Okay, so I was bit dishonest with the title for this blog. Blame it on my own personal dark side. But at least I came clean in the intro.

Before I get into the topic of this blog I have a bit of news. My official web site is up and running at:

www.drewkarpyshyn.com

so come on by and check it out. (I've even hidden a little Easter Egg inside there about the origin of the name of a very popular KOTOR character.)

Now, back to the topic at hand. The fact is, I'm always getting asked who is stronger: Bane, Revan, Vader or the Emperor. I understand the question. As a long time RPG'er I know the allure comparative stats and one-on-one battles between famous figures has over us.

I also recognize that, as someone who has worked on material dealing with both Revan and Bane, people see me as something of an expert (whether I am or not). Unfortunately, I can't really answer this question for you. Not in any definitive way.

For me a character such as Revan or Bane is much more than the sum total of their parts. Let's look at Bane. Throughout my novel you'll see his power wax and wane. It varies with his situation, his state of mind, the circumstances he finds himself in... just like people in real life. Not to over simplify things, but we all have good and bad days. Just because Bane might be stronger than Revan in one encounter doesn't mean he would win every time. Desperation, over confidence and blind luck can sometimes have just as much to do with victory and defeat.

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to say you can't look at someone and say "X is more powerful than Y". Many times that's an easy call. Darth Vader is far more powerful than the generic stormtrooper in the corner. Bane was way more powerful than the typical Sith apprentice on Korriban. But when you compare two figures near the top of the power structure it isn't always clear who will come out on top. If it *was* clear it wouldn't be possible to create dramatic tension in conflict, and I'd be out of a job.

Look at Luke, Vader and the Emperor. In their first conflict Vader defeated Luke. Later, Luke was able to defeat Vader... partly because he had grown in his understanding of the Force, but also because (I believe) Vader couldn't bring himself to unleash his full powers on his son. Does that make him weaker? Yes and no. Theoretically he may have had more power, but he wasn't able to use it so should we count it?

Similarly, we know Vader served the Emperor... but we also know Anakin had the potential to become the most powerful Jedi ever. So how did the Emperor keep Vader in check? Was he more powerful in the Force? Or just more cunning and manipulative? And if he was more cunning, doesn't that count as well? Would you rather be strong in the Force but stupid and gullible? (Not that Vader was stupid... I'm just trying to make a point.)

Measuring relative power in the grand scheme isn't always possible. There are too many mitigating factors to come up with the "right" answer... which is why it's so fun to debate these things on the boards. Everybody has their opinion - even me. But I won't give you mine, because I'm afraid it might come across as an expert telling you the "truth", and I don't want to portray myself in that kind of misleading light.

So there you go - a whole blog dedicated to not answering a question I am commonly asked. Maybe I should go into politics.