Lit Bane, Plagueis, Sidious, and the Rule of Two

Which is a claim he can't begin to prove, doesn't even back up earlier events in the novel where we see his own thoughts, and sounds like the usual arrogance one can expect from Sidious. So again, I don't see it being all due to Palpatine.

Not really, as again that statement's a claim he's making that can't possibly be backed up, as we only have his word for it, which isn't worth much.

 

Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

Palpatine only got thrown into a reactor because of a single slipup (thinking that Vader would never sacrifice himself).

 

And Tenebrous only died because he didn't see when his apprentice would choose to strike, and Plagueis only got drunk because he was arrogant enough to truly trust his apprentice, and Vader only got stomped on the Death Star because he believed himself to be superior to Starkiller, on and on, ad infinitum. Doesn't change the fact Sidious got chucked down a shaft.

 

At the end of the day, Vader is strong enough to kill Palpatine.

He's just not strong enough to REPLACE him.

 

Had to read the first comment again to even remember what this thread was about. My thoughts remain pretty much the same. We can all agree that Plagueis broke Bane's Rule of Two when he attacked his Master, and that Palpatine did the same with Plagueis, and that Vader clearly planned to do the same by working with Galen, Luke, or some Apprentice to usurp Palpatine. That's undeniable. However, it's really nothing new. These are all Sith and they didn't make the Rule. It actually kind of reminds me of Pirates of the Caribbean where all the pirates have the Pirate Code, but interpret it to their own ends. The Sith Lords in the Order of the Sith Lords all do the same, either reinterpreting, or outright doing away with aspects they don't care about. Can't really expect all Masters to be 100% ok with dying, and you can't expect the Apprentices to all be ok with waiting to challenge their Masters head on. In fact, the same strategy that Bane approved of to take out the Jedi (Secrecy and Deception) would obviously appeal to the Apprentices for use against the Masters.

 

I've always found it absolutely brilliant, because I turned off my own point of view and got absorbed into the Sith point of view.

 

I guess we can crown you the be-all end-all expert on all things Sith and The Rule of Two.

 

I agree with Jedi Merkurian's observations. Palpatine had zero interest in Sith philosophy and is only in it for the power. Ironically, for all of Darth Bane's theories about power and survival of the fittest, all the Sith really needed to succeed wasn't some great Sith conqueror, but just an old-fashioned psychopath with excellent connections. No religious fervor, no mystical insights, just a capacity for utilizing every tool available in the quest for ultimate power. Indeed, I was very pleased with how the novel emphasizes that Palpatine is a very different sort of monster than the Sith were looking for.

I like Darth Bane, but I don't consider him to be a particularly successful Sith in the long run. Wiping out the current Sith and hoping someone will get it right one day is a TERRIBLE scheme. Even his own books point out risky the Rule of Two is in practice. Two Sith in a galaxy of Jedi was never going to work, especially when all you needed was one corrupt politician.

 

Bane wasn't looking for "some great Sith conqueror", he was looking for someone like Palpatine. Which is why he implements The Grand Plan and goes into hiding. "Some great Sith conqueror" is what the Sith always were, Bane was actually looking for something smarter, more nuanced. Palpatine is the Grand Strategist who fully realized The Grand Plan.

Isn't Palpatine's capacity for utilizing every tool available with such skill the greatest demonstration of power and survival of the fittest?

"Survival of the fittest" isn't all physical.

Don't you think there were plenty of "old-fashioned psychopaths with excellent connections" among the Sith over the millennia? Most of them were psychopaths, surely some of them had connections, yet they didn't succeed.

No mystical insights? Not even the unbalancing of the Force? Or the role of the Chosen One?

Bane's Rule of Two and Grand Plan was a terrible scheme, yet it worked beautifully? Two Sith in a galaxy of Jedi was never going to work, yet it did, wonderfully? I mean, it wasn't through luck.

