Discussion To Sith or not to Sith? -NSA Edition

I would counter that by saying, once a master is no longer of use to his strong apprentice, once he has taken all there is to gain from the master, there is no mind game in existence that will prevent the death of that master.

Even the weakened Vader is happy to plot the death of his master and take on his son as his apprentice. A son he knows has the power to destroy him.

 

Ah, but had Dooku squeezed everything he could from him at that point? And of even more importance, was Palpatine actually in a helpless state or just appearing to be? Dooku might have been smart enough to know that in a direct confrontation with Palpatine, Palpatine wins.

If I'm Dooku, and I know that Palpatine is planning to create a dictatorship, I wait and I let him. I don't kill him until his plan comes to fruition, and then I push him out of the way and take the spoils.

 

Jedi Merkurian

Captain Tom Coughlin


Wow, you guys are really going hard on this aren’t you too? Anyways I think you both are right, from a certain point of view.

OK, first off about the whole Sith are Selfless thing, I think your onto something there. These Sith are essential teaching their apprentices everything they know so that they too can essentially pass on what they have learned. The question remains though, are the Sith truly selfless? Sure maybe they are towards their cause but they are greedy, they could care less about their apprentices. To them they are disposable, but what about their reputation? Of course they can rule over the Galaxy, but if you think about it in the end even the greatest Sith will die eventually, and if they die by the hands of their former apprentice they will be forever known to be killed by the one they trained. In return the Master would get the credit for training his apprentice to kill him, which would give him a good name for future generations of Sith.


This is where your Selfless Sith Theory becomes flawed. Are the Sith truly selfless, would they be willing to teach their apprentice everything they know? According to Darth Sideous yes, but in reality what he told Anakin in that opera house wasn’t all the truth. Sideous told Anakin that his master taught him everything, yet Sideous still did not know how to stop people from dying. He told Anakin that they could learn the power if they worked together, but if Plagueis really taught Sideous everything he would not have needed Anakin’s help to learn such a power. This shows while the Sith do want their cause to continue, they are not truly selfless.





The Sith have become Iconic figures in Star Wars, so far they are in every movie, so I think the real question is what would the impact be if they removed the Sith. Would it be any different from removing the Jedi from Star Wars? How would the audience react, will they jump on the non-sith band wagon? If you take the Sith out of the picture, what will the general audience think about it, and what would the impact be?

 

Not really, because while we agree on some of this we differ on the very basic point that the Master knows that in the end this system leads to his death. A death that could be avoided by not adhering to the system. But they do adhere to it anyway, because it is their ideology. It strengthens the Sith.

Even in this example, eventually Dooku would find away to murder him. And if he can't, he isn't worthy and will be replaced with another apprentice more capable.

The point, the Master is always ultimately courting his own death, in adherence to Sith philosophy. He does so knowingly.

 

They will live as long as they can, but they still willingly uphold a tradition that ends in their death as a part of their ideal. That isn't textbook self interest.

It breeds a stronger Sith, but eventually they know they are the one that will be weeded out. It's an inherent part of the bargain. To willingly allow this is not acting purely in self interest.

 

I want to see a Spider-Man movie, but I don't want him to climb walls or spin webs. It's time for something new.........

And in the next THOR movie, I want him to have a screwdriver instead of a hammer. It's time for something new.....

And I don't think there should be mutants in the next X-Men movie. It's time for something new.......

I don't usually write posts like this, but I'm in a bad mood.

 

I don't feel like you were baiting me, I enjoyed our conversation

 

The term Sith didn't even show up until the fourth film. Star Wars became a classic without "Sith". A general movie audience isn;t going to care if you call the bad guys Sith, or willydillysilly

 

I would object to willydillysilly.......

Right, not Sith by name, but they are what they are.

 

It's not off topic, you can't discuss whether or not Sith should be in the sequels without discussing what it is to be Sith, or how the word is defined.

The very heart of our conversation is rooted in these questions, and why they either should or should not be in this set of sequels.

 

As evidenced by the concept that some of you have put forward, the "if it walks like a sith and talks like a sith then it's a sith" sentiment.

 

Well, whatever Abrams and Co. decide to do, only one thing is for sure regarding this.

Sith happens.

 

Just dug up an old fossil to kick start the split.

 

Obi-Wan came back in ESB and ROTJ after being killed and I didn't throw even the smallest piece of popcorn at the screen If the Jedi can come back as Force ghosts I'd feel a bit let down if a Sith as powerful as Sidious didn't do the same in VII.

I'm not ready to see the red glow of the Sith light sabre vanish from my SWs Universe just yet.

 

I just think that if Obi-Wan, Yoda, and Anakin have the power to come back why is it such a streatch that Sidious can do the same