ST Who's The Baddie?

In the PT, the Sith threat and the political threat were one and the same because the Sith were controlling the political strings to gain control and power in the political arena.

In the OT, the Sith had that control. The Sith threat was not political anymore in terms of their place in the story. It was pulled back to the selfish aspect of the Sith themselves in a lot of ways.

That being said, I believe that Ep VII will be similar, perhaps more so, in that regard. The Republic willl most likely still be struggling to rebuild, and I'm sure there will be plenty of threat in that. However, I am not convinced that the Sith threat (if there is one)* will be directly tied to the political threat. I believe that the Sith/Jedi/Force aspect of this will be more "personal" in motivation.

* I believe we will have Sith.

 

I think it will be very interesting where in the D&D alignment system the villain(s) falls under; Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil.

In the OT, for example, Darth Vader falls neatly under "Lawful Evil", as his primary goal seems to be bringing order to the galaxy, even if it means oppression of its citizens. Even in RotS he genuinely believed that the Empire would bring peace and order to the galaxy. Meanwhile, Emperor Palpatine is clearly Neutral Evil because he's really in it all for himself; becoming Emperor might have satisfied his own power trip, but it was as much a means to an end as the end itself. His primary goal was to reshape the galaxy in his image, and gain eternal existence (essence transfer via clone bodies in Dark Empire). The only alignment that hasn't really been seen yet in the SW films is Chaotic Evil, so that may be a good one for the ST to tackle; a anarchistic villain who "just wants to see the galaxy burn", so to speak.

Also, regarding the Sith returning idea, on further thought it might not be such a good idea to see huge Sith armies of Dark Siders trained in the ways of the Sith. Darth Bane's holocron projection chided Darth Krayt for diluting the power of the Dark Side amongst too many followers, thereby weakening the power of the Sith leader (as well as potentially opening up the same conflicts that destroyed the Sith more than a millennium earlier at Ruusan). One reason why the Banite Sith under the Rule of Two were so powerful was because the two Sith Lords possessed so much of the Dark Side's power within their persons. Thus, if there are two many Sith Lords, the main Sith villain would be far less powerful in the Dark Side than the Banite Sith that came before him or her (unless they intend to retcon this little detail, which I'd prefer they not since I find it very interesting). Just some thoughts.

 

Although I would suggest Palpatine was a materialist as mentioned above. We have not seen immortal Sith in the films. One who attempts to subdue the eternal and material. Remember the rumored Darth Khaos?

Some kind of barbarian race, with force immunity would be rather chaotic. Although the villains would be centrifugal, that is, moving away from a central villain. That would be entirely new.

Agreed. Unless we had a central villain, who has gathered all Dark Side power into its one being. An immortal Dark Side Sorcerer/Necromancer (the embodiment of the Dark Side) who uses its ability to raise ancient Sith Lords from the dead, their powers entirely dependent on his magic. Including the raising of armies of Imperials/Clones/Stormtroopers past.

Vader was right...'the power to destroy a planet (material technology/Palpatine's hubris and faith in it) is insignificant to the power of the Force'. Our next central villain should show how the Death Star was insignificant in comparison.

'The dark side of the Force is a pathway to abilities that some may consider to be unnatural.'

I've been re-watching the opera scene, which is equivalent to the twin suns scene in ANH in importance IMO. It is striking to watch after having read Darth Plagueis. Sidious resorts to the story after feeble attempts at discrediting the Jedi. He describes the story as a Sith legend, when in fact it is his personal story (all retconning, right? ). He believes that Plagueis taught his apprentice everything he knew. He says that it's ironic that Plagueis could save others from dying but not himself. It's a fantastic scene. The best of the PT.

Also, the end, when Yoda mentions 'new training' from Qui-Gon and 'The Netherworld of the Force'. Qui-Gon has learned 'the path to immortality'. It makes sense in light of the OT, but these pieces of unexplained GFFA may illuminate the BIG story in the ST, too. We've seen Obi-Wan 'become more powerful than you possibly imagine'. We've heard and now read about Plagueis infatuation with Dark Side (unnatural) immortality. We just need to see it now.

 

Some of the more recent postings in this thread have talked about multiple antagonists. I would absolutely love to see one of those, whether it is a single person or a group, be a chaotic evil.

