He was just a spoiled little rich kid with daddy issues. His biggest hardships growing up were bouncing from prep school to prep school (he kept getting himself expelled) & covering up whenever he ran over some civilian in his sports-car (which he seemed to keep doing). He turns to the dark side to 'get back at daddy' then proceeds to slaughter his entire family 'just because'.

Pretty lame for the 'greatest sith lord of all time' imo.

Pretty lame for the 'greatest sith lord of all time' imo.

Hm. And Luke Skywalker was just some farmboy on a backwater planet.

Must one have an 'epic backstory' to become powerful? Luke and Palpatine beg to differ.

Edit: Also, Anakin Skywalker was just a slave on Tatooine. Not exactly epic compared to what he was destined to do.

Hm. And Luke Skywalker was just some farmboy on a backwater planet.

 

Must one have an 'epic backstory' to become powerful? Luke and Palpatine beg to differ.

This humble begginings to me are better starts then anything else .... just some person who no one would have expected to mean anything to any one any where ends up becoming one of the most influencial and most important people to ever exist...... its a big deal and its pretty much to tell audience members ...... any one any where can make a difference and become important and big with work.

Both Luke and Anakin had difficult childhoods, & faced hardships growing up. They weren't spoiled, pampered brats. That is my point.

Lol.... sounds like Leia a little..... or hell sounds exactly like the childhood of some one who would one day become a very corrupt pollitition and sith lord...... oh wait. My point is that's the exact kind of child hood you would expect one like him to grow up in he was so arrogant and cocky because he never had anything not go his way.

I don't mean it wasn't epic enough. Both Luke and Anakin had difficult childhoods, & faced hardships growing up. Something many people can relate to. They weren't spoiled, pampered brats. That is my point.

Not every backstory needs to have someone go through difficult hardships and all that noise.

I follow what you mean, but it does not bother me. I kinda like that he is an elitist

Besides, after the prequels Palpatine is still the best bad guy.

Vader was and emotional wreck and Whiney little punk

Boba Fett was a glorifiied clone trooper and not really the mandalorian I thought he was

So, Palps may be a rich spoiled aristocrate but its acceptable

They weren't spoiled, pampered brats. That is my point.

But this might well be what drove Palpatine to become what he became. Maybe his elite lifestyle is what made him feel entitled to anything he wanted? After all, if he's been told he can have anything then why not go out and get it?

I don't mean it wasn't epic enough. Both Luke and Anakin had difficult childhoods, & faced hardships growing up. Something many people can relate to. They weren't spoiled, pampered brats. That is my point.

I think plenty of people can relate to that. I can myself as well.

I don't mean it wasn't epic enough. Both Luke and Anakin had difficult childhoods, & faced hardships growing up. Something many people can relate to. They weren't spoiled, pampered brats. That is my point.

In a way, I feel this is one of the minor faults of the Bane trilogy. Bane has a difficult childhood and a lot of the time has to overcome obstacles you would associate with the 'hero' so the whole idea that at Bane is evil is kind of lost. Bane doesn't feel evil to me. But perhaps that's what the reader intended.

On the other hand Palpatine is a egoistical, meglomanical, sociopath - its only makes sense that he was a spoiled, arrogant brat as a child. Neither do you become a Senator by being born into a poor background, unless you get lucky. As senator of Naboo he was bound to come from a wealthy family from the start.

If Palpatine had had the childhood of Darth Bane, he would not have become the character that we see in the movies. I mean, Bane and Palpatine are very different characters, and there upbringing accounts for that.

So yeah, while its nice to have the whole 'hardships' thing going on - that wouldn't have worked for Palpatine as he would not have ended up being the character he tunrs out to be. In the words of Plagueis: 'heartless, ambitious, arrogant, insidious, and without shame or empathy. More, you're a murderer.' He killed his family because he hated them, and they were in the way of his ambitions and desire for power.

Nonetheless I like Plagueis' background better, although I think the whole 'evil child' trope can only be used once and not rinsed and repeated for the next bad guy. However I feel both work very well for the character they are trying to establish. You have to remember that different characters have to have differing childhoods - because they shape their personalities. Sometimes the 'hardships and humble beginnings' card can't be pulled, because it would lead to an entirely different personality.

Boba Fett was a glorifiied clone trooper and not really the mandalorian I thought he was

As an exact clone of Jango I'd say he's as much a mandalorian as dolly the sheep was a sheep.

As an exact clone of Jango I'd say he's as much a mandalorian as dolly the sheep was a sheep.

