Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Let's Talk About Palpatine and Sith Philosophy


53 replies to this topic

#1
Zerimar Nyliram

Zerimar Nyliram

    Yes, that's me.

  • Member
  • 3,328 posts

"Peace is a lie; there is only passion.
Though passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me."

 

--The Code of the Sith



Friends, I realized something last night: although we have vastly different preferences as to the continuation of the Star Wars saga past Return of the Jedi, we do have one thing in common: in both timelines, Emperor Palpatine--Darth Sidious, the Dark Lord of the Sith--transcends death by transferring his essence into cloned bodies. I've never seen The Rise of Skywalker, but since everyone in my life knows I'm the biggest Star Wars geek in any room, somehow I always end up finding out what happens in the new films, whether I asked for it or not. I've also been told that supplemental materials have confirmed that Sidious is indeed a clone in that film. In the EU, in the Dark Empire comics, Sidious has been producing clones on himself on the planet Byss, and he uses the ancient Sith technique of essence transfer to imput his disembodied consciousness into one clone at a time. He finds that the clones are highly susceptible to dark side degradation and so they deteriorate at a much faster rate than did his birth body, so he finds he must transfer his essence more quickly than he originally anticipated, meaning he will soon run out of clones. This looming threat becomes all the more impending when Luke destroys the remainder of the clones, at which point Sidious tries (unsuccessfully) to transfer his consciousness into baby Anakin Solo. (Fun fact: this plot actually came from George Lucas himself. Originally, the plan for Dark Empire was to have someone masquerading around in a Darth Vader costume pretending to be Vader, returned from exile to claim the Empire for himself as Palpatine's heir. Lucas didn't like this idea and instead told them to find a way to bring the Emperor back from the dead.)

What is fascinating is that, retroactively, Dark Empire ties in perfectly with Sidious' line in Revenge of the Sith about cheating death. And, of course, The Rise of Skywalker does the same, only with this scene expressly in mind.
 

This leads me to my next point, which has to do with a character and concept that also belong to both canons (and were George Lucas' creations): Darth Bane and the Rule of Two. While I don't know the story of Bane in the new canon or if it differs at all, I can tell you about Bane in the EU: In a nutshell, he came to believe that the nature of the Sith--where ultimate power for the self is the main ambition--was the root cause of the Sith's infighting from their inception and the reason why they never were able to achieve their goal of destroying the Jedi. As such, Bane believed that he had to destroy the Sith and create them anew, with the Rule of Two instituted, stating that there can only be two Sith at any one time--a master and an apprentice--and that it was the master's duty to teach the apprentice all he knew, and for the apprentice to slay the master once he surpassed him and to take an apprentice for himself. In this way, the Sith would be preserved until they were powerful enough to destroy the Jedi, which is what we see come to fruition a thousand years later in the prequels.

Here is the crux of what I wanted to discuss: Bane and Sidious had vastly different philosophies when it came to the end goal of the Rule of Two. Bane believed that it was a farce for one Sith Lord to put his own desires above that of the Sith Order, because that was the root cause of the Sith constantly destroying each other since their inception. According to Bane, the Sith must abide by the Rule of Two forever, with the master imparting all of his knowledge to the apprentice with the expectation that he would be replaced one day, thus keeping the Sith strong and making them increasingly more powerful as time went on. This would conceivably continue even after the Sith achieved their ultimate goal of destroying the Jedi and ruling the galaxy. Bane believed that, should any Sith return to the old ways and desire ultimate power for himself instead of for the Order, it would mean the destruction of the Sith.

Sidious, on the other hand, was different. While he seems to have believed very strongly in the Rule of Two (at least in the EU), it seems he only considered it an excellent placeholder until the Sith achieved what he believed was their ultimate goal: not the destruction of the Jedi (that was step one), but ultimate power in one Sith Lord and the ability to defy death. Death was the one thing that loomed over every Sith Lord's head in pursuit of ultimate power, and the Sith (at least in the EU) had employed numerous methods to defy it, each either ending in disaster or in eternal pain and suffering, as was the case with the Sith ghosts who anchored themselves to the corporeal universe. To Sidious, the Rule of Two was a temporary fix, in place until it could be replaced with what he called the Rule of One: a single all-powerful, immortal Sith Lord ruling the galaxy with an iron fist. Sidious believed he would be that Sith Lord, the seal of all who came before, which he nearly was.

I am certain that Darth Sidious had lots of respect and veneration for Darth Bane and his teachings, but as a learned and discerning man, I am sure he didn't agree with everything and would be quick to criticize Bane on what he perceived to be his faults. It can be inferred that Sidious agreed with the ancient philosophies, that the Sith's end goal was ultimate power for the self, with egotism being the cornerstone of all Sith teachings. In that respect, I have to say that I would agree with Sidious rather than Bane. The latter, while wise to realize the cause of the constant civil wars holding the Sith back, took his altruism a bit too far, to the point where he may have abandoned the very heart of the Code of the Sith.

What do you think? Where do you stand on this issue? Do you agree more with Bane or Sidious, and why?

