Regarding Luke and The Emporer

Why would the Emporer want Luke to be turned. Why not just kill him?Anakin is the chosen one, it dosnt get much better he already has the perfect apprentice,right?

 

The Emperor wants them to fight so that he can have the winner- i.e. whichever one is not dead. If Luke wins, that means he's now surpassed Vader.

 

The reason Anakin is the Chosen One is because he is the one that brings balance to the force. He does that in ROTJ by throwing Palpatine down that, well whatever he throws him into, I believe it is a power generator though.

So Anakin/Vader is the chosen one by bring an end to the sith. So that is why Palpatine wanted Luke, and not Vader.

 

I don't think any apprentice who's plotting to kill you can be called perfect.

Vader is becoming too dangerous for Palpy.

 

I don't believe that Vader was plotting honestly against Palps. And if he was doing so in ESB, then by ROTJ he was broken and was more like an old, beaten, loyal dog then anything else.

I don't think that Palps believed in any of the Jedi "Chosen one" rubbish either. Or, he believed but did not think it was inevitable or even likely after he got his claws into Anakin.

Either way, Vader by ROTJ was old and tired (Emotionally as well as physically) and seemingly partially sidelined.

Palps wanted a new, young, POWERFUL Apprentice (and I am of the opinion that we are supposed to believe at the end of ROTJ that Luke is the potentially most powerful Jedi ever.) He wanted a healthy driven version of Vader. And he almost got him. However, he misjudged the power of Dark Side had over Vader and the power that HE had over Vader. If we accept that Vader was plotting his downfall anyway we remove one of the most wonderful things about the climax of ROTJ. Vader breaking the (obviously seductive, narcotic and brutally strong) Bonds of the Dark Side that held him as an apprentice and to become free all enabled by the love of his son.

That's not to say Sith Apprentice's do not kill and overthrow their master's, merely that Vader was not strong enough to do so himself.

Whilst the Darkside is the culmination of all negative emotions, it is also (IMHO) A force that binds the servant to the master. Which is why Vader is so tragic. Otherwise the DS is merely a powerful tool that can be discarded at any time.

I know, I know, I've rambled... try not to be too cruel on the concept leaps!

UKS

 

Palpatine wanted Luke as his new apprentice.
Because in the ways of the Sith they try to kill each other.
There used to be more then two Sith at a time then there were about over one thousand Sith. Then it was deceased to just Two Sith at a time.
If Vader was to have his own apprentice Palpatine had to go.
If Palpatine wanted a new and powerfull apprentince Vader had to go.
It's as simple as that.
I dont think Palpatine knew of Anakin beening the chosen one but I could be wrong.

 

Palpatine wanted to trade in his old, beat-up Skywalker for the newer model.

 

If we apply the "parasitic nature" of the Sith to the end of ROTJ then Anakins turn has no emotional impact. Palps was a fool to turn his back on him as he should have realised that Vader (who owed him no loyalty under such a theory) would kill him for trying to have him killed and replaced.

No, for Vader's turn to work, it had to have been the hardest thing ever in his existence to do, would be to break his bonds of slavery and overthrow the emperor.

I repeat though, this is not to say that the "normal Sith way" isn't to do this, but that Palpatine was too powerful for Vader to overcome him or even attempt it via the Dark Side.

Which is why it seems incomprehendable for Palps to that Vader would Betray him, even after he has had his son kick the living daylights out of him.

Anyway, I'd recommend not thinking to hard about the "Rule of Two" and it's associated guff anyway, it's a "workaround" from Lucas, that was started in 83 to enable him to finish the saga in 6 rather then 9 films.

If you DO look into it, you end up with lots of Plot issues and "Dark Jedi" related malarky!

UKS

 

Vader was trying to stab Palpatine in the back, and says as much in ESB. But, only with Luke.

What makes the turn unbelievable is that the Emperor seemingly will destroy Luke (leaving Vader and the Emperor, still) and Vader, even though Luke isn't an option, still kills the Emperor and himself in the process, thus eliminating the Sith all together.

 

I presumed that Vader was lying in ESB, offering Luke a seductive lie to try and incite him. (Father and Son as King and Prince of the Galaxy. Destiny, Dynasty and fulfilling Luke's want to be someone, to have a powerful and meaningful Father).

But even if he did mean it, it is clear by ROTJ that Vader has realised that he is bonded to the Emperor come "Hell or high water." ("I must obey my master.", "It is too late for me my son".)