I have recently become fascinated with alignment systems and have been reading about the "True Neutral" philosophy. For most of you (above my intelligence) bare with me as I list some of the characteristics of a True Neutral -- fully aware that the list could be perceived as out of context.

• Neither aligned with the Hero nor the Big Bad.
• The philosophy that harmony and freedom are both important in society
• Maintain that there is metaphysical balance in the multiverse
• May believe in free will or choice
• They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes.
• Dedicating to a detached philosophy of neutrality to ensure that no one alignment or power takes control
• Tend to be moral relativists, holding that values differ from society to society, from person to person
• The ideal government for this alignment is any social order that balances the needs of the state and the individual and allows beings to pursue their own interests as long as they do not violate the rights of others.

In a previous post, I mentioned

From my point of view, this type of Force User (I'll call them "balancers"), may have agreed with Palpatine to a very limited extent, that the Jedi were too wrapped up in political control in the PT. On the other hand they would certainly be against the ultimate control he had over the entire galaxy in the OT.

Perhaps the 'Balancers' are against the formation of a new Jedi order and/or a single Galactic Government and are working towards destroying the institutions, although not the people of the institutions.

 

That's actually an interesting idea. In The Truce at Bakura, there was a person holding to a philosophy of Balance- and seeing Force Users as a bad thing since, if they have all that power, others have therefore lost power as a result.

 

I do think that exploring the more ethereal (and perhaps esoteric) aspects of the Force could lead to a promising ST villain. I don't really remember the Darth Khaaos character from that fake treatment, though. And if the so-called 'embodiment of the Dark Side' character is anything like the Son in Mortis, I'm not too sure I'd be so keen on seeing it. That being said, greater emphasis on the more 'unnatural' aspects of the Dark Side would definitely make for a more interesting villain, IMO.

Darth Archimage

I like your idea of the antagonist being more 'neutral' as well, maybe someone who aligns more closely to Chaotic Neutral, someone like Mother Talzin in TCW, for instance. This does open up more story possibilities that allow for moral ambiguity in the villain and less black-and-white conflicts like in the prior six films. With the right situation, any 'Neutral' character falling under the alignments of Lawful, True Neutral, or Chaotic can be an antagonist. That being said, the central villain of the trilogy should IMO fall under one of the three 'Evil' alignments, or you risk losing that fantastical black-and-white Good versus Evil underlying conflict of the saga.

 

I absolutely agree with you there. I probably wasn't clear, but my idea of a neutral group was intended to only be a secondary "challenge" for the good guys -- and the bad guy(s) for that matter. I would definitely want to see the main antagonist as one having an Evil alignment.

 

We will see Sith and we will see ghosts.

 

I like this idea!

Plot: Back during Episode VI, with an aging Darth Vader in his mist, Lord Sidious was secretly training another to take Vader's place in case he was vanquished. With the out come of Episode VI this now lone follower of the Dark Side was left abandoned to his own ambitions. He pledges to himself to avenge his former master Death and sets out to destroy Luke's life a piece at a time. First by eliminated his friend (Han), then his Sister (Leia) and Children and finally the newly formed Jedi Order itself.

 

Spoiler alert

 

Can you imagine the rage-whining of Nolan fans if this happened?

 

I keep coming back to the sith as well.

Reading up in Lucas' original notes his first 7-9 - with luke teaming up to defeat the emperor in 9 not 6 - and that could have been kicking around in his head, or some form of it for all these years.

Except with the emperor now dead, luke could be looking for the source of the sith to 'finish them once and for all'.

The film needs a bigger threat than palps, so there is only so many things they can do.

 

I don't believe that the ST needs a bigger villain than Vader and Palpatine/Sidious per se... that's pretty much impossible. However, I think they can have good villains that are cut from the same cloth. I think it's a given that the Sith will be involved (what type of Star Wars movie wouldn't feature a lightsabre duel and a red lightsabre?). Also - if one thinks about something that never featured in any of the existing 6 films, it's multiple/consecutive lightsabre duels. It would be a missed opportunity if we didn't see multiple Jedi and Sith fighting a la the Old Republic/Sith Army. I think that's the clear route for the sequels in terms of the 'bad guys'.

 

Palps master?

Palps master didn't care for the rule of 2 - hence multiple Sith?