Also, this thread is not necessarily to discuss whether or not you think the Emperor coming back was a good idea. While I can't speak for The Rise of Skywalker, I can say that Dark Empire is a bit of a mixed bag for me. When I re-read it last year, it seemed better than it did all those years ago. Essentially, I believe that in the hands of the right writer, any concept--no matter how fanboyish--can be made beautiful. Dark Empire definitely has something to it, though it does come off as very rough-drafty. I think that if an EU writer were to revisit the story in the form of a novel or two, it could be amazing.



#2
Zathras

Zathras

    Not The One

  • Members
  • 469 posts

I see Bane and Palpatine as bookends to one another.  The way I see it, Bane set up the Rule of Two (I don't like that rule, but that's beside the point) for the Sith Order to survive, and Palpatine was the end result or end goal.  Not all that different than the Jedi, who wanted to re-establish the Jedi Order, after being wiped out by Sidious.  I think we can safely say the Rule of Two only refers to Sith Lords, not Sith lackeys, because there have been all kinds of dark side force users that worked for Palpatine and Dooku, and in TROS, you have a whole friggin planet of secret sith troopers and acolytes.   Basically, because of the infighting among the Sith Lords, they both wiped themselves out, and what was left was wiped out by the Jedi (aside from Bane).  Bane basically went underground with the Sith, and they practiced that philosophy for 1000 (?) years, until the time was right to re-emerge.  Essentially, the Sith did, what the Jedi did when they were wiped out, in turn, and later when the Jedi re-emerged with Luke, the Jedi order was re-established (in both the films and EU). 

 

Palpatine, on the other hand, was the end result of the Rule of Two.  He WAS the one who re-established the Sith Lords in open again.  Everything Bane set up, Palpatine followed through with.  Palpatine destroyed the jedi order, and took over the Galactic senate, and ruled for 20 years.  However, to finish wiping out the Jedi, it was necessary to train the inquisitors (mostly turned jedi, anyway) with enough dark side knowledge to take out the jedi in hiding, without making them full blown sith lords. They were useful idiots, meant to be disposed of after the task was complete.  So, Palpatine, by technicality, did not violate the rule of two.

 

The Rule of Two also states that it is the duty of the Master to train the Apprentice to be powerful enough to one day kill the Master and take over as the new Master (I guess some perversion of Darwinian theory?).  Palpatine seems to acknowledge that in ROTS when he says to Yoda that Anakin/Vader would be more powerful then either of them  However, something went wrong: Vader was nearly killed and maimed, and as a result Vader was diminished due to being suit-bound.  Lucas said that Vader was 80% as powerful as the Emperor, so he could never overthrow the Emperor by himself (hence his attempt to recruit Luke).  Therefore, I think Palpatine at that point,  basically decided he was going to retain power, until another suitable apprentice was available...meaning Luke, and later I suppose his "son," then Kylo, and finally his "grand daughter" Rey (in the movies).  This is all still in line with the Rule of Two. 

 

However, in the EU, it seems Palpatine decided he was never going to give the power up, after Vader betrayed him. Maybe even before that, possibly even when Vader was defeated and left for dead by Obi Wan.  There was no evidence in the Dark Empire series that Palpatine wanted to train a new apprentice.  I think "training" Luke as his apprentice was more of a way to control Luke, not to pass on the mantle of Sith Lord Master to him.  Rather, Palpatine wanted to transfer his essence into Leia's son, Anakin (I think?..been a while since I read it) to continue his rule, when it was clear transferring Palpatine's essence to clones was starting to fail as a plan. So, EU Palpatine DID violate the Rule of Two there, because rather than train an apprentice to take over, he was continually looking for ways to maintain his own power indefinitely. 

 

As for the return of the Emperor (both in the EU, and TROS...though TROS never explains how the Emperor returned, so I assume Palpatine cloned his body..screw JJ Abrams!), I think the only way you can explain Vader not simply cloning himself new body parts or even a new bodyis that Palpatine could only move into a new clone body, by use of not only the technology to grow the body, but also the use of Sith alchemy to transfer that body.  It stands to reason that Palpatine withheld that skill from Vader, so as not to be overthrown by Vader.  


  • Zerimar Nyliram +1 this

#3
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 35,459 posts

I hate the rule of two, and I also don't see the narrative advantage of making it a thing. My ideas of the Sith came not from the Eu or the movies, but from the early SW drafts written before ANH. One in particular, (Which Darkhorse comics would eventually adapt) there was once a single order of warriors that used the Force-- The Ashla, (or Bendu depending on the draft). These guys used the Force in conjunction with emotions and morals. And while they had a code, they would find themselves sometimes opposing each other if they had been conscripted by different sides.

 

This was akin to Samuai in Feudal Japan-- all samurai followed the bushido code, but would serve different warlords. This was also how it worked with Mentats in Dune.

 

At some point in history, there was a schism in Ashla order. One side felt that they needed to purge conflict and negative emotions and become for pure (the Jedi) while the other decided that using their anger and drive made them more powerful, tapping into the dark side, and became the Sith, (or Lettow in some drafts)

 

In those scripts, both sects co-existed for centuries, often clashing. Then the Sith entrenched themselves in the heart of a politician and corrupted him as he became the first Emperor. That made the Sith basically the SS to his Hitler, his private army that oversaw the Galactic military.

