The Power of Darth Plagueis

I was worried that you'd cite that as your referece. Not because it serves to validate your point. It is because you have unleashed the wild and erratic power of the EU into our once sane debate.

You've disappointed me, Arawn_Fenn. I didn't think that your view of Star Wars was subject to the whim of authors who almost arbitrarily tread on established canon (often unintentionally, but nevertheless the damage is done). Either you hold all EU material to be canon, in which case your existence is an affront to the Lucas dogma, or you hold certain texts to be canon, which is infinitely worse, as you futilely try to balance the varied and conflicting visions of the Star Wars saga into one bastardised perception of your choosing, forever skewing your ability to effectively argue for any point in either world (the Lucas canon or the EU).

At any rate, your reference to that novel does not support your point if you are referring to the passage I think you are. That passage involves Sidious reflecting on how the ancient Sith Lords once held the power of immortality, but it was lost to later generations of the order. Note how it is multiple Sith Lords who were said to possess this power, not "one". Also, I think this passage was included not at Lucas' urging (as I think this novel was written with input from Lucas), but rather to reconcile the existence of Force Ghosts of Sith Lords in the EU. It was included so that this blaring contradiction of G-canon could be remedied somewhat. But since the facts of the EU are being twisted to fit with the information of the films suggests to me that it is founded upon unstable ground and shouldn't be relied on for canon.

Even if it was "canon" (giving this novel that dignity even in a hypothetical sense makes me vomit with fury), then it does not support your thought that there was one other unnamed Sith with the power of cheating death (let alone immortality) because "Dark Lord" indicates that the secret of immortality was known to several of the Sith Lords of ancient times, not just "one". It would be a seperate Sith with a different ability from those that had the ability to become spirits through the Force after their bodies had died.

So, even going by that novel, the "one" referred to by Sidious is still likely to be Plagueis.

 

When I said self-direction, I wasn't suggesting that most people lacked the general ability to reach a conclusion that is meant to be reached by considering all the data. I was referring to the fact that there is not enough information given in the films to determine that another Sith Lord altogether held the power of immortality. I know you've shown that the novel "Dark Lord" is your source, but the vast majority of the audience would not have read that novel and would have no one besides Plagueis to suspect of being the "one" referred to by Sidious.

 

Another aspect of this issue which perplexes me slightly is why following his turn, when Anakin suggests to Sidious that he show him how to save Padme, Sidious makes no mention of the power which he has supposedly learned from Plagueis. He talks immediately about how they can together discover the secret of immortality which this "one", whoever it is, has discovered. But if Plagueis did have another, lesser power, and Sidious learned everything that Plagueis knew, surely that knowledge would be of some use to Anakin in helping Padme, even if the knowledge pertaining to immotality had not yet been learned.

Did he not want to pass on the knowledge which Plagueis had given him to Anakin?

Did he never in fact receive the knowledge from Plagueis, in which case Plagueis probably was the "one" referred to as being the only one who could cheat death?

Was the whole story a lie to deceive Anakin into turning to the Dark Side?

 

The passage only says that "the most powerful" of the ancient Sith knew the power. There is no explicit reference to multiple Sith. Taken by itself the passage could be interpreted either way; however, since we know from ROTS that only one achieved this power, we know that the Dark Lord passage refers to one Sith.

The author's reasoning stands on its own. I don't see any reason to assume the correctness of an "all or nothing" EU stance.

 

I'm a long way from being an authority on the EU, but if he's to be taken at his word and the "father, son and holy ghost" analogy, it seems to me that as long as it doesn't contradict major film elements, Lucas is quite happy to let authors do as they please.

 

A long time ago, when I was a newbie, I posted a thread where I suggested that the "one" Sidious is referring to is actually Qui-Gon, though Sidious is unaware of the identity of the "one". It was mostly scoffed at by the poster here but I do have my reasons why I believe this, mainly that Plagueis actually died and why Sidious refers to it as a mystery that must be unlocked.

