons and telepathically dominate Luke Skywalker.


What's more, we can see from his RotS novelization feat with Mace that Sidious's lightning can bend lightsaber blades, so Revan probably can't just block that with his own. If he tries tutaminus, Yoda's struggle to do that against Palpatine in RotS suggests that the power disparity needed to overpower someone with lightning isn't that high. Given that Yoda is described in multiple sources to be the most powerful Jedi who ever lived up to his time, and RotS -> DE Sidious has more evidence for a massive power growth than KotOR -> SoR Revan, there's no reason to think that Revan can deflect his lightning even if we ignore the fact that Palpatine has better feats by orders of magnitude.

(E.g. Revan needs rituals and tech to replicate a small fraction of what Sidious can do on his own with Force storms)