 

Anyway-- point being, this, as a backstory made sense to me. The Sith, with political backing and the armies of the Republic, were able to exterminate the Jedi, resulting in there just being the few we see in the OT.

 

Honestly, the first tick against the PT for me came well before TPM even came out when the rule of two idea went public. There was always a HUGE part of my imagination dedicated to seeing some Braveheart/Excaliber style large- scale lightsaber duel, with hundreds of combatants on either side. 

 

I held out hope when the movie came out that maybe the rest of the Sith were just in hiding, but then Yoda busts out the rule at the end. I even held out hope that AOTC would introduce an army of Maul clones or something.

 

Like I said, I just don't understand the point of the rule from a story-telling perspective. I get that Lucas was trying for this symbiosis/duality allegory in a lot of the PT, but allegory is not his strong suit. So I struggle to even try and wonder why Darth Bane, or Darth Plageuis, even really matter in relation to what we got outside of just being exposition to fill gaps.

 

It becomes more apparent how stupid of an idea the rule of two is when we see every entry outside of the movies try and work around it. The Old Republic games clearly wanted what I wanted, so they went back as far as they could to make it happen. On the Clone Wars and Rebels you have Ventriss, Savage Opress, the Night Sisters, The Bendu, The Inquisitors, and even Ahsoka being a "not-Jedi" to fill out the idea that Star Wars needs lightsaber duels, and you will run out of them fast if you stay boxed in by the movies. The Inquisitors have become especially handy in video games as well.

 

The rule of two was just a bad idea. It stings extra hard when there was a much more nuanced and interesting backstory already in Lucas' head that he chose to dismiss.

 

Sorry if this isn't germane to the question asked, but I can't begin to answer it when I am bumped by the fundamental narrative point it is based around.


  • Zathras +1 this

#4
Zathras

Zathras

    Not The One

  • Members
  • 469 posts

Agreed. The Rule of Two was always very limiting from a story standpoint (and annoying to me, too).   I have no idea what Lucas had in mind, but I think what he was trying to do was set up a similarity to how the Jedi were wiped out during the clone wars, with a backstory of the way the Sith were wiped out 1000 years prior.  Literally, the Jedi in the OT practiced the rule of two, themselves.  First, with Luke and Obi Wan in ANH, and in TESB Luke and Yoda.  I don't think it was an accident that we had only two sith lords, too, and the jedi and sith were mirror images of each other.    It wasn't until EU that we had all these surviving jedi, dark jedi, jedi armies VS sith armies from he Old Republic era (although THAT concept is cool!  We should have seen battles where there were hundreds of jedi vs hundreds of sith). 



#5
Jedigoat

Jedigoat

    Is this it?

  • Member
  • 14,214 posts
Why the rule of two: Because hundreds of Jedi fighting hundreds of battle droids if way more bad-ass than fighting hundreds of Sith.

#6
Jedigoat

Jedigoat

    Is this it?

  • Member
  • 14,214 posts
I always believed the rule of 2 was for the sole purpose of remaining hidden and not drawing attention to themselves.
  • Gamevet +1 this

#7
Zerimar Nyliram

Zerimar Nyliram

    Yes, that's me.

  • Member
  • 3,328 posts

The schism thing is exactly what ended up happening in the EU. The fallen Jedi pursued passion rather than peace, were defeated at the Battle of Corbos, exiled from Republic space, and came upon the planet Korriban where there existed a species with a natural affinity to the dark side known as the Sith. The Dark Jedi dominated the Sith species, and over the millennia the two became one, thus giving birth to the Sith Order. Incidentally, this happened following the Second Great Schism which occurred 7,000 years before the films. There was a First Great Schism 24,500 before, where the Dark Jedi of that conflict adopted the identity of Lettow. Amazing homages all around, really!

I do like the Rule of Two, but I certainly hear what you're saying. Even before the prequels, Dark Jedi were a big thing in the EU. Hell, my favorite game, the game that introduced me to the EU in the first place--Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight--introduced the seven Dark Jedi as the main antagonists (the their leader, Jerec, being a former Inquisitor). This was when the word "Sith" was forbidden by edict of George Lucas, who had plans for them in the prequels. Actually, that game's plot device--the Valley of the Jedi--would retroactively become the site where the Rule of Two was born.

Cool thoughts, Zathras. I pretty much agree with all of it, especially with what you said about Bane and Sidious being bookends. In fact, you've inspired a theory in my mind: could it be that, given Sidious believed in being the single, all-powerful Sith Lord, originally planned to transfer his consciousness into Vader (before his disfigurment), and later into Luke? That would make the clones plan B. Hmm.

And it's true that he did eventually break the Rule of Two, but only because he believed he was close to achieving his ultimate goal, and what he believed was the ultimate goal of the Sith, superseding the Rule of Two: ultimate power and immortality. He did have countless Dark Jedi, Emperor's Hands, Inquisitors, Prophets of the Dark Side, and other dark siders under his employ, but none of them were taught Sith teachings (or very little, to the point where it didn't count). Now, he did actually violate the Rule of Two once, when he took Darth Maul as his Sith apprentice while Darth Plagueis was still alive, but this, I believe, he did only out of necessity. Plagueis believed that it was time for the Rule of Two to go, bringing back a Sith army. While Palpatine did not believe this at all, he had to maintain the appearance that he did, until he could finally kill his master and resolve the matter. But that's beside the point.



#8
Zathras

Zathras

    Not The One

  • Members
  • 469 posts

DF2: JK is also one of my all time favorite Star Wars games, and it is a good example of working around the Rule of Two NOW, but you have to remember that game was before TPM. Before the PT, there really wasn't a clear explanation of what a Sith was (save for the Dark Horse comics).  Thing is, a lot of the EU, and even "official" Star Wars stories have retcons on top of retcons, now, but when I grew up in the late 70s and 80s, there was very little EU going on back then.  So, a lot of the back story I knew of in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s (prior to Thrawn) was limited to what was implied in the novelizations of the OT, as well as a few others like the Han Solo books, and Splinter of the Minds eye.  During that time, I had operated under what we would now call a "head canon" where I believed the jedi were extinct, and had  no counter balance called the Sith (Even outright stated by Tarkin in ANH, and I just assumed Vader was an evil Jedi).  To me, Jedi was just a term to define force users, and Vader was just an evil jedi, that the Emperor corrupted.  Aside from Luke, Obi Wan, Yoda, Vader, and the Emperor, there were no more force users.  Darth Vader was also described as Lord of the Sith in the books, but exactly what the Sith was not alluded to beyond that. I don't believe the OT films even mention the word Sith.  If memory serves, the Emperor was NEVER referred to as a Sith Lord in the OT novels or limited EU, until after TPM.  We knew he was a dark side force user, sure, but Vader was the only "Lord of the Sith," whatever that meant at the time.  So, I grew up not really even knowing what a Sith was supposed to be.  

 

So, when DF2 came out, it was natural to me that Jerek and his crew were Dark Jedi.   Dark Horse I think was the first to define what Sith were with the Old Republic era comics (I didn't read those until after KOTOR 1 the game  came out), as you described, but I think that was mid/late 1990s, so there were a lot of folks in the mid-late 1990s, I for one, who were confused about what was the difference between dark jedi and sith.  Hell, the original dark jedi became sith, ruling over a race called sith.  Confusing to most people!    So, my theory is with all that going on, maybe when Lucas was developing TPM, he devised the Rule of Two to clean things up, but maybe did too good a job, and wrote himself into a box, and like Tank says, from that point on, writers for movies, novels, comics and games all had to find ways to write around the Rule of Two.

 

As for your theory, I think you are onto something there.  Just like the Jedi, it is implied (to me at least) that in the PT, Palpatine also buys into the Chosen One prophecy.  I think there is a case to be made that there was an ancient prophecy of the Chosen One, but given that the Jedi and Sith have different world views, they each interpreted the prophecy in different ways.  The Jedi obviously were looking at the balance of the force aspect, which Anakin ultimately does bring by finally killing Palpatine (until the ST, of course), but perhaps the Sith interpretation was Anakin would bring balance to the force by betraying and helping kill off the jedi.  Also, perhaps Palpatine saw himself as a John the Baptist of sorts, prepping the Chosen One to rule the galaxy after him, but when Anakin was maimed, by then maybe Palpatine lost faith in the prophecy and assumed the role of Chosen One himself (in his mind).  Perhaps he felt justified or even convinced himself that HE was the Chosen One out of hubris (ironic that the Jedi were guilty of hubris themselves, that led to their downfall), because it was Palpatine that orchestrated the destruction of the Jedi. After all, Palpatine was master of the universe at that point.  Also, ironic that I am saying all that, because Luke literally says that in TLJ, when explaining why he lost faith in the Jedi, and I don't like that movie.



#9
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 35,459 posts

Why the rule of two: Because hundreds of Jedi fighting hundreds of battle droids if way more bad-ass than fighting hundreds of Sith.

 
I hope that's sarcasm! Cause HARD disagree!
 

I always believed the rule of 2 was for the sole purpose of remaining hidden and not drawing attention to themselves.

 
Narratively yes, but that could have been achieved in a way that didn't limit the story elsewhere.
 

... superseding the Rule of Two: ultimate power and immortality. He did have countless Dark Jedi, Emperor's Hands, Inquisitors, Prophets of the Dark Side, and other dark siders under his employ, but none of them were taught Sith teachings (or very little, to the point where it didn't count). Now, he did actually violate the Rule of Two once, when he took Darth Maul as his Sith apprentice while Darth Plagueis was still alive, but this, I believe, he did only out of necessity. Plagueis believed that it was time for the Rule of Two to go, bringing back a Sith army. While Palpatine did not believe this at all, he had to maintain the appearance that he did, until he could finally kill his master and resolve the matter. But that's beside the point.


See, I think this is really lame. Functionally, with the basics of the story, there is no difference between the various dark side users and the Sith. That's what I was saying.

It's a lame cop out to say "oh, the Inquisition are dark Jedi who just didn't learn the Sith teachings." I would say "what are the Sith teachings?" because every story, video game, or cartoon I've seen have these "others" doing all the stuff the Sith do. I won't ask that though because you're the guy that knows the answer-- but than that leads back to my core reason for disliking the EU. Star Wars to me is a visual-based story that works in broad strokes like, and getting down to macro details undoes it. Think like a western movie, black hat = bad guy.

What they ended up doing, in the name of having more black hats after Lucas said the universe could only have two black hats, is say "Oh, those guys have black hats, but they don't have red lining. You can't see the red lining, but it's super important and only two guys have REAL black hats with red lining." But onscreen, it's all black hats.

There was just never a pay-off to the two-Sith rule that justified what it rendered impossible. The Two Sith rule was purely Lucas trying to find a way to paint Anakin into a corner, which could also have been done in a much better way.

And I know I'm right, because the books, games, and cartoons all knew they needed evil dark side users and they didn't have access to Vader or Palpatine. (Save for Vader ALWAYS being a final boss fight you will lose, or an ass-kicking cameo). Imagine a world where the Inquisition are all Sith, the last ones that survived the war and helped post-purge with Jedi, but one by one were killed off. Maybe even by Palpatine who didn't want to share his power. What if Ventriss or Mara Jade were Sith padawans.

I get that by ANH the story works best if by then it's down to just two on either side with Luke as a lynch pin-- but that point could have been gotten to without having to add extra layers of explanation.

I've ALWAYS hated the concept of dark Jedi. Once you go dark, you cease being a Jedi.

I guess that I don't see what the Rule of Two really added to the story that couldn't have been achieved in some other way, thus robbing us of Sith legions in the movies, and forcing all these tacked-on explanations of other dark side users.
  • Jedigoat +1 this

#10
The Choc

The Choc

    Member

  • Member
  • 9,363 posts

Couldn't you make a pretty good case that the "Rule of Two" makes the OT better? I mean before the Rule of 2 the Emperor and Vader could simply both be trying to recruit Luke to their cause. However knowing there can only be 2 adds a layer to it. They both know this rule, they both know that if Luke turns then one of them is dead. Its like this dance they are playing with each other where neither will mention the Rule or the consequence of it which is if either is successful in turning Luke it means the other must die.

 

Now I get that Lucas didn't know this during the making of ROTJ, or maybe he had but changed his mind 50 times which is his wont, but it is a happy coincidence when looking at the saga as a whole.



#11
Zathras

Zathras

    Not The One

  • Members
  • 469 posts

Couldn't you make a pretty good case that the "Rule of Two" makes the OT better? I mean before the Rule of 2 the Emperor and Vader could simply both be trying to recruit Luke to their cause. However knowing there can only be 2 adds a layer to it. They both know this rule, they both know that if Luke turns then one of them is dead. Its like this dance they are playing with each other where neither will mention the Rule or the consequence of it which is if either is successful in turning Luke it means the other must die.

 

Now I get that Lucas didn't know this during the making of ROTJ, or maybe he had but changed his mind 50 times which is his wont, but it is a happy coincidence when looking at the saga as a whole.

I can see from the standpoint that both Vader and the Emperor were each secretly (or not so secretly) trying to recruit Luke as an apprentice to overthrow the other, the Rule of Two makes sense, BUT, in TESB, Vader suggests to the Emperor that Luke could be an ally to them, if he could be turned, and the Emperor agreed.  So, outwardly at least, they both were violating the Rule of Two, by conspiring to bring Luke in, thereby making it a Rule of Three.  Of course, in reality, Vader wanted Luke to be his apprentice and to overthrow the Emperor, and the Emperor wanted to replace Vader with Luke.  



#12
The Choc

The Choc

    Member

  • Member
  • 9,363 posts

 

Couldn't you make a pretty good case that the "Rule of Two" makes the OT better? I mean before the Rule of 2 the Emperor and Vader could simply both be trying to recruit Luke to their cause. However knowing there can only be 2 adds a layer to it. They both know this rule, they both know that if Luke turns then one of them is dead. Its like this dance they are playing with each other where neither will mention the Rule or the consequence of it which is if either is successful in turning Luke it means the other must die.

 

Now I get that Lucas didn't know this during the making of ROTJ, or maybe he had but changed his mind 50 times which is his wont, but it is a happy coincidence when looking at the saga as a whole.

I can see from the standpoint that both Vader and the Emperor were each secretly (or not so secretly) trying to recruit Luke as an apprentice to overthrow the other, the Rule of Two makes sense, BUT, in TESB, Vader suggests to the Emperor that Luke could be an ally to them, if he could be turned, and the Emperor agreed.  So, outwardly at least, they both were violating the Rule of Two, by conspiring to bring Luke in, thereby making it a Rule of Three.  Of course, in reality, Vader wanted Luke to be his apprentice and to overthrow the Emperor, and the Emperor wanted to replace Vader with Luke.  

 

Exactly, both of their motivations due line up with the Rule of 2. I take it like after that conversation when the hologram fades they both say to themselves "sucker".



#13
The Choc

The Choc

    Member

  • Member
  • 9,363 posts

 


Friends, I realized something last night: although we have vastly different preferences as to the continuation of the Star Wars saga past Return of the Jedi, we do have one thing in common: in both timelines, Emperor Palpatine--Darth Sidious, the Dark Lord of the Sith--transcends death by transferring his essence into cloned bodies. 

It is interesting that 2 different things could both come up with such a terrible idea. 



#14
Zathras

Zathras

    Not The One

  • Members
  • 469 posts

 

 

And I know I'm right, because the books, games, and cartoons all knew they needed evil dark side users and they didn't have access to Vader or Palpatine. (Save for Vader ALWAYS being a final boss fight you will lose, or an ass-kicking cameo). Imagine a world where the Inquisition are all Sith, the last ones that survived the war and helped post-purge with Jedi, but one by one were killed off. Maybe even by Palpatine who didn't want to share his power. What if Ventriss or Mara Jade were Sith padawans.

Tank, ever since the introduction of Inquisitors in Rebels, I had always assumed it was Vader that kills off the inquisitors, once he and the Emperor believe they have killed all the Jedi.

 

Ventris doesn't work because she left the sith, but Mara Jade could have worked, but that would require the retcon of the Emperor's Hand position.



#15
Zathras

Zathras

    Not The One

  • Members
  • 469 posts

 

 

Couldn't you make a pretty good case that the "Rule of Two" makes the OT better? I mean before the Rule of 2 the Emperor and Vader could simply both be trying to recruit Luke to their cause. However knowing there can only be 2 adds a layer to it. They both know this rule, they both know that if Luke turns then one of them is dead. Its like this dance they are playing with each other where neither will mention the Rule or the consequence of it which is if either is successful in turning Luke it means the other must die.

 

Now I get that Lucas didn't know this during the making of ROTJ, or maybe he had but changed his mind 50 times which is his wont, but it is a happy coincidence when looking at the saga as a whole.

I can see from the standpoint that both Vader and the Emperor were each secretly (or not so secretly) trying to recruit Luke as an apprentice to overthrow the other, the Rule of Two makes sense, BUT, in TESB, Vader suggests to the Emperor that Luke could be an ally to them, if he could be turned, and the Emperor agreed.  So, outwardly at least, they both were violating the Rule of Two, by conspiring to bring Luke in, thereby making it a Rule of Three.  Of course, in reality, Vader wanted Luke to be his apprentice and to overthrow the Emperor, and the Emperor wanted to replace Vader with Luke.  

 

Exactly, both of their motivations due line up with the Rule of 2. I take it like after that conversation when the hologram fades they both say to themselves "sucker".

 

Yeah, they are clearly lying to each other.  And in my mind, they clearly know they are lying to each other.  



#16
Zerimar Nyliram

Zerimar Nyliram

    Yes, that's me.

  • Member
  • 3,328 posts

Nightly's quote coding is broken as hell.

 

I've ALWAYS hated the concept of dark Jedi. Once you go dark, you cease being a Jedi.

Well, yeah, it's a very unofficial term, both in-universe and out. Technically, it refers to a Jedi who has fallen to the dark side, but many people--in-universe and out--tend to use the term to refer to any practitioner of the dark side who is not a Sith. And it gets even more confusing in KOTOR when you run into people who use the term "Dark Jedi" to apply to actual Sith, in order to differentiate them from the military ranks of the Sith Empire, such as Sith troopers, Sith commanders, Sith lieutenants, etc. I actually like this last one because it feels very realistic. Real-world people often don't know what they're talking about, so they develop a convention and stick with it, despite how incorrect that convention may be. Hell, look how much I've been whining on Facebook lately about the misuse of the word "anarchist" in the news and by politicians.

 

This actually leads me to a point Zathras made: it is certainly true what you said about the Sith not being very defined until the late nineties. If you think about it, the same is true for the Jedi. Until the prequels--or really the mid- to late-90s EU, with Tales of the Jedi, the Jedi Academy trilogy, etc.--I think most people assumed that a Jedi was simply someone who came to know the Force, and maybe wielded a lightsaber, rather than someone who actually belonged to an established Order. Heck, even after all of those works came out some writers didn't get it, as can be seen in Jedi Knight game. The Sith are no different, and even to this day, casual fans have no idea what a Sith even is, thinking it is simply a fallen Jedi and not someone who belongs to a rival Order.

You might be onto something about there being a continual need to produce Sith-like villains by circumventing the Rule of Two in the strictest sense. I won't even argue with you on that one because you're probably right. What I can tell you is that it seems the whole Star Wars saga--movies and EU--since the time of the prequels has set up the Sith as the ones who really tipped the Force in the dark side's scale, moreso than any other dark-sider ever has or ever could. In Darth Plagueis, it is stated that Plagueis and his master, Darth Tenebrous, were the ones who finally caused the Force to go unbalanced by trying to create the perfect being through Sith alchemy (though I think this was more of a last straw that broke the camel's back rather than the whole catalyst in and of itself; that road, I believe, started to be paved with Bane and his followers, as the Jedi grew more and more complacent and the Sith more powerful). The Force itself reacted by creating the Chosen One.