Anyhoo, carry on...

 

Sidious identifies "The Tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise" as a "Sith legend." That statement is not contradicted by anything in ROTS, as the movie currently stands, but it does contradict the EU position, also put forth by the ROTS novelization and earlier drafts of the movie script, that Plagueis was, in fact, Sidious' master. At least, I see no way that something which happened to Plagueis and Sidious within the very recent past could have attained legendary status with any group--a legend in Sidious' own mind perhaps, but that meaning would be so far from anything Anakin could possibly infer that Sidious is most certainly not telling him any kind of truth when he refers to Plagueis' history as "legend."

Whether Plagueis is or is not Sidious' master is a complicated question of what constitutes Star Wars canon, but my point is that all the EU cannot be reconciled with everything Sidious' says in ROTS as if both are uncomplicated truth.

As others have pointed out, Sidious may not mean the same thing by "cheat death" that people in our world do, but the fact that people in our world use the term proves that "cheat death" has a plenitude of meanings, many of which need not imply permanent immortality, so Sidious' use of the term is not necessarily a reference to immortality.

I also concur with those who have noted that it makes little dramatic sense for Sidious to mention some other Sith and some other power in the middle of the ROTS scene. If Sidious and Anakin are posited as having any kind of psychological interiority at all, Sidious would have no internal motive for dropping this hint about some other Sith to astute audience members, and Anakin would be completely perplexed by Sidious' abrupt change of the subject from the power most immediately important to him.

 

I "think" what Lucas was attempting to do in the Opera scene was have Sidious sow a deeper mistrust of the Jedi through his tale. In doing so, he paints the order as narrow-minded and not open to attempt, let alone master using the force in such a radical and innovative way.

The Jedi tell Anakin he must "let go" of his attachments, that he should "celebrate" when a loved one joins with the force. Palpatine is blatantly calling out that philosophy, saying instead that extending life of a loved one, or even creating new life is not only possible through the force, it has been done -- but "not from the Jedi."

 

"Legend" is an interesting choice of words. If Plagueis was Sidious' master, and Plagueis is dead, then who else would know the story apart from Sidious? In any event, it would hardly constitute a legend.

 

In conjunction with what had been established earlier in the film, the potentially ambiguous passage referring to a singular Sith Lord is unlikely. Your opinion that it refers to the "one" that Sidious mentioned is contingent upon your interpretation of what the term "cheat death" entails (that it refers invariably to the complete prevention of death).

However, the term "cheat death", as it is used, can easily be seen to refer to a life-prolonging power short of immortality. Regardless of it being synonymous with a power involving immortality, it is readily apparent that Sidious was referring to Plagueis' power.

You've lost, old man.

Palpatine's labelling of the Tragedy of Darth Plageuis the Wise as a Sith Legend can be corroborated by Yoda's knowledge of that tale mentioned in the novelisation. However, going by the films alone, it can be said that Palpatine was embelishing the story by giving it the aspect of being an archaic tale, which might be more highly regarded by Anakin if it was perceived as a tale of such significance that it has withstood time and become a legend. Alternatively (or simultaneously), he could have referred to it as a legend so that it would be considered to have taken place before the Sith's widely believed extinction (if Palpatine admitted to knowing about Sith activity after this, he would be suspected of being the Sith Lord that the Jedi were trying to find).



Now, let's get back to the topic at hand. What was the nature of Plagueis' power? This little tangent that focused on determing the identity of the "one" that Sidious mentioned, while a distraction, did raise some interesting questions as what the power may have been. Was it a means to prolong life indefinately, or did it prevent those who were near death from dying? Could it be applied for both purposes?