That wouldn't have exactly worked as the concept of 'difficult childhoods' and 'humble beginnings' tend to be the origins of good characters not bad ones. Because overcoming obstacles are concepts we associate with protagonists, which in turn we associate with heroes. Palpatine is not a hero, and yet he is in a sense a protagonist. So obstacles had to be put in his way, yet these obstacles had to be insidious i.e. obstacles you don't need to overcome but simply want to to achieve more power. E.g. killing your family to release yourself from their restrictions.

 

In a way, I feel this is one of the minor faults of the Bane trilogy. Bane has a difficult childhood and a lot of the time has to overcome obstacles you would associate with the 'hero' so the whole idea that at Bane is evil is kind of lost. Bane doesn't feel evil to me. But perhaps that's what the reader intended.

 

On the other hand Palpatine is a egoistical, meglomanical, sociopath - its only makes sense that he was a spoiled, arrogant brat as a child. Neither do you become a Senator by being born into a poor background, unless you get lucky. As senator of Naboo he was bound to come from a wealthy family from the start.

 

If Palpatine had had the childhood of Darth Bane, he would not have become the character that we see in the movies. I mean, Bane and Palpatine are very different characters, and there upbringing accounts for that.

 

So yeah, while its nice to have the whole 'hardships' thing going on - that wouldn't have worked for Palpatine as he would not have ended up being the character he tunrs out to be. In the words of Plagueis: 'heartless, ambitious, arrogant, insidious, and without shame or empathy. More, you're a murderer.' He killed his family because he hated them, and they were in the way of his ambitions and desire for power.

 

Nonetheless I like Plagueis' background better, although I think the whole 'evil child' trope can only be used once and not rinsed and repeated for the next bad guy. However I feel both work very well for the character they are trying to establish. You have to remember that different characters have to have differing childhoods - because they shape their personalities. Sometimes the 'hardships and humble beginnings' card can't be pulled, because it would lead to an entirely different personality.

Your post is most insightful. I had not thought of it that way. I agree with this, & thank you for taking the time to post it.

He was just some spoilt greedy child.

If anything, regardless of his force powers, he would still have managed to get into politics and create the Galactic Empire. He would still have his vast knowledge of the Sith and would probably still control the Sith somewhat, or at least some of them.

Your post is most insightful. I had not thought of it that way. I agree with this, & thank you for taking the time to post it.

But yeah I love this book and its easily one of the best I've ever read, so I more than happy to explain why I think its so great!

That wouldn't have exactly worked as the concept of 'difficult childhoods' and 'humble beginnings' tend to be the origins of good characters not bad ones. Because overcoming obstacles are concepts we associate with protagonists, which in turn we associate with heroes. Palpatine is not a hero, and yet he is in a sense a protagonist. So obstacles had to be put in his way, yet these obstacles had to be insidious i.e. obstacles you don't need to overcome but simply want to to achieve more power. E.g. killing your family to release yourself from their restrictions.

 

In a way, I feel this is one of the minor faults of the Bane trilogy. Bane has a difficult childhood and a lot of the time has to overcome obstacles you would associate with the 'hero' so the whole idea that at Bane is evil is kind of lost. Bane doesn't feel evil to me. But perhaps that's what the reader intended.

 

On the other hand Palpatine is a egoistical, meglomanical, sociopath - its only makes sense that he was a spoiled, arrogant brat as a child. Neither do you become a Senator by being born into a poor background, unless you get lucky. As senator of Naboo he was bound to come from a wealthy family from the start.

 

If Palpatine had had the childhood of Darth Bane, he would not have become the character that we see in the movies. I mean, Bane and Palpatine are very different characters, and there upbringing accounts for that.

 

So yeah, while its nice to have the whole 'hardships' thing going on - that wouldn't have worked for Palpatine as he would not have ended up being the character he tunrs out to be. In the words of Plagueis: 'heartless, ambitious, arrogant, insidious, and without shame or empathy. More, you're a murderer.' He killed his family because he hated them, and they were in the way of his ambitions and desire for power.

 

Nonetheless I like Plagueis' background better, although I think the whole 'evil child' trope can only be used once and not rinsed and repeated for the next bad guy. However I feel both work very well for the character they are trying to establish. You have to remember that different characters have to have differing childhoods - because they shape their personalities. Sometimes the 'hardships and humble beginnings' card can't be pulled, because it would lead to an entirely different personality.

