Lit The woman that broke the galaxy... and Palpatine!

You're still victimizing him. Why is that necessary or even compelling? Vader's a victim, Maul's a victim, Reva's a victim, Talzin's a victim, Ventress is a victim, Kylo is a victim--now Palpatine has to be one too? Everyone has to be a victim? Why? Evil is just a string of victimhood? What's causing this seemingly unbroken cycle? Society? The dark side itself? Why is a nebulous and intangible concept or force a more alluring genesis of villainy than an intelligent being without any excuses?

This approach to storytelling becomes the very embodiment of banality. If all the antagonists are cut from the same cloth, then there's little to no variety. What differentiates Sheev from Anakin? Or Maul? Minor details? He becomes just another clone of the tragic antagonist trope, something that not only devalues him, but devalues his own list of victims. The same goes for creating a world populated by nothing but mustache-twirling talking monsters; it gets dull.

You also cheapen that sense of catharsis the audience is meant to feel when Palpatine finally gets his comeuppance.

 

This just isn’t supported by legends or canon. At all. It completely misses the point of Palpatine.

 

And why do you need someone to be evil from birth so you can shun him and enjoy that someone deserves death? Why do people need justifications for their murdering in the name of good, god, the light, the Force because their victim was so much worse and deserved it? Sounds rather apologetic and like seeking justification for ones own flaws and love for violence and murder, which only can be justified if there is someone or some people that deserve it. But instead of confronting and acknowledging ones own flaws and problems one externalises blame and fault on those one mistreats no matter what they have done wrong in order to empower themselves by having taken power from others they deemed lesser or worse.

Why do you need evil without victimization? From a grander perspective, everything is a chain of action and reaction and depending on pov, everyone can be a victim or culprit to someone. But instead of seeing how everything is connected some tend to disconnect from the larger picture in favor of ignoring the origin/reasons/past to be able to blame someone and condemn him to death. That is ignorant and only works till you are the one recieving that treatment, a onesided view perpetuated until one falls prey to it oneself in the future.

There is no need for catharsis or comeuppance but redemption, resolution. That is Star Wars. Even if not everybody chooses that path in the end, even if people die unrepentant, victors enjoying the death of their enemeis never is or will be of the Light Side of the Force. The audience is not meant to feel anything for Palpatines end as you think. He is not killed either but destroys himself by reflected lightning, by not stopping himself. Rey just is there a boulder in his way. Not attacking, only defending. Evil destroys itself. Always ultimately. Even the Sith in ROTJ kinda destroyed themselves with Luke refusing to fight and play by their rules.

Thus, don't repeat humanities millennia old flaws that lead to so much pain, war, holy crusades, jihads and worse.

Palpatine may not need redemption, nor is all blame taken from him when he had a better childhood or was mistreated. Why you think that takes away from his character is beyond me. Nobody is a singular stereotype so why should he be? Why do you need evil to exist and personify it? Why do you need someone to be without any normal past nor a chance of a better future? Why do you have to justify murder of people like Palpatine in any way at all?

PS: This is not directed at you personally, just in general with "you" as plural. Hope it is not misunderstood. Thx and keep debating this!

 

I don’t disagree with the idea that it’s conceptually risky to give an iconic villain like Palpatine a backstory with tragic or sympathetic elements. It could easily degrade his character, as we’ve seen happen many times before, for the sake of a psychologically simplistic story.

On the other hand, we’ve also seen shallow representations of absolute evil characters many times before—beings who are closer to an evil force of nature than to a human being. They are equated with destruction or death or what have you. Epic language and cosmic descriptions are often used to give an aura of awe and terror, but these are ultimately surface-level representations, and their real impact is minimal.

The real question for me is whether there’s a sweet spot in the middle—or just elsewhere, honestly, because it’s not just two extremes of a spectrum—that would improve on Palpatine’s character as seen in the movies. If there’s a story that fits well with the character and truly adds to his story. And I specify the movies because that’s the most solid characterization we have of him, for obvious reasons (though I’m not including the TROS here).