 

I agree that the "legend" was probably embellished in order to convince Anakin that he must turn to the Dark Side. The extent of this embellishment is very much up for debate I would say, particularly going on film content.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the only embelishment was calling the story a legend. There are a number of problems with the "The Tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise" actually constituting a legened. Also, it can be said that he could not relate the story to Anakin without calling it a legend. As I said before, Palpatine would have instantly become a suspect for being Sith as soon as he gave any indication that he knew of the Sith's continued existence after the extinction that was supposed to have taken place over 1,000 years before the films. Therefore, from Anakin's perspective, Darth Plagueis and his apprentice would have been Sith that existed when the Sith ruled the Galaxy.

Beyond calling it a "Sith legend", I think that Palpatine lied concerning the master teaching his apprentice everything he knew. This was told to ensure that Anakin would consider the possibility that the skill to maintain/create life could still be intact in the Sith teachings, even after at least 1,000 years, rather than lost with the death of the one to possess that power (as seems to be the case).

Now, can we being speculation upon the nature of the power itself? There are questions as to the validity of the tale recounted by Palpatine, though I'm fairly certain that we can take for granted that not only did Darth Plagueis exist, but he possessed a power that somehow prolonged and created life.

 

I go back to the questions I posed further up the page, relating to the time at which Anakin actually turned and he raised the issue of saving Padme. The fact that Sidious offered nothing in the way of possible assistance on the matter and basically as good as said that they'd have to work together to find the solution, raises doubts in my mind as to what the power actually involved. If he could offer no assistance to Padme, of what life-prolonging value was this power?

My belief, based on the films alone, is that Sidious knew nothing which could really help Anakin save Padme and that the whole thing was a deception. I'm not even sure the legend of Plagueis and his mysterious power is true to be honest.

 

Though Sidious admitted to not knowing the power, that dosen't mean that the power or its discoverer did not exist. In fact, as I mention in my post that started this thread, the details of the "Tragedy" are very specific and somewhat elaborate, too much so to merely be a red herring. Of course, Palpatine could have easily contrived such a story in order to offer Anakin some false hope of saving Padme by turning to the Dark Side, but from a dramatic perspective, it dosen't account for the reminiscent expression on Palpatine's face as he is reflecting on the murder of his master ("Ironic. He could save others from death, but not himself."). That particular shot would be entirely superfluous if the story was a complete fabrication. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, is Palpatine's prior mention of how Plagueis could "influence the midi-chlorians to create life" as he pauses and looks longingly at Anakin. I am subscribed to the notion that this sequence is confirmation (in a dramatic sense) that this aspect of the power for "creating life" was responsible Anakin's fatherless conception. We have precedent for this idea in the "Making of" book for ROTS, wherein a previous draft for the scene in which Anakin turns to the Dark Side depicts Sidious revealing that he started the cell divisions that created him. Though this was a draft, this shows how the concept of the Sith being responsible for Anakin's existence was present at least in earlier drafts, and, when coupled with that aforementioned scene where Palpatine speaks of creating life, still was present in the final script (though I suspect that either Palpatine was lying even in the earlier draft or only could apply the power insofar as creating life without being able to prolong life, and that responsibility for Anakin's creation was either always with Plagueis in the development of ROTS or it was later allocated to him [the latter being more likely IMO]).

I think that Lucas would not introduce a new character (albeit an unseen one) to the films as only a fabrication of one of the characters, especially one presented in the way Plagueis was. I think that Plagueis' name was dropped so that it would serve as a hint towards a backstory for Palpatine, allowing it to be explored in future media. Indeed, a novel that featured Darth Plagueis as a prominent character was planned, but was cancelled as it was deemed not the right to delve into Palpatine's backstory. This cancellation has led me to believe that Lucas has his own plans for relaying Plagueis' story, possibly in the forthcoming live-action series.

Therefore, considering that the "Tragedy" contains details that would be extraneuous if it were entirely fabricated by Palpatine, we can safely assume that there was at least some truth to the tale, namely the existence of a Sith Lord named Darth Plagueis and his power.