Do you really think Palpatine could have succeeded without the centuries of ground work laid by Bane's Sith? Do you think the Republic became so corrupt by Palpatine's era by coincidence and not through centuries of direct influence by Bane's Sith? Do you think the Jedi becoming stagnant was just coincidence? Do you think they would have became stagnant if the Sith were a constant threat over the centuries before Palpatine? The House of Palpatine may have been rich, but it wasn't Hego Damask rich, and he certainly didn't have the galactic web of contacts built up by the Sith.

I hate to make definitive, absolute statements, but The Grand Plan (which goes with the Rule of Two like peas and carrots) is pretty much the definition of brilliant schemes, it's the epitome of the Art of War applied beautifully on a galactic scale over the course of a thousand years. It is strategy, it is cunning, it is subtlety. There is no way The Grand Plan isn't an amazing handling of an eternal conflict between Jedi and Sith, good and evil.

The Grand Plan, and with it the Rule of Two, got the Jedi and the Republic to defeat itself. Bane's Sith won without even fighting, which is kinda like the Sith using the Jedi way to defeat the Jedi. Bane's Sith used Jedi patience to defeat the Jedi. Bane's Sith used some of the Jedi Code to defeat the Jedi.

There is no emotion, there is peace. Obviously Bane's Sith are emotional, but they held it in check, they kept the peace long enough to reach the moment of victory.

There is no ignorance, there is knowledge. Bane's Sith devoted themselves to gathering info, learning secrets, using it to manipulate events. They stayed hidden, worked from behind the scenes, and finally brought down the shroud of the dark side, clouding the Jedi in ignorance. Is there any doubt that the deciding factor in this war was knowledge? The Sith had knowledge, the Jedi were clueless as to what was going on.

Chaos, yet harmony. Bane's Sith still fight each other, yet ultimately work toward a common goal, like the Jedi do. Yet the Jedi tried to smother chaos with dogma, and became stagnant and weak.


There is no death, there is the Force. Bane's Sith (most of them before Plagueis) were willing to accept death knowing that they would never see ultimate victory, but also knowing that one day the Sith and the dark side would prevail. Kind of unselfish, like the Jedi, no? They were able to face the possibility of being killed by their apprentice, they even welcomed the challenge, knowing that the conflict would make them stronger or they would die.

Do you see what I'm getting at? You don't see the beauty in this? In bucking tradition? In using your opponents ways against them? In defeating your opponent from within? In getting your opponent to practically collapse before sweeping in to claim victory?

I really can keep going, there's more, much more to it.

 

@ CT: I disagree almost entirely, though I praise your argument for its attention to detail.

First, very little of Palpatine's schemes involve the Sith.

EI: He establishes shady relations with the Trade Federation so they can create a crisis in Naboo and foment corruption charges in the Senate to get himself elected. Darth Maul only exists as eyecandy for viewers and really has no reason to be on Naboo in the first place, if you think about. Its a very simple popularity gambit.

EII: Stars a war by controlling both upper echelons of each side, in an excuse to give himself emergency powers and create an army to enforce them. The other Sith is already a Jedi master, so being a Sith is still irrelavent.

EIII: He uses said army to kill rivals, including Jedi and loose ends. Darth Maul and Darth Vader's sole purpose in his plans is to kill Jedi on his behalf, and even the clone troopers are just as effective at the task.

Do you think Palpatine took over the Galaxy because some dead Sith hated Jedi, or just because he wanted to rule over the Galaxy? How hard would it be for a non-Sith to do the exact same trick? How hard was it for Hitler, Napoleon, and Julius Caesar? He's a Sith because this is Star Wars, but being a Sith is a very minor piece of the puzzle. Yes, the Sith crave power, but so do non-Sith.

I'm not saying the Sith didn't play a major role, because they did. I'm saying, in the end, Palpatine won, not the Sith order itself. The Sith didn't take over the galaxy, Palpatine did. It wasn't a Sith Empire, and noone ever called him Darth Sidious ever again.