I’m wondering, specifically, whether adding to his story could make him an even better villain than he already is, someone along the lines of Milton’s Satan, Shakespeare’s Macbeth, or perhaps someone similar modern villains from political and crime dramas. And when I wonder about this, I am actively trying to think of good examples, a good model that would work for Palpatine.

Of course, many have answered unequivocally no. But I can’t shake off the idea that it is certainly possible, and I’m curious about how that would look. I’m curious about the story they wrote for Underworld, and whether it’s as bas as some of us fear or could actually be a quality addition to Palpatine’s story. We’ve seen many new stories told of Palpatine that didn’t really add anything new or too interesting (looking at you, new canon), as well as stories that are well made but don’t seem to expand on the character.

So what would a story that does add to the character and takes him in a good but somewhat different direction look like?

 

Your not making an any actual argument about Palpatine, your making a philosophical argument that evil itself is a problematic and inhumane categorization. (Something I disagree with btw).

That’s a debate to have in a religion or philosophy thread. Star Wars does however engage in personifications of concepts like good and evil, as well as treating these things as essentialistic-that is innate and unchanging.

Fey or Yoda are embodiments of the light itself, it dwells in them, is expressed through them, is mediated in their actions and changing, dark and light in Star Wars are not simply social constructions or subjective adjectives-they possess eternal and concrete reality, indeed they are reality.

If you want good and evil to be deconstructed on humanist grounds, or argue they simply serve to marginalize-that isn’t Star Wars. There are franchises that do operate in such in terms. Star Wars isn’t one of them. Good and Evil in Star Wars exist outside of description and social mores, you may not like this, but that is Star Wars.

(I also happen to not agree with you on what evil is and what good is, but that is a debate for elsewhere).

 

The starwars.com triva gallery for the TCW episode "Shadow Warrior" says, "Count Dooku and talks to Darth Sidious via hologram from within a secret command center. This is intended to suggest a long-standing Sith presence secreted on Naboo.”

Might this “long-standing Sith presence secreted on Naboo” have something to do with how Palpatine became Darth Sidious?

 

I'm sorry, what?

If we want to get technical about this, Rey destroyed Palpatine using Palpatine's power. Palpatine halts his lightning assault the moment Rey begins redirecting it, and from that moment on, Rey casts the lightning.

And the audience is absolutely meant to take a measure of satisfaction at seeing Palpatine ripped to shreds. They wouldn't have accentuated his agonizing death the way they did otherwise.

Any hint at pathos will render it unequivocally impossible for Palpatine to retain his standing as a complete monster. It can't be done. The second we feel even the slightest tinge of sympathy, it's all over; he's been irreparably recontextualized and ceases to be uniquely vile within the mythos.

Taking him in a different direction is a frivolous exercise because it subverts who he is for unproductive reasons. It doesn't improve the story of Star Wars and any writer believing it would enhance the character is self-indulgent and pretentious. If anyone finds it difficult to appreciate the character as it stands, then that shouldn't be interpreted as a call-to-action. A driven, monomaniacal character of Palpatine's scope is fascinating by itself. By confounding that purity of purpose, you besmirch everything he represents. Characters like Sidious—not just superficially similar, but legitimately analogous—are, in actuality, exceedingly rare. The irony being that all the people labeling his "mustache-twirling supervillainy" as a clichéd dead-horse trope fail to recognize that the alternative is no less beaten into the ground.

For this reason, any attempted expansion of his character should be firmly within the established bounds. Take what's already there and fill in the blanks; there's no need for anything adscititious.

 

I think in this crazy, mixed-up, post-TRoS world of ours you might actually be able to make the case that was just hundreds of years of Sheev-y goodness, using the power of dark science to extend his lifespan (Maybe by transferring his consciousness over and over again). Hell, I’m wondering if they’ve accidentally laid the groundwork for some future creative team to run with a “Palpatine has always been around” thing, making his space Satanness much more literal as it were. It’s not the most original take on the origin of evil but, then again, it’s no more cliche than the old Underworld plan this thread is about was.

 

TROS remains awful and it’s legacy even moreso.

If we mean, in canon anyway-then Palpatine’s story is done, maybe a canon version of the Plagueis novel might be tolerable.

