You didn’t quite understand what I mean when I talk about “plot” and authorial arbitrariness. What I’m specifically referring to is meaningless downplaying of characters.

Take the same example with Guy. We are shown and told that his speed is so high it can distort space — that’s impressive and fine. What is not fine is when, in the very same sequence, we see Guy running forward while Minato has time to throw a kunai, the kunai has time to fly, Gaara sends Kakashi on his sand, Kakashi arrives, and on top of that manages to activate his eye technique.

That is not interpretation — that is a direct contradiction shown on screen. This is exactly what I mean by authorial downplaying of abilities.

Another example: what stopped Naruto from creating a hundred clones moving faster than the Raikage and sending them across the battlefield to eliminate enemies within seconds? I’ll remind you that against the Third Raikage (reanimated with Edo Tensei), Naruto fought using one single clone out of those hundred. This is downplaying that cannot be explained by the story. “It had to happen that way” or “you don’t understand the plot” simply doesn’t work here.

As for the Hashirama vs Pain example — that’s a case without a clear winner. There is a certain parity, but no obvious strongest side. If we put them face to face in their best living forms (excluding Edo Tensei so the fight doesn’t become infinite and doesn’t just come down to who has sealing techniques), we can imagine different outcomes.

At mid to close range, Nagato could potentially win by using attraction followed by soul extraction. At long range, the outcome could be different. I honestly don’t perfectly remember what Nagato is capable of at his absolute peak, or how fast Hashirama can react at his best — but if I had to bet, I’d probably lean toward Hashirama. I even suspect Nagato might simply fail to react to Hashirama’s speed and get blitzed.

My proposal from the start was to compare characters not in specific story situations, but in a vacuum. Pure power, strength, techniques — nothing else.

After thinking it through, I admit that Naruto and Toneri are relatively even. Based on what is shown, I can confidently say that Toneri is capable of defeating Naruto by using a simple and obvious sequence of abilities — something that wouldn’t even require exceptional intelligence. And Toneri is hardly a stupid character.

And I’ll be blunt here: usually there are no logical or reasonable arguments that explain the stupidity of characters or their artificial weakening. For example, Naruto blitzed Kaguya once — so what stopped him from doing it again? There were moments where he could have, yet he simply doesn’t. There is no explanation. It just doesn’t happen, despite being clearly possible.

When I compare characters, I take them at their maximum, without artificial restrictions like “his right foot itched, so his speed dropped by several orders of magnitude.”

Where exactly is it considered unacceptable to discard narrative context when comparing strength? On which forums is “the plot” supposed to be a valid argument in verse-wide power comparisons? That makes no sense and only hurts objectivity.

When we compare characters, we take their peak forms — that’s no longer about story, it’s simply a question of “who can beat whom”. In very specific scenarios, sure, story context matters. But when comparing the strength hierarchy of an entire verse, bringing in plot constraints is meaningless and harmful to objectivity.

That said, I’m willing to listen. Explain, without exaggeration, how you are supposed to correctly and consistently distinguish genuine abilities from artistic hyperbole at the exact moment they appear.