As for Anakin's cooperation with Sidious despite his admission that he did not possess the power to "cheat death", it can be said that Anakin took him at his word, and while this seems irrational, I offer you this link to a thread which offers an interesting explanation for Anakin's radical change of behavious after becoming Darth Vader.

http://boards.theforce.net/revenge_of_the_sith/b10331/19791627/p1

 

Supreme Chancellor: I thought not. It's not a story the Jedi would tell you. It's a Sith legend. Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful and so wise he could use the Force to influence the midichlorians to create life... He had such a knowledge of the dark side that he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying.

The parts here separated bythe "..." are not mustually exclusive. Influence the midichlorians and you create and/or manipulate life, including living a long time.

Here in real life longevity is a very serious field of research now. Through the manipulation of genes sceintists have increased the lifespan of worms to what would be the equivalent of a 500 year old human who would be youthful and vigorous for most of that time. So a lil suspension of disbelief; if we can almost do it why can't the GFFA? The midi's themselves are the basis for life in GFFA. They probably are beyond their technology to manipulate. Some beings are naturally long lived and others are not, but the midi's resist tampering. It is only through something extreme such as Darth Plagueis manipulating them through the Force that any further longevity is possible.

 

Anakin's response does seem irrational, in light of previous discussions, but I can just about buy it on account of the tumultuous events which were unfolding. He would've been in a state of shock, if nothing else.

I'm sure Plagueis existed and there was probably some truth to what Sidious was telling Anakin in the Opera scene. But to me, there's too much amiss between the Opera discussion and the subsequent one for me to be able to settle on what was actually going on with Plagueis. I'm not convinced that there wasn't a fair bit of bull**** and baffle being spun by Sidious. Stuff which ultimately he was unable to deliver on.

Sidious knew that Anakin was afraid of losing Padme. It was on account of this that he told him the "legend" in order to further entice him to the Dark Side. Why, then, when the issue is raised again later, did he react in the way that he did? I can see two possibilities.

1. There was a third party who had discovered the secret to immortality. If so, why did Sidious not refer to the Plagueis power at all, which had been the essence of the previous discussion with Anakin and which would surely have been highly relevant to the Padme situation, even if it didn't involve permanently defying death?

2. Plagueis was the "one" referred to as having the power to cheat death. If so, then the part about Plagueis telling his apprentice everything he knew is a lie, because had he done so, at least one other person would have known about the power.

These are the only two possibilities I can see, and neither of them is logical. Therefore I conclude there there is incongruity either in-universe, in terms of Sidious' story, or in writing.

 

Of course, there is incongruity with Palpatine's account of Plagueis and his ability. I maintain that Palpatine indeed lied about Plagueis passing on everything he knew to his apprentice so that Anakin would think that defecting to the Sith would allow him access to that power. Of course, one might say a rational person, upon hearing that the means to save their loved one was not as readily accessible as was told to them, would change their mind about submitting to the Sith. However, we can take into account Anakin's desperation to save Padme so that he accepted that Palpatine had been lying to him earlier but recognised that he had been manipulated so that the Sith would gain his assitance in discovering the power. Alternatively, as outlined in the thread whose link I posted in my last post, Anakin might have experienced a "Sith Mind Trick" that restructured his belief system. The evidence is compelling and, while at first difficult to accept, certainly offers a more satisfying explanation for Anakin's fall to the Dark Side.

You could chalk it up to poor writing, but even then, there is no real incongruity in the plot, as it could just be that Anakin was an irrational human being and was written to be so.

 

I agree Sidious lied about the knowledge that was passed on (knowing what Anakin understood him to mean) - he admitted as much later when he said he and Anakin would work it out. But I think he also lied about the knowledge that Darth P actually had - at least as far as the canon was developed at that point. Manipulation via mixing truth and lies was Sidious' MO. Anakin was sucker punched by his overly compassionate nature which caused him to attach to things so devoutly - well as a Jedi anyway because normally that would be a good thing. But as a Jedi facing good and evil, it was a black hole for him and he was sucked in. Nonetheless, Darth P was presumably very powerful, it is just that he was built up to be more than he was. Actually the same ended up being true of Palpatine in the EU...sigh.

 

In-universe only one being in history achieved it. Thus it cannot be comparable to the commonly encountered real-world usages of the term.

In conjunction with ROTS the passage refers to one Sith. In any event, disputing the number of Sith is a distraction in this case. The point of the passage is clear: it is a lost power possessed by an ancient Sith, and Plagueis did not achieve it. As another example from the EU, Death Star also establishes that Plagueis did not achieve the power.

No, it's contingent on an understanding of the passage and the author's interpretation. You're obviously free to disregard EU if you want, but in this case the author is clearly referring to the "only one" scene in the film, as evidenced by his use of the phrase "cheated death".

 

People in the real world don't possess some innate ability to cheat death on will alone. It's luck. In any case it's used to refer to incidents in which death is narrowly avoided, not when someone dies and returns to life. Anakin wants the power to help save Padme from dying, not to return her to life (even though it stands to reason that if Plagueis could create life by influencing midichlorians to create entirely new beings, than he can probably imbue life in the recently deceased.

Lucas doesn't really pay attention to the EU and in his film Plagueis is the only Sith alluded to that had the power which Anakin wanted. When Palpatine refers to the "one" that could cheat death, previous statements make the viewer associate the "one" with Plagueis. Someone who had read some EU that claimed otherwise might interpret it differently, but as a stand alone film, independent of the EU, nothing pushes the idea that Palpatine is referring to different powers, or that the "one" that could cheat death is someone other than Plagueis. It's made clear at the end of ROTS that it's too late to save Padme when it turns out she died. If Vader was looking for the power to return the dead to life, as alluded to in the quote you provided from Dark Lord, then you'd think that he'd take possession of her body and put it in stasis or something, so that one day he might return her to life, and if that was his goal, you'd think he might make mention of it to Luke when trying to seduce him.

As for the relationship between creating life and saving people from death, it's likely that the two are linked. I've heard that originally Sidious was going to claim responsibility for creating Anakin, but that it was cut because Lucas didn't want another "I am your father moment" and wanted fans to come to their own conclusions. Yet, he left the portion in the film in which Palpatine tells Anakin that Plagueis could create life and goes on to say that he could prevent people from dying. Knowing how to shoot a basketball and being able to shoot three-pointers are two different things, but the two are linked. Plagueis knew how to create life, and while creating life was different from being able to save people from dying, the two were probably linked, as the flow of Palpatine's dialogue suggests.

 

And hence not a real 'ability' at all, and certainly no comparison with a dark side Force power of the same name.

Mileage varies. In some cases we know that he pays very close attention. In others, not so much.

That's why I referred to the author's reasoning rather than insisting an EU work should be accepted outright. Palpatine said that Plagueis taught his apprentice everything he knew. That's in the film as opposed to EU.

I'm not suggesting the power involves what would be tantamount to time travel; Luceno called it "the ability to survive death".

Or because it created conflict with TPM ( but that's only my theory ).

 

Interesting. Here, the term "cheat death" is specifically identified as something completely separate from pre-emptively preventing death.

However, the author of that novel holds the same opinion on what "cheating death" entails as you do (in fact, it was probably where you adopted your useage of the term). Additionally, I don't think that Luceno means to imply that the "only one" to have learned that power was intended to have been any one other than Plagueis (let alone some other heretofore unknown Sith Lord).

As I stated earlier, I think that the passage in Dark Lord you referred to was a means to reconcile the existence of Sith Lords becoming Force Ghosts when ROTS contradicts the presence of Force Ghosts in most, if not all, instances where they were featured in EU texts. I don't think that Luceno based his interpreation of the term "cheat death" on how Lucas used it, and I doubt that he meant to imply that Sidious referred to anyone other than Plagueis as the "only one" to have the power.