 

People still believe in the DnD alignment system? I thought that was in the past. Imo it is silly to reduce human behavior into 9 alignment categories. Vader, who some of you have pegged as "lawful evil", has quite the chaotic streak to him.

And I don't want to see a Joker expy either. That's been done in too many movies nowadays. I would hope our villain has better motivations than "to bring chaos to the galaxy".

 

Vader: "Together we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy."

He might have chaotic moments- but overall he tends to keep the overall goal in sight.

That said- there can be enormous variation within an "alignment category" without making it meaningless.

 

Speaking for myself, I used the alignment system (D&D, TVTrope, etc) to explain the type of character that I thought would be interesting. I didn't expect anyone to "believe" that the character type MUST be held to the alignment I was explaining. It certainly expands upon the typical "Good and Bad" or "Black and White" human behavior categories that we generally talk about on these boards.

 

So...this secret baddie waits 30 years before he starts executing his revenge?

 

These are great points. I love this entire discussion.

I can easily see Luke and the next protagonist as a 'Balancer'. One which does not deal in absolutes. The weakness of a 'Balancer' is its very neutrality. When does one make a stand? Where is the threshold for action? What moral justifications demand interventions? One must not destroy all evil. One must reorder the Galaxy in a way that causes the optimum order, and the least amount of chaos. Is there a way to teach the Dark Side or learn the Dark Side in order to understand the entirety of the Force, but not apply it, for the most part? In order to understand the nature of the Universe, holistically. This is something Sidious suggested and used to seduce Anakin. These are dangerous questions for new, young Jedi Knights.[/quote]

 

That thought has crossed my mind, too, but there are a couple of possible rationales for this:

- That villain would be the last remaining Sith and regardless of how confident they are in themselves, that person would be risking everything in order to seek immediate revenge. Instead, they must first take the time out to train another
- If Luke was able to defeat the Emperor (would people know Vader tossed him aside? Maybe people think Luke defeated both of them, even?), why would this Sith disciple believe he/she would be able to defeat Luke shortly after RotJ? It would take time to devise a plan and execute on all of the setup, especially if that plan is...
- Perhaps it's not just one that they're training. With the Empire losing power over the galaxy, and the Jedi still relatively weak, the villain plans to build an army of Sith. This would take time. Perhaps that's who the 70-year old is in the casting?

 

You bring up a very good point with the weakness of a neutral alignment, at some point everyone must make a stand one way or the other.
Although I could see Luke as a Balancer, what I had in mind is someone else who comes off looking like a threat to the protagonist. Someone who commits some questionable acts that Luke would probably disagree with, though he could still rationalize with. Then perhaps the Balancer does something to help the protagonist and their cause, eventually coming to a compromise with Luke and his Jedi (maybe even helping with some of the new Jedi protocol), eventually turning to a "Good Alignment".

...but then again the Balancer could eventually choose the other path. -- I think that is what would make this type of character interesting, we wouldn't know right from the start.

EDIT: I would definitely want a strong distinction between a wavering Jedi and a "Force Balancer".

 

My only reply is the nature of the word 'neutral', or impartial. Not getting involved at all. No positive or negative action? How does one define such a character as you describe them above, because if they're involved, I don't know if they're necessarily neutral? And in a way, this could be the self-referential description of the author him/herself. The 'Balancer' in the story is the storyteller.

I like the ideas @ Darth Archimage, I'm only trying to help you to clarify them, or help me understand them. I'm not the best student. Keep it up.

Circular_Logic I forgot about the D&D alignments. Thanks for bringing it into the discussion.

 

It's only a gaming system and has little to do with reality. In reality people usually don't fit in one of nine neat little boxes. So why use it?

 

You are correct, maybe neutral is the wrong word to use. I believe that "Force-Balancer" however, does portray the idea that I am trying to get across - a different type of force user than a Jedi or Sith who is actively engaged in his cause -- a dedication to a philosophy of balance to ensure that no one power takes control.

 

As opposed to "Good" or "Bad"?

Darth_Pevra, you say that it "reduces human behavior into 9 categories" -- but don't those 9 categories expand upon weather someone is just good or bad? How would you categorized Anakin/Vader?

EDIT: Darth_Pevra, before you answer that, let me just do a little face palm -- I think I just made your point. At any rate, I was mainly using alignment categories to get my ideas across.

Sorry for the double post