I see your point in regards to Bane not feeling evil while reading the Bane trilogy. There were a couple times in that trilogy that he does very evil acts (ie, book 1 where he slaughters a father and sons to fuel his push to see Caleb) but in general I agree. Also something to mention is that in the Plagueis novel the only outright evil act in the novel that is not a flashback I can think of that Palpatine does is kill his family as I don't consider killing Plagueis outright evil. Using that same prompt, Plagueis only killed those members of the of that cargo ship in the beginning of whom they were thinking of ransoming him and then hunting down some nobles after they tried to assassinate him. Bane only killed when it served his purpose and notes that he is annoyed with the ruthless ancient Sith whom he considers to be foolish in this regard. Palpatine, and especially Plagueis, honestly believed it was in the best interest of the galaxy to have an authoritarian government in that novel. Most important I think it is to note that in all four of these books, the Sith are whom the plot centers around. If they were ruthless and merciless monsters I don't think the books would be received well. In other EU stories where this is not the case (ie most of them), you see them depicting the Sith differently.

Back to the original prompt. I was not disappointed in general but there was a curious inconsistency I would like to share/get fellow thoughts. In Episode 1, Qui-Gon Jinn says that if Anakin was born in the Republic they would've identified him as a Force user. Palpatine is on a core-world (I think?) in Naboo but was not identified until Plagueis' visit when Palpatine was 17ish. The novel states that humans are harder to read in terms of potential. Thoughts anyone??

in the Plagueis novel the only outright evil act in the novel that is not a flashback I can think of that Palpatine does is kill his family as I don't consider killing Plagueis outright evil. Using that same prompt, Plagueis only killed those members of the of that cargo ship in the beginning of whom they were thinking of ransoming him and then hunting down some nobles after they tried to assassinate him. Bane only killed when it served his purpose and notes that he is annoyed with the ruthless ancient Sith whom he considers to be foolish in this regard. Palpatine, and especially Plagueis, honestly believed it was in the best interest of the galaxy to have an authoritarian government in that novel.

Indeed, and imo an empire under Plagueis would have been far better, somewhat similar to the Fel Empire centuries later. The justice system would be harsh but fair. There would be no anti-alien bias. Although he would still have probably wiped out the jedi.

Back to the original prompt. I was not disappointed in general but there was a curious inconsistency I would like to share/get fellow thoughts. In Episode 1, Qui-Gon Jinn says that if Anakin was born in the Republic they would've identified him as a Force user. Palpatine is on a core-world (I think?) in Naboo but was not identified until Plagueis' visit when Palpatine was 17ish. The novel states that humans are harder to read in terms of potential. Thoughts anyone??

Actually Naboo is a mid rim world & before the events of the novel it was just a backwater planet that no one had heard of. It did not even have a proper spaceport.

But more importantly Palpatine was able to conceal his powers from even Plagueis who was at the time one of the few people in the galaxy who could tell directly if a person was force sensitive or not (the jedi of the time relied on a blood test).

From the novel:

Again he tried to see deeper into Palpatine, but without success. The psychic walls the youth had raised were impenetrable, which made the young human something rare indeed. Had Palpatine somehow learned to corral the Force within himself, as Plagueis had concealed his own powers as a youth?

Indeed, and imo an empire under Plagueis would have been far better, somewhat similar to the Fel Empire centuries later. The justice system would be harsh but fair. There would be no anti-alien bias. Although he would still have probably wiped out the jedi.

 

 

 

Actually Naboo is a mid rim world & before the events of the novel it was just a backwater planet that no one had heard of. It did not even have a proper spaceport.

 

But more importantly Palpatine was able to conceal his powers from even Plagueis who was at the time one of the few people in the galaxy who could tell directly if a person was force sensitive or not (the jedi of the time relied on a blood test).

 

From the novel:

Thanks for the info and clarification; been a while since read the book. Also, agree with and liked your thoughts in regards to that Plagueis/Palpatine shared empire. Too bad Palgueis tried to abolish the Rule of Two

As an exact clone of Jango I'd say he's as much a mandalorian as dolly the sheep was a sheep.

You do realize that any species could be a Mandalorian. Mando's don't care what you are, they care WHO you are if you are family. Get adopted you are mando. Doesn't take much.

And as far as Palpatine's story. Who cares, he was a spoiled rich kid. Being a Sith or jedi comes from all walks of life.

Doesn't mean you have to be a slave, politican, smuggler, whatever. Any walk of life, if you have the aptitude with the force, you can do amazing things.

You do realize that any species could be a Mandalorian. Mando's don't care what you are, they care WHO you are if you are family. Get adopted you are mando. Doesn't take much..

yes, I thought that as I was replying but still. He was cloned from a mandalorian and raised as a mandalorian...

what more is needed?

The book was very boring. Its funny how I can take crap put a cover with the name skywalker/palpatine and people will love it. The book was boring from start to finish.

That's your opinion, I suppose.

Tell me, what did you dislike about it? Poilitcal intrigue? The formation of the Grand Plan? The fleshing out of Plagueis' backstory?