But a sympathetic backstory? No. The ST damaged Palpatine enough as it is as a respectable and gravitas possessing villain. A sympathetic backstory would be irrecoverable.

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DdxDngZpm6acDGOjXTmj6YeFSMO9aI2fNnAc1lL5HOY/edit#

For those interested, this is all known about Underworld. Given the entirety it was supposed to cover, would it even have had a central cast going through all these storylines or rather anthology style jump around like TCW? The same show covering Coruscant stuff aplenty with Bounty Hunters, 1313, Palpatine, Vader, Crime families and also Lando loosing the Falcon to Han as well as the Rebellion foundations etc. sounds like it is all over the Dark Times timeline and not progressing chronologically after ROTS. Unless the others were for later seasons after a timejump. Anyway, I suspect Bad Batch, Andor and more will still draw a lot from this.

But if all is connected indeed.. I wonder how Palpatines backstory might have fit in with the other storylines and characters given he was not the focus of the show but rather crime families and personae of which his past lady is one who is, or whose legacy is still kicking.

 

Again, that sounds like a very bad idea.

 

Reading that Chris Chibnall was one of the writers hired for Underworld makes me wonder if perhaps it was his script that would’ve gone into Palpatine’s origins. I wonder this specifically because of his choice to do something similar for Doctor Who, something that caused quite a bit of controversy in that fandom.

Spoiler: Doctor Who Series 12 and 13

Chibnall explored the Doctor’s origins, and retconned her to be something known as the Timeless Child. This child entered our alone universe through a rift in time/space and was discovered by a Gallifreyan woman named Tecteun. Tecteun essentially adopted the abandoned/orphaned child and became a stepmother figure. The child had an innate ability to regenerate, which Tecteun experimented on and eventually learned enough about to extend to her people, who then became the Time Lords. The child was also made part of a shadowy organization led by Tecteun, though eventually the child would manage to escape them.

The idea of an orphaned or lost child, taken in by a stepmother figure who offers protection but who is then shown to be cruel and heartless, and who eventually comes back into the story as the head of a shadowy organization, is what resonates here. I learned some time ago that Chibnall may have been influenced by his own experience as an adopted child, so I wonder if he may have had something similar in mind for Palpatine.

Additionally, I had already been thinking about a female gangster who took in rphans and initiated them into a life of crime because I wondered if the Underworld concept could have been recycled in Solo, for Lady Proxima.

That’s all pure speculation. One writer’s work in one thing does not mean it will be reflected in another. But the part about Chibnall tackling sensitive areas of a canon does make me think it could’ve been him. And if it were in any way similar to what he did for Doctor Who, that would certainly be an interesting and different interpretation of the female gangster. I’m not saying it would be good, by the way. If anything, seeing Palpatine as a child is even more volatile than seeing him as a young man. Though I do prefer the alternative to a romantic angle for this mystery character.

 

Interesting idea, Palpatine may be no Timeless Child, but this would tie to him being adopted by Cosinga like I earlier speculated. Though, that'd be Voldemort 101 with the orphan that gets a good education turning out terrible adult still due to being bad from birth (originating from a Sith couple or else?).

But, what if Palpatine got adopted, but not because he had bad parents and was given to new ones, but rather because his parents were Jedi who against the Code had a child and wanted it safe on Naboo? If he ever learned his true parents were Jedi, that'd make him go mad at them for sure.

 

PS: Regarding humanising Palpatine, regardless if you like it or not, what if George Lucas, knowing his ever changing mind, would have tried to have some Legends in his Underworld show and adress the origin of Mara Jade, even if he disliked her as Luke's wife or such? I mean, humanising Palpatine with him caring for a child like his daughter/granddaughter would be interesting to some. That might tie Mara's origin to a certain crime lady then perhaps, even if not related to Palpatine.

I'd like it to have her be the one child he could not murder or abuse like so many other Jedi children (as per TCW episode!). So he chose to raise her as his Hand.

 

That honestly sounds bad as well. Mara’s relationship to Palpatine is defined by her delusion and her overcoming it, not any real ties of blood or affection.

If you want to give Palpatine a daughter-that’s not completely undoable. Even legends has the implication he may have sired a son with Roganda Ismaren, but that isn’t Mara.