I consider the Darth Plagueis novel an excellent alternative to The Phantom Menace. It covers nearly all of the events, up until the death of Darth Maul.



#17
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 35,459 posts

 

Yeah, they are clearly lying to each other.  And in my mind, they clearly know they are lying to each other.  

 

 

That part was always unclear in ESB-- even in the original. It's starts with Vader out with an entire fleet looking for Luke, then he gets a call from the Emperor saying HEY WE SHOULD LOOK INTO THIS SKYWALKER GUY.

 

You'd think the Emperor would have been briefed. Original version:

 

Vader: What is thy bidding, my Master?

Palpy: There is a great disturbance in The Force.

Vader: I have felt it.

Palpy: We have a new enemy: Luke Skywalker.

Vader: Yes, my master.

Palpy: He could destroy us.

Vader: He is just a boy. Obi-Wan can no longer help him.

Palpy: The Force is strong with him. The son of Skywalker must not become a Jedi.

Vader: If he could be turned, he would become be a powerful ally.

Palpy: Yes... yes. (clearly intoning he hadn't thought of this.) He would be a great asset. Can it be done?

Vader: He will join us, or die, my Master.

 

This scene was not changed in the initial SE release, but during the filming of ROTS, when McDiarmond was in the make-up, they did a quick pick up to insert into future releases of ESB to make it more compatible with the rule of 2, I think. It goes like this:

 

Vader: What is thy bidding, my Master?

Palpy: There is a great disturbance in The Force.

Vader: I have felt it.

Palpy: We have a new enemy... the young Rebel who destroyed the Death Star. I have no doubt this boy is the offspring of Anakin Skywalker.

Vader: How is that possible?

Palpy: Search your feelings Lord Vader, you will know it to be true. He could destroy us. 

Palpy: He could destroy us.

Vader: He is just a boy. Obi-Wan can no longer help him.

Palpy: The Force is strong with him. The son of Skywalker must not become a Jedi.

Vader: If he could be turned, he would become be a powerful ally.

Palpy: Yes... (only one yes, but the tone again implies he hadn't thought of this.) He would be a great asset. Can it be done?

Vader: He will join us, or die, my Master.

 

Given that the crawl in all versions states Vader is "obsessed" with finding Luke, this doesn't make it any less confusing. It still implies that after two years and Vader taking out the flagship with a fleet on a mission that Palpatine still doesn't know what is going on. I think Lucas wants us to think that Vader is playing dumb while talking to The Emperor, but either way I have a hard time swallowing that.

 

This doesn't help the rule of two, if anything, it makes it even stupider. Lucas has said in many spots that Sidious has an apprentice problem, in that they fail or get too powerful and need to be done away with. He used Tyranus as a prop, when he wanted Anakin. Then Anakin's potential is nerfed by the fact he gets chopped up and burned alive. 

 

In ROTJ it is clear that Vader and Sidious/Palpatine both want to buddy up with Luke and jettison the other. I think this notion was basically reverse engineered into the Rule of 2. When I was younger and the OT only existed, I always assumed Vader was legit in wanting to off The Emperor, but when the Emperor/Sidious/Palpatine tells Luke to kill Vader it's because he sees Vader is fubar'd and that it would suffice as a way to get Luke to fully turn.

 

I think that if I am supposed to accept there can only be two Sith, and then Luke comes along, there is no way Sidious or Vader would trust the other. They both know it's game on-- and they both know the other one knows. I don't buy ANYONE playing dumb.

 

Where as, if there is no 2-Sith rule, it's a non issue. Then the machinations and secret plotting in ESB and ROTJ on what to do with Luke works better. This is a prime example of the PT actively taking something from the OT and dismantling it.



#18
Zerimar Nyliram

Zerimar Nyliram

    Yes, that's me.

  • Member
  • 3,328 posts

 

 

Friends, I realized something last night: although we have vastly different preferences as to the continuation of the Star Wars saga past Return of the Jedi, we do have one thing in common: in both timelines, Emperor Palpatine--Darth Sidious, the Dark Lord of the Sith--transcends death by transferring his essence into cloned bodies. 

It is interesting that 2 different things could both come up with such a terrible idea. 

 

Didn't pay attention to the last paragraph of my original post, I see.



#19
Zerimar Nyliram

Zerimar Nyliram

    Yes, that's me.

  • Member
  • 3,328 posts

I know deleted scenes don't count, but you all may find this interesting:



Vader is mentioned as a Sith Lord. Also, I love how the audience cracks up when Dave Prowse says his lines.



#20
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 35,459 posts

Nightly's quote coding is broken as hell.

 

I've ALWAYS hated the concept of dark Jedi. Once you go dark, you cease being a Jedi.

Well, yeah, it's a very unofficial term, both in-universe and out. Technically, it refers to a Jedi who has fallen to the dark side, but many people--in-universe and out--tend to use the term to refer to any practitioner of the dark side who is not a Sith. And it gets even more confusing in KOTOR when you run into people who use the term "Dark Jedi" to apply to actual Sith, in order to differentiate them from the military ranks of the Sith Empire, such as Sith troopers, Sith commanders, Sith lieutenants, etc. 

 

...