We see glimpses of Vader "at his prime" (Threatening Leia) yet Vader in ROTJ mostly seems resigned to his fate of being a servant/victim of the Emperor.

I suppose you could offer the rather off-the-wall idea that it could almost be said that he wanted Luke to replace him, and free him from the eternal bondage of the Sith via death, and only managed to free himself from his Dark Side bonds when Luke denied this and was being horrifically tortured.

UKS

 

I don?t think that Vader wanted to kill Luke. In Luke, Vader sees Anakin. That part of him that died years ago. In Empire he could have killed Luke, but he stops and tries to get Luke to join him. In Return of the Jedi, Vader is struggling with himself. Luke feels the conflict inside of him. There is still good in Vader and that is why he senses that Luke is on Endor when the Emperor does not. A bond has grown between Vader and Luke that only they can feel. Also, Anakin is the most powerful Jedi ever. Luke is his son and I am guessing the second most powerful Jedi ever. With this much power between them, they would be an unstoppable force if they joined together. The Emperor knows this and wants one of them dead. Luke is the younger of the two, so he would seem like the better person to have at your side. In the long run, I don?t think the Emperor cares which one is at his side. As long as one is dead and the danger to him is no more.

Then again, maybe the Emperor thinks he is powerful enough to control both Vader and Luke. Therefore, ignoring the Sith rule about there being only one master and one apprentice.

 

"I don't believe that Vader was plotting honestly against Palps. And if he was doing so in ESB, then by ROTJ he was broken and was more like an old, beaten, loyal dog then anything else."

Yeah, if Vader had been plotting against Palpatine he wouldn't have jumped in Luke's way and would've let Palpatine be struck down. Still, I don't think Vader was totally loyal... He was very conflicted throughout RotJ, torn between light and dark.

 

Basically, I believe Vader was lying to Luke about overthrowing the Emperor.
If there wasn't his suggestion during the holo-transmission in ESB with the Emperor to turn Luke, instead of killing him. Why would he want Luke alive? If Luke would have joined them, they'd be three, with Vader as third in the hierachy.

 

If we apply the "parasitic nature" of the Sith to the end of ROTJ then Anakins turn has no emotional impact. Palps was a fool to turn his back on him as he should have realised that Vader (who owed him no loyalty under such a theory) would kill him for trying to have him killed and replaced.

No, for Vader's turn to work, it had to have been the hardest thing ever in his existence to do, would be to break his bonds of slavery and overthrow the emperor.

Those two things don't have to be incompatible. Perhaps what made Vader's turn different from what other Sith apprentices did in overthrowing their masters was Vader's motive.

Palpy could have expected Vader to make a power play, but did he expect Vader to show loyalty and love, traits that are definitely not related to the dark side?

 

Then again, perhaps Palpatine, having forseen his own destruction, chose to postpone the inevitable as long as possible. Since he believed that Luke would be the tool of his destruction, he focused all his attention upon him, thinking that with Luke dead, he would change destiny and be truly invulnerable.

Palp's mistake was interpreting his destruction to be a direct and cognizant act on Luke's part, instead of an indirect and unintended influence for Vader's act.

 

Palpatine wanted to trade in his old, beat-up Skywalker for the newer model.

hehe

i think it's pretty simple. luke was a threat. either turn him and replace vader or kill him. either way works out for palpatine. he either gets the newer model skywalker and replaces vader who was most likely plotting against him, or he gets his old apprentice and the prospect of vader and luke ganging up on him is no longer a theat.

 

"Why would the Emporer want Luke to be turned. Why not just kill him?"

If Luke can defeat Vader and is strong enough to do that it makes sense.

 

Palp's mistake was interpreting his destruction to be a direct and cognizant act on Luke's part, instead of an indirect and unintended influence for Vader's act.

Or maybe it would have been a direct act on Luke's part had Palpy not altered the course of events by stopping Luke before he got that far. I think destiny sent both Luke and Vader to the DSII so they could gang up on Palpatine, and one way or another they were going to take him out. Palpy's real error was hubris - thinking he could cheat destiny either by getting a new apprentice or by killing Luke in front of Vader and thus putting Vader back in his place.

 

Of course Vader wanted Luke to join him in TESB. That is the nature of the sith. If Luke had joined Vader on Bespin, they would have worked out a plot to destroy the emperor. That's just how they work. Of course, Luke didn't join him, so come ROTJ, I think Vader may feel a little less powerful, possibly even betrayed.