 

Palpatine growing up as an abandoned child or an orphan also has parallels to Gallius Rax’s story. Aftermath made Rax seem like a version of Palpatine without the Force. He grows up as an orphan in a desolate world, living a hard life but eventually serving the Sith Lord and being taken into his world to serve him in new ways. He even adopts a new name more suitable to his new station in life.

I could see something similar for Palpatine. Born or abandoned in a Naboo colony world, living a hard childhood in the service of a gangster who exploits children for labor, only to be recognized by the Sith Lord for his potential. He eventually proves himself and takes on the name Palpatine as he is introduced to the higher levels of Naboo society. But at heart he is never one with them, and his hidden persona of Darth Sidious is more a natural evolution of the child who survived any way he could.

This also reminds me somewhat of Tarkin’s canon backstory, although he certainly was well off and only roughed it on occasion. But still, I do like the idea of these characters having a “wilder” component to their backstories. They become such elegant and composed men in adulthood, but they are not products of luxury and comfort and can quite easily assert their power and strength in more physical ways. Indeed, doesn’t Palpatine in canon like Tarkin because he sees a lot of similarities between them?

Anyway, this is certainly very speculative. But I can see Chibnall playing with some of those questions of origin and giving Palpatine some added mystery by never showing us his true parents. There are also interesting parallels to Rey herself, though those would certainly have been accidental if this was ever close to accurate.

 

IMO, the Tarkin family's hunting traditions seems to be an intentional parallel to Sith tradition to visit Kursid and hunt there from "Darth Plagueis".

 

While I agree that there are a lot of paralells between character origin stories and mysterious origins as to why they changed f.e. Tarkins backstory in Disney canon, I wonder if that trend came from Lucas unreleased stuff they used as early idea bible for everything like "Sheev"s name that also first appeared in Tarkin's novel btw!!! So the novel and Palpatines past share a connection to Lucas stuff indeed!

I have to admit I dislike Tarkin's redneck past still. But the connections to Rax and others are brilliant @Sauron_18 !

But what is it with all the backstories of getting out of the gutter and into fame? Han Solo got the same treatment when they milked Lucas Underworld concepts for the Solo spinoff movie and I wonder how much of Lady Proxima and Corellia is from his ideas. Qi'ra too or her backstory for that matter. As previously mentioned, they may have recycled some into her story overall even beyond Solo.

Acolyte will tell how much more paralells there are between the "not-Palpatine" story of a Sith on the rise.

 

Or perhaps Palpatine never had any hardship whatsoever and was just a spoiled rich brat fed from a silver spoon, doted on and praised by his family. This, combined with his gifted intelligence and latent Force potential, intensified his genetic predisposition toward narcissism and grandiosity. Like some true-to-life serial killers with idyllic childhoods, no one suspects that he's truly a dangerous psychopath. Perhaps he was a prodigy. Perhaps his Force abilities came as naturally to him as they did with Rey, requiring little training to hone his abilities. Sheev's overweening pride isn't pathological, it originated from a lifetime of facile achievement. He never had to work hard; he never had to suffer as Anakin did. But he's intelligent enough to interrogate the fate of "ordinary" beings, a category he refuses to identify with. Through sheer observation—not misfortune—he comes to view others as weak-willed and beholden to a force beyond their capacity to comprehend or overcome. They submit themselves to nature's design and succumb to an insignificant and meaningless life punctuated by an interminable rhythm of birth and death. He's beyond that. He's superior to that. He's not going to eke out a meager existence, reproduce, and die like the rest. He will rise above it all and bend nature to his will, not the other way around. The Force will be made to serve him.

That kind of origin expands on Palpatine's character without straying at all from what he is and what role he serves. He's not meant to struggle, he's not the protagonist in this story. If he struggles, it's an internal one. He grapples with accepting his place in the cosmos and fears an end to his existence—that fuels his passion for control. This would be depth enough, and it's nothing that can't already be divined from existing material.