For a moment, let us all assume that Sidious was referring to another Sith when he mention the "one". The question we are then posed with is: Why? Why would the script establish (or allude to) earlier in the film the existence of a Sith with the power to create and maintain life with the Force, have Anakin submit to the Dark Side to learn this power to save Padme, then have Sidious state that it is a whole other power that is necessary to keep her alive? Why was the "Tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise" necessary to recount if he could have recalled (or fabricated) the story of the Sith that could "return[] someone from death"?

One answer could be that Sidious had experienced firsthand the events of the "Tragedy", and could offer a more complete and heartfelt account of the circumstances surrounding a power which could be used in staving off Padme's death, so as to avoid his deception being detected (the powers of the Jedi in mind-reading could be such that they can determine when one is being truthful, and Palpatine accomodated for this by using his considerable mental will and telling half-truths), while his ultimate goal was to gain assitance from Anakin in discovering a power that was somewhat related to Plagueis' ability but different in that it could restore life to the dead.

However, this would be an unecessary complication. Why must there be another Sith with no previously established development? What dramatic/literary purpose would it serve for the story of ROTS to have this Sith brought up in what can be said to be a non-sequitor?

One answer to that would be that the line is intended to allude to another story that is intended to be told in some other medium, establishing the existence of a character who would be part of another plot for a Star Wars novel, TV series etc.

However, if that were the case, then why is it not clear to most of the audience that this other "one" is someone different from Plagueis? Why not be more explicit in the mentioning of the "one" in order to firmly establish this Sith as another character? As the script goes, the mention of the "only one" "to cheat death" does little to suggest that the "one" is anyone other than Plagueis. Certainly, if it is intended to be a separate character with no prior established development, it would be an intentionally misleading remark on the part of the script writers.

So, why would

 

Dave Filoni doesn't contradict the EU when it can be helped when working on TCW. Similarly, Luceno's choice to refer to some ancient Sith learning the power probably is probably fan service to the powerful Sith like Darth Sion that could keep themselves alive when their wounds should have killed them, or the Sith Emperor in the The Old Republic MMO who is 1,300+ years old and has kept himself alive using dark side techniques. I'm not too familiar with the EU but I believe I read of someone called Darth Andeddu (sp?) who is also an ancient Sith that allegedly knew the secret to immortality. Establishing Plagueis as the only one to have learned the power to cheat death would retcon all of these ancient Sith. But if Luceno tries to establish that the 'one' was not Plagueis, but some ancient Sith then it leaves a bit more room for these EU Sith. But, in separating the 'one' from Plagueis, and separating the ability to cheat death from the ability to save people from death, it creates awkwardness in ROTS.

 

^^^

EU = alternate universe in many ways. The EU has little if any bearing on the six film saga, and Lucas has said so on more than one occasion.

GL does pay homage to the EU fan base "from time to time," but whatever "happens" before the opening scene of TPM or after the final scene of ROTJ is not really topical for SW film saga discussion. The films are "Anakin's story."

So introducing Plagueis the Wise is as far as the maker takes us in the PT. Palpatine tells Anakin Plagueis was so powerful, he could save the ones he loved from death. The Chancellor-Sith does not tell Anakin that Plagueis was the most powerful Sith ever, but that the power Anakin seeks has only been achieved by one, who we assume at that point is Plagueis.

I have a pretty big problem with an apprentice spinning a story about his former master and then calling the tale "a Sith legend." Technically, when Palpatine killed Plagueis, he was the Sith order. So he must have then decided to relegate his former master to 'legend' status for Maul . . . and Anakin.

After all, history [and legends] are written by the winners.

 

That is, however, exactly what the passage says: that it was known to an ancient Sith but unknown to the current generation of Sith which included Plagueis and Sidious.