 

I: There already was corruption in the Senate for a long time before TPM (this can be seen in Darth Plagueis), that corruption was fomented by the Sith. Palpatine doesn't get elected because of one example of corruption. Valorum isn't powerless and mired in baseless accusations of corruption because of Naboo. The entire Republic system isn't corrupt because of Naboo, this has been brewing for decades, probably centuries. Palpatine didn't create this environment, the Sith did. Palpatine only took advantage of it. TBH, the Sith have already won long before TPM comes around, they've manipulated the Republic, the Senate and the Jedi until they became weak enough to allow the Sith to take the galaxy from them right before their eyes. The situation in the prequels is much bigger than just Palpatine.

II: Palpatine never acquires the clone army without Plagueis' resources. Plagueis was also the one to manipulate Sifo-Dyas into ordering the clone army. I think the clones had a unique quality that couldn't be replicated by a "normal" army. Palpatine did not "give himself" emergency powers, the Senate did. The Senate never gets into the "we need a strong leader" state of mind without decades or centuries of the Republic getting nothing done due to corruption caused by the Sith. The Separatists never exist, never gain such unbelievable power, without the Sith creating a galaxy that is conducive to their existence. The megacorporations with such power (they have votes in the Senate!) didn't really exist before Bane.

III: Said army was secretly paid for by Plagueis. Said army was bred, trained and conditioned for this specific purpose.

This is all part of the Grand Plan, created by Bane and continued down the line, continued by Palpatine. Palpatine didn't even come up with this plan. Maybe he could have, but someone else came up with it first and implemented it for centuries before Palpatine took the reins. To say very little of Palpatine's schemes involve the Sith is just not fair, imo.

I think Palpatine took over because he stood on the shoulders of generations of Sith that came before him, which was the entire purpose of the Rule of Two and The Grand Plan. That makes it their victory, too. It would be very difficult for a non-Sith to do the exact same trick, seeing how pivotal the dark side was to fooling and defeating the Jedi. I think the Sith, especially Bane's Sith, are uniquely dedicated to this kind of dark side power. You think Palpatine unbalances the Force and clouds the vision of the Jedi without Sith training? That was absolutely critical to Palpatine's victory! Not to mention it can't be done without the enormous amount of resources, both financial and otherwise, accumulated over centuries by the Sith, grown and passed down from Master to Apprentice until it reaches Palpatine. All those skirmishes, rebellions, assassinations, bribes (oh so many bribes), criminal enterprises, etc require a huge amount of credits, probably more than Palpatine could have acquired on his own. By getting his funding from the Sith (politicians have to get their money from somewhere), Palpatine doesn't have to depend on megacorporations like the TF for support, he can stay completely independent of them financially. In fact, he can and did fund many political, paramilitary and criminal activities of his own to support his rise.

Hitler, Napoleon and Caesar couldn't even take over a single planet, much less a complex galaxy, and they didn't have superpowered Jedi directly opposed to them. I don't think real world comparisons are fair because of the sheer scope involved.

The Sith did win, and Palpatine said so in ROTS. That's why it's called Revenge of the Sith. If Palpatine wins, the Sith win, Bane wins, regardless of what Palpatine thinks or feels. It can be both at the same time, Bane's goal and Palpatine's reality are not at all mutually exclusive.

 

I see you've taken the theory that Palpatine accomplished everything he did on his own without help from anything else. A thousand years of Sith planning, manipulating, and building through Bane's Rule had nothing to do with it huh? Also, i'm not sure where you're getting from that he had 0 interest in Sith Philosophy. He was extremely interested in it, and still adhered to various points of it, teaching it to a total of 3 Apprentices. And Palpatine was a "great Sith conqueror". Him being different from Bane doesn't change that. All the Sith we've seen are similar yet different in various ways. That's kind of the point of them being different characters. If anything, Palpatine's actually Bane's dream personified.

"Two Sith in a galaxy of Jedi was never going to work"

Um, except it did work. And Bane's Rule being "risky" doesn't really matter. All Sith Order's we've seen have different risks and different failings, with none being perfect. Yet Bane's is still the most successful we've ever seen.