You might be onto something about there being a continual need to produce Sith-like villains by circumventing the Rule of Two in the strictest sense. I won't even argue with you on that one because you're probably right. What I can tell you is that it seems the whole Star Wars saga--movies and EU--since the time of the prequels has set up the Sith as the ones who really tipped the Force in the dark side's scale, moreso than any other dark-sider ever has or ever could. 

 

Yeah, i strongly disliked the Sith as both an ancient race, a galactic political party, and a functional "dark Jedi." It watered down the concept, and it was part of why I never super took to the KOTOR games, and I hated it even more when it was used in TROS.

 

As for them tipping the scales... maybe this is why I felt out hope for EVERY PT release to give me Sith legions. Like I said, in TPM I thought maybe they were hiding, until Yoda's line. For AOTC I was hoping that Maul's body was used to make Sith clone/drones so the Sith could have an army to fight the Jedi. Even for ROTS I was hoping it would happen-- that we'd find out because they had tipped the scales mass numbers of Jedi had fallen, or gone to join Dooku/Tyranus and become Sith.



#21
The Choc

The Choc

    Member

  • Member
  • 9,363 posts

 

 

 

Friends, I realized something last night: although we have vastly different preferences as to the continuation of the Star Wars saga past Return of the Jedi, we do have one thing in common: in both timelines, Emperor Palpatine--Darth Sidious, the Dark Lord of the Sith--transcends death by transferring his essence into cloned bodies. 

It is interesting that 2 different things could both come up with such a terrible idea. 

 

Didn't pay attention to the last paragraph of my original post, I see.

 

No, I read it. And again as I said in another thread just because someone creates a thread doesn't mean they own it and get to choose where it goes. Either way I think this is a cool topic but discussing whether the Emperor coming back is a good idea or not is fair game within it.



#22
Zerimar Nyliram

Zerimar Nyliram

    Yes, that's me.

  • Member
  • 3,328 posts

Fair enough. Welcome to my, er . . . to Nightly's newest Star Wars thread.



#23
The Choc

The Choc

    Member

  • Member
  • 9,363 posts

 

Nightly's quote coding is broken as hell.

 

I've ALWAYS hated the concept of dark Jedi. Once you go dark, you cease being a Jedi.

Well, yeah, it's a very unofficial term, both in-universe and out. Technically, it refers to a Jedi who has fallen to the dark side, but many people--in-universe and out--tend to use the term to refer to any practitioner of the dark side who is not a Sith. And it gets even more confusing in KOTOR when you run into people who use the term "Dark Jedi" to apply to actual Sith, in order to differentiate them from the military ranks of the Sith Empire, such as Sith troopers, Sith commanders, Sith lieutenants, etc. 

 

...

You might be onto something about there being a continual need to produce Sith-like villains by circumventing the Rule of Two in the strictest sense. I won't even argue with you on that one because you're probably right. What I can tell you is that it seems the whole Star Wars saga--movies and EU--since the time of the prequels has set up the Sith as the ones who really tipped the Force in the dark side's scale, moreso than any other dark-sider ever has or ever could. 

 

Yeah, i strongly disliked the Sith as both an ancient race, a galactic political party, and a functional "dark Jedi." It watered down the concept, and it was part of why I never super took to the KOTOR games, and I hated it even more when it was used in TROS.

 

As for them tipping the scales... maybe this is why I felt out hope for EVERY PT release to give me Sith legions. Like I said, in TPM I thought maybe they were hiding, until Yoda's line. For AOTC I was hoping that Maul's body was used to make Sith clone/drones so the Sith could have an army to fight the Jedi. Even for ROTS I was hoping it would happen-- that we'd find out because they had tipped the scales mass numbers of Jedi had fallen, or gone to join Dooku/Tyranus and become Sith.

 

Its always fun how people can have totally different expectations and/or wants. I never expected the PT to have huge battles between Jedi and Sith. In fact my whole thought process on the Jedi was completely against what was presented in the PT. I never thought there would be many Jedi at all. I thought a few Knights errant type around the Galaxy. A few dozen on the high end really. 

 

I always expected the PT to be much more like cloak and dagger with scheming and people turning on each other and assassinations. More like season 1 GoT type stuff I guess. 


  • Odine +1 this

#24
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 35,459 posts

I know deleted scenes don't count, but you all may find this interesting:



Vader is mentioned as a Sith Lord. Also, I love how the audience cracks up when Dave Prowse says his lines.

Vader was also called "Lord of the Sith" in ANH marketing materials, and in the novelization (which had the above line in that scene). So, like you said, the word is sort of in the weeds for casual fans, but we all knew the word from go. I read the annotated screenplays book in the early 90s, and it mentions them, and their use in the early SW drafts a lot. Then those drafts, which I mentioned in my first post, made it online by 99/2000.



#25
Darth Krawlie

Darth Krawlie

    privileged ****lord

  • Moderators
  • 35,258 posts

I know deleted scenes don't count, but you all may find this interesting:



Vader is mentioned as a Sith Lord. Also, I love how the audience cracks up when Dave Prowse says his lines.

I've never heard Prowse's voice or seen this scene. That's great.





Reply to this topic