So does that make Anakin's redemtion less powerful, that he was planning on destroying the emperor anyway? I don't think so. He was planning on destroying the emperor out of greed, out of a lust for power, to take control of the galaxy himself. However, when he killed the emperor in ROTJ he did it out of love for his son, and died in the process, a very selfless act.

 

I could imagine Palpatine knew that Vader wanted to usurp him together with Luke. After the battle of Yavin Vader was obsessed with finding his son. The Emperor could foresee Luke's importance in the future events. Maybe he assumed that Luke would be the main threat to him because Luke had allegedly inherited Anakin's power with the Force.

But there is another thing: Palpatine is a master of the dark side. Additionally, he is an absolute control freak. What makes him so effective, is that he is the only one who can correctly foresee the future since "the shroud of the dark side has fallen". (One could even argue that the reason Vader can't foresee the future is that he has too much good left in him; he suffers from the same problems as the Jedi before him.)
On the other hand, Palpatine was unable to see certain things concerning the Skywalkers and Vader. He didn't notice Luke's presence on the Tydirium as Vader did, for example; and he hadn't foreseen Vader turning against him at this vulnerable moment.

Maybe that's what makes the chosen one so special. He is some sort of unpredictable wildcard; therefore it is not possible to fully control him.
Palpatine surely had sensed this before, and -- being the bastardly Sith Lord he is -- knew how dangerous this was to his position. Additionally, there was Luke who according to his predictions was supposed to play a major role in the future events. Confronted with these two threats, he did what he had always done: He played both parties against each other. (Remember the clone wars? Or the blockade of Naboo? Same thing here...)
So, in his overconfidence, he tries to use Luke to dispatch and replace Vader, and by doing so, solving both problems: Luke would be subdued and controlled (plus he would be a healthier and younger apprentice), while the wildcard Vader would finally be eliminated.
He underestimated the power of the chosen one, however, and this was his undoing.

What makes Vader's turning so (emotionally) powerful then?
I think Vader does as Qui-Gon once instructed him many years ago: Confronted with the agony of his son, he follows his instincts (and the living Force)... His instincts tell him that he loves his son and that it is time to fulfill his destiny. In a moment of clarity he throws down the Emperor.
With this single act, he defies the controlling and abusing destiny-shaping of the Emperor, brings balance back to the Force by lifting the veil of the dark side, and liberates the galaxy.

Does that make any sense!?! (Am tired...)

 

Basically, Vader had served his purpose. If Palpy didn't know the importance of the Chosen One prophecy, Dooku certainly could have filled him in. It stands to reason, then, that Palpy honestly believed that the Balance was unimportant, or that the Balance actually gave Darkness the advantage.

"Crazy people can be very persuasive."
"Well, I know that."
--Mulder and Scully, from "Hollywood A.D.," Season 6 of "The X-Files"

After the Purges, Vader has "peaked," so to speak. Palpatine believes that he has brought Balance to the Force, and now, the newer generation can be brought up to take his place. If even Vader feels that Luke could be a threat to the Empire, then Palpatine with Luke on his side could dispose of Vader and hold onto power indefinitely.

But, then again, what do I know?

 

I still think the whole "rule of two" business is something that Lucas came up with after writing ESB and ROTJ. The events of ESB and ROTJ certainly aren't incompatible with the "rule of two," but I think they make more sense without it.

I don't remember ever hearing about the "rule of two" at the time the films were originally released. Doesn't mean it wasn't there, but for now I'll stick it in the same category as "I always intended for Greedo to shoot first," and "I always intended for Leia to be Luke's sister."

 

I think you're right that there was originally no rule of two. If you want an in-universe explanation, maybe Palpy decided to do away with it when he got into power. In any case, I remember being surprised when I first found out such a thing would be mentioned in TPM because I had previously assumed there could be many Sith trainees, just like there were many Jedi.

But rule of two or no, I doubt Palpy ever would have wanted both Skywalkers working for him simultaneously. Anyone as paranoid as the Emperor must have thought the two of them could plan dangerous things together.

 

I'm sorry if I sound insulting, but there's far too much debate over a simple concept.

Palpatine:

Wanted Luke to join him and Vader
If the following could not be done, than have Vader kill him
If Luke did join him, he'd have him kill Vader

 

Really, Bib summed it up best.

By putting them up against each other, it's the best of both worlds for him.

If Vader wins, he gets rid of a possible problem in young Luke and keeps his loyal servant.

If Luke wins, he gets a new, younger Force user, without any physical disabilites and eager to learn.