 

Saying Palpatine did it without Sith involvement is actually a point in favor of Bane and the Rule of Two.

 

Yeah, Plagueis killed Tenebrous on his own, IIRC. Dropped rocks on him, right? Yeah, it was cheap, but opportunity knocked and Plagueis answered. In a way what Plagueis did was more direct than what Palpatine did.

What Palpatine did was cowardly and cheap not the way Bane would have done it, but hey, Sith happens. Watch your back, and your front, and your alcohol consumption. At least Palpatine actually planned to kill Plagueis. At least I think he did, Luceno was a bit murky on it. Plagueis just waited for an opportunity, Palpatine made his own. Zannah had to be goaded into confrontation.

It's disappointing from my pov, from Bane's pov, but it was a totally Sithy thing to do.

I used to be real annoyed with Sith apprentices not killing their masters in pure single combat, I thought it defeated the point of the Rule of Two and I still think it cheats it in a way, but it's hard to argue with results. Plus a large part of my annoyance is based on my personal preferences in fiction, it's not purely IU.

I want to disagree with Merk, but I know my opinion on the matter isn't based on truth, but a romanticized version of the truth.

 

In essence that the Apprentice killed the Master, but not as Bane intended in a Master vs Apprentice duel.

 

I'm not saying Palpatine's victory was NOT a victory for the Sith. Of course it is. I'm just saying, Palpatine's personal political savviness and cunning had more to do with it than his Sith training. The Sith, especially the Rule of Two, supports the notion of finding the strongest apprentices and training them. And Palpatine was the sort of apprentice they were looking for. However, I think it undermines the fact that while Palpatine, undeniably a product of the Rule of Two, was not personally invested in the notion to nearly the same extent as Darth Bane or Tenebrous. Admittedly, Plagueis is an incredibly unusual example of a Sith with different priorites, so of course Sidious's training and technique is different. Palpatine had zero intention of being replaced ever, and he clearly had no interest in ambitious apprentices, prefering malleable ones over true Sith lords who should crave the power he embodies.

My issue, and the point I've been trying to hammer across, is there is a great distinction between Darth Sidious, product of a thousand years of preparation, (which was ultimately abandoned by both Darth Gravid and Darth Plagueis) and Palpatine, king of the beasts and true puppetmaster of his dat. At the end of the day, Palpatine did what he did because he was a bad. bad man, not just a bad, bad Sith. I just don't want people to attribute so much of his success to Darth Bane and not Palpatine's personal awesomeness.

 

Palpatine and Sidious are the exact same person, and when a person praises Sidious they're praising Palpatine. There's absolutely no distinction between the two and never has been. All of the Sith Lords did what they did because they were bad people. They just also happened to be Sith. And Palpatine's success is directly tied to that of the other Sith Lords in the dynasty, unless you think that he would've still accomplished what he did without them.

Also, Palpatine had no interest in ambitious Apprentices? Dooku and Vader say differently, along with Palpatine's own personal thoughts.

 

, Yes, I precisely think I he would've still accomplished much of what he did without them, hence there is a distinction, subtle though it may be. The only reason we believe otherwise is because Darth Plagueis was introduced as being there the whole time, and even then, Palpatine disregards his contributions.Darth Sidious;s Sith identity is immediately cast off after his ascension, instead we have Emperor Palpatine I. Its not just the name, its the entire modus operandi and difference in goals. "One to embody power, the other to crave it" becomes "One to embody power. the others to worship it.'

Darth Plagueis's entire plot arc consists of Plagueis and Sidious choosing to disregard Bane's teachings in favor of alternate means of obtaining power, and succeeding. If both Luceno and Karpyshyn find it important to emphasize how radically difficult Sidious was from prior Banites, then its only logical their readers acknowledge those ideas themselves. To do otherwise is to do a great disservice to those writer's real life efforts and the carefully-layered character developments of those characters.