 

@Lord Exor In the light of your idea, the woman that broke him as per Lucas might not have broken him as all would expect, neither through love or other hardship for him but rather have tried to expose him perhaps, seen through his charades to his real character below the benevolent surface he puts up to get what he wants? Maybe he was on the verge to rise far and fast and she set him back quite a few years somehow by exposing him, causing him trouble and having him need allies he never wanted, like a Sith Lord, or others as he realized he can't (yet) do it all by himself. Cue confidantes like Mas Amedda and other close friends and allies that are not truly friends but just a higher level of goon for him to command. Might that work for you?

 

I think Plagueis works fine as an origin story, and he's not a victim, nor Satan incarnate in there. He's just a man that's ALREADY driven to power that gets further taken advantage of by the Sith. I think Palpatine would've ended up a political mastermind whether he is a Sith or not, which is why I prefer the interpretation that he ends up using the Sith as much as he uses the Republic, CIS, Dooku, the Clones, the Droids, the Jedi and so on. He's a man that, whatever situation he is in, he will strive to further himself and himself alone. Have him discovered by the Jedi, and you get a tyrannical Jedi Grandmaster for Jorus C'Boath to love to follow.

Yeah you can add a woman into the mix somewhere, but I figure that's just going to be something of a temporary set-back before he's even MORE set on his goal of personal power above all else, not something that changes him.

 

I've read Darth Plagueis, it was a pretty great book, but Palpatine wasn't a very interesting and compelling character in it. The book certainly makes it seem like he's rotten from the get-go while his master seemed to be in it for more than just purely selfish reasons.

But a book isn't going to stop them from rewriting the story if they wish to do so.

For the discussion here I find it very interesting as well as the arguments from both sides. The philosophy and mythology is what has kept me a Star Wars fan for many years. So thanks for that, especially Sauron_18 who has given some very interesting insights I think.

My point of view: Sidious has always served as this satanic figure, a warning to all at what you could become if you fully give into the darkside. Witnessing his glee when Luke is about to kill his own father was possibly a reason why Luke didn't go through with it. He saw the uglyness of the dark side and what he would become if he gave in.
Lucas drives home the point that being darkside is to make a choice. Anakin Skywalker was not born evil, no-one really made him do all these terrible things (even though Sidious certainly urged him), in the end he decided to damn himself. Luke on the other hand makes the right choice and is rewarded.

From this point of view, it would follow, that Palpatine once had a choice as well. But different than Vader, he fully committed to the dark like none had before him. He became consumed by the dark side. In the end the question stands whether or not he controls the dark side or the dark side controls him? There seem to be some hints to his former humanity like his never-ending paranoia, but not much else.
So I think the story of Palpatine's fall is possible - and if it is well done, then why not? I don't think it would hurt him as a character if he is shown as being a badass before his fall.

I know that in real life psychopathy has a lot to do with development issue of the brain - but I'm not sure how this fact would fit into the greater Star Wars mythology.

 

I think the disagreement here is over whether “evil” should be portrayed as some sort of ontologically separate substance that villains in fiction possess or are derived from, or whether “evil” doesn’t exist beyond an abstraction and everything comes down to trauma and pathology.

I prefer the former honestly. I realize some folks disagree, but “pure evil” characters in my view belong in Star Wars.

There is room of course for characters that are broken, or are simply corrupted by their own moral failings or something whose neuroses and psychopathologies lead them to atrocity.

But not for Palpatine. In my view, he belongs squarely in the former category.

 

I too agree that the franchise needs an evil entity. But for me, that entity is the dark side of the force itself. Palpatine is a mere vessel that it occupies like so many others before it. It is corruption and the absence of harmony and natural balance.

The Jedi say that people get lost in the dark side. I believe that to be true. What a person once was gets buried and only rarely will they rediscover these parts of themselves that they buried. Yet that doesn't absolve them from crimes because they knew what they got into.

 

The dark side of the Force is not an entity. It isn't sentient and doesn't exist as something distinct from the Force itself, it's another dimension of it. The dark side is merely a corruption of the Force, one driven by the individuals that wield it. Lore aside, it isn't as interesting, at least to me, to assign the role of antagonist to a nebulous and immaterial concept with no presence, intelligence, or personality. Furthermore, the Skywalker Saga is not framed in this manner. Palpatine is the primary antagonist, not the dark side.