Aeneas_Falco Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 (edited) One of the problems faced by the Sith, and one they've never truly been able to control, is the near constant infighting. Apprentices plot against their Masters and paranoid Masters seek to eliminate and/or replace Apprentices that have outlived their usefulness. As a result they are never quite able to present a unified front against the Jedi, and that lack of unity in comparison to the Jedi is most likely the primary reason why the Jedi have enjoyed both more frequent and longer periods of galactic dominance. The Sith tried to correct the problem with the Rule of Two, but even that never truly eliminated Sith infighting, and it created the additional problem of there not being enough Sith to maintain galactic dominance once it had been achieved. Darth Sidious may have been the most successful Sith Lord to have ever lived, but his Empire was brought down to a crashing ruin after only a few decades by a single Jedi. Presumably Luke's task would have been much more difficult had there still been hundreds or thousands of Sith running around. The reason why the Sith were never able to quite get a handle on this problem IMO, is because it is caused by the very nature of the Dark Side. It is immersion in the Dark Side that causes the lust for power, jealousy, hatred, and paranoia at the root of conflict between Masters and Apprentices. The Sith can't change because the problem isn't with their order, its with the aspect of the Force that they utilize. So rather than try to eliminate it, why not try to control it? Given that in the Star Wars universe advanced cybernetics exist (as well as cyborgs), I'm surprised that no Sith Lord has tried to dominate his minions with control chips. Obviously that would be a lot harder to implement when there are thousands of Sith in existence, all of which could presumably rebel against such a policy. But there were other periods when the Sith had been reduced (either by choice or by the Jedi) to only a few individuals, and it would not have been inconceivable that the most powerful among them could have subdued his apprentice(s) and had them implanted with a control chip. If they could be implanted with control chips that prevented them from raising a hand against their master, that master could then rebuilt an order of hundreds or thousands of Sith, and direct them in a single front against the Jedi and the Republic. That supreme Sith Master would also be the final arbiter determining which Apprentices would replace which Masters, eliminating the constant infighting by placing all 'promotions' in his or her hands. He (or she) alone would determine who lives and who dies and who rises and fails in the hierarchy. Of course robbing your subordinates of their free will and effectively enslaving them, is a horrifying atrocity. But when have such things ever concerned the Sith? Is there any reason why this would not have been practical within the lore? Edited December 23, 2013 by Aeneas_Falco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callaron Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 Not sure if you've ever played an Imperial Agent, but... have you ever seen Darth Jadus' creepy minions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captaincr Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 That would go against everything Sith. I mean fine you could do that to the Slave species, or your enemy, but the Sith would see that solution as a weakening of their order. Basically if you look at it, a Sith only fears two things, death and being dominated, those two fears force them to become stronger and to strive to greater power. Having a zombie apprentice for example would mean that your not being challenged and because your not challenged you would become weak. At the same time the Sith know that the best way to train their apprentice is to have them desire your station in life and your power, and the only way to achieve those things is to strive to be better. It was later refined in the rule of two. Two there are no less, one to embody power and one to crave it. If you get bested by someone lesser then you then you were weak and the empire is stronger because a stronger more determined Sith is taking your place. Its the ultimate in brutalist evolution. If you look at the Sith Emperor he became undeniably strong because he was pretty much encouraged to become powerful by destroying the weaker Sith and using them for his purposes, however if someone came along that looked at the emperor with not fear but desire, who was motivated by not only that desire but fear of failing to achieve his goal of defeating the Emperor and being cast aside and managed to succeed the Empire would have a stronger emperor. If you look at the rule of two for example, every Sith Lord aspired to greater power and destroyed their master once they surpassed them it lead to more and more powerful Sith Lords. In the end Sideous was more powerful then Plageous, who was more powerful then his master and so on. Sideous was probably several times more powerful and better evolved then a great Sith Lord like Bane. If you look at the story line, the Sith Warrior was driven by his anger, need for revenge and desire to become more powerful then Baris and destroyed him and the Sith Empire would have benefited from it in the long run. Baris didn't evolve fast enough and was cast aside because in the eyes of the Sith legacy he became weak. Its the same in the Sith Inquisitor story, the Sith Inquisitor was driven by desire for power fueled by his previous station as the lowest of the low in the slave pens, he/she rose to become far more powerful then two Sith Masters and cast them aside and took their place, basically the dark council became a more powerful group because of that. If you implanted cyber chips into your apprentice and they represented no threat to you, then you would become complacent and the Sith Order would be weaker and there would be no succession plan because your apprentices were weak. I'm pretty sure if a Sith Master did this it wouldn't be long until the emperors Wraith was knocking at his door with a light saber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callaron Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 (edited) If you look at the rule of two for example, every Sith Lord aspired to greater power and destroyed their master once they surpassed them it lead to more and more powerful Sith Lords. In the end Sideous was more powerful then Plageous, who was more powerful then his master and so on. Sideous was probably several times more powerful and better evolved then a great Sith Lord like Bane. Errr, Sidious isn't exactly a good example there... Plagueis planned to be appointed co-chancellor of the Republic so that he may advise Sidious from the dark. But his apprentice had other plans. Sidious, convinced that his master had outlived his usefulness, eventually killed the Muun in his sleep the night before his election and eventually rose to become ruler of the Galactic Empire. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darth_Plagueis He violated the rule of two completely. Edited December 23, 2013 by Callaron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captaincr Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 I would solidly disagree, Plagieus forgot one of the major rules laid down by Bane, hell Bane even forgot the whole guile and cunning thing. A Apprentice doesn't have to destroy his master by crossing sabers with him and exchanging force lightning. Palpatine was several more times powerful then most other Sith Lords because he mixed subtleness with political acumen. He basically maneuvered Plageius throughout that whole book letting his master think he was driving thngs, but Palpatine used his master to gain the levers of the republic political system and when his master was no use anymore and when Palpatine said its time not to share power but to seize power he did it in the simplest way possible, he waited until his master trusted him completely, got him drunk then killed him with no threat to himself. Sith Lords up until that point I believe always thought that it was going to come down to a confrontation with the Jedi, Palpatine saw (thanks to the force) that there was a new way. Where Palpatine failed was it became too easy for him and he became complacent. His manipulations to gain power and Vader were brilliant. His attempted seduction of Luke was kind of lazy and he trusted his power over Vader way to much. What destroyed the Sith was Vader's compassion for his son, otherwise Vader would have supplanted Palpatine as the new dark lord of the Sith by doing to Palpatine what Palpatine did to his master. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts