StarDestroyer.Net BBS

NecronLord wrote:

Havok wrote:You have been making arguments for IN UNIVERSE reactions and actions.

You took issue with my use of the word murder, dipshit.

I know that the EVIL GALACTIC EMPIRE is an illegitimate organization that goes around murdering people. So do you.

Try not cherry picking quotes...

Havok wrote:Also "Murder" is an interesting term to use. Vader is the second in command of a galactic Empire. I would imagine Vader is within his legal right to execute officers in HIS military for insubordination, of course that is just an assumption on my part and beside my point.

First of all, I said it was an interesting term to use given the command structure of an EVIL GALACTIC EMPIRE. Second of all, I was making the observation as it pertains to the context IN UNIVERSE.

Stark wrote:

Havok wrote:Oh, he definitely knows he is in deep shit, but death is not the only option Vader has dolled out when he confronts failure. As we saw in ANH on the Tantive IV.

To be honest, this always suggested to me that Vader respected this sort of courage or firmness in his subordinates; perhaps there's a history of Vader brutally punishing those who fuck up and try to cover it up or hide behind subordinates, and being lenient on those who can man up and admit it.

Sadly, this was way too personal for Vader to let go.

I look at it this way as well. I just never pictured Vader as this murderous choking mad man. The way Leia, Motti and even Tarken talk to him suggests that that isn't his reputation at all.

[supernerdout] If you watch the scene when Needa gets choked and collapses, when the guards come to pick him up, it looks like he almost helps them a bit, like he is trying to get his own footing for a second, indicating that maybe Vader did indeed just choke the shit out of him until he passed out. Like, he really did accept his apology and didn't quite kill him. [/supernerdout]

Havok wrote:

Stark wrote:

Havok wrote:Oh, he definitely knows he is in deep shit, but death is not the only option Vader has dolled out when he confronts failure. As we saw in ANH on the Tantive IV.

To be honest, this always suggested to me that Vader respected this sort of courage or firmness in his subordinates; perhaps there's a history of Vader brutally punishing those who fuck up and try to cover it up or hide behind subordinates, and being lenient on those who can man up and admit it.

Sadly, this was way too personal for Vader to let go.

I look at it this way as well. I just never pictured Vader as this murderous choking mad man. The way Leia, Motti and even Tarken talk to him suggests that that isn't his reputation at all.

If I've understood correctly, Vader had a reputation for extreme, swift and even murderous ruthlessness that made even Tarkin squeamish from time to time (not because he was morally opposed to it, but because he didn't like the idea of that power turned against him). Junior officers feared him like God's wrath and upper echelons of power were wary and fearful of him.

That said... Vader was not someone who would kill on a whim or without any reason. Needa is just about the only one who had that unfortunate fate; Ozzel was a generally incompetent fuck-up and had pissed Vader off in the past already; Motti was an arrogant fool who thought he was somehow safe from Vader's attention; etc. In fact Vader's actions show that he tolerates dissenting opinions and is willing to admit when they are right (Dark Lord: Rise of Darth Vader shows such scene when his planned invasion of Kashyyyk doesn't go according to his plans; and remember the junior stormtrooper officer in ANH who gets away with talking back to Vader). Vader is respected by men on the field since he is not above doing dirty work himself and doesn't hide behind desk and hogging all the glory later on. He also shows no consideration for someone's political or familial background - he judges people on their achievements and merits (Piett, for example, who didn't have Core World connections, unlike Ozzel). Many of the Empire's best gathered around him on Executor because they knew that Vader didn't have patience for backroom dealings and would promote someone based not on connections but on what one had done and achieved. That is not to say that Vader didn't know how to play the system when it suited him but apparently he preferred the straight-forward method. He was not a simple-minded brute, after all, he just didn't like politics that much (I wonder where he got that from, being trained by Obi-Wan Kenobi, a man noted for his disrespect for politicians...).

Hell, Anakin's dislike of politics was very clear in the Prequels.

Of course, this attitude will not serve him well if he's trying to replace Palpatine.

Havok wrote: Try not cherry picking quotes...

First of all, I said it was an interesting term to use given the command structure of an EVIL GALACTIC EMPIRE. Second of all, I was making the observation as it pertains to the context IN UNIVERSE.

I am not a fictional star wars character in the fictional star wars universe; but even many of them accuse the Galactic Empire of having no legal right to exist.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Hell, Anakin's dislike of politics was very clear in the Prequels.

Of course, this attitude will not serve him well if he's trying to replace Palpatine.

Why? Why do you have to play at politics when you say jump, and the stormtroopers point their guns and everyone then says, "how high".
That has been my point.

Why wouldn't people get their status from Vader just as they would with Palpatine? Why does the military stop following Vader, even though they do his bidding without hesitation already? Since when does an Emperor that is above reproach, can see the future, and has no fear of anyone or anything alive, with just cause, need to play at politics? Especially in an Empire where politics have been eliminated?

You guys are seriously confusing what Palpatine DID with what Darth Sidious, The Emperor was DOING. What politics did Palpatine need to play at after he dissolved what was left of the Imperial Senate? Even if you take the EU into account, Palpatine didn't deal with anyone but the most powerful, and even they paled to his position. And everyone that ever attempted to thwart Vader or his position ended up dead, no matter how cunning or well planned out their attempts were. Why does this change without Palpatine around, when Vader becomes the Avatar of the Dark Side?

The Empire is afraid of Palpatine because he has Vader and his military, which Vader commands, despite retarded claims to the contrary. So again, why does that fall apart when what and who you are fearful of in the first place, now becomes the Emperor? Totalitarian states are run on fear, in all it's forms. Vader, even moreso that Palpatine, in the public eye, personifies that, yet for some reason, the Empire dissolves with Vader on the thrown... WHY?

Now if you want to say Vader can't run the bureaucracy of the Empire... OK, fine. However neither could Palpatine without help. Why wouldn't Vader have that same help?

NecronLord wrote:

Havok wrote: Try not cherry picking quotes...

First of all, I said it was an interesting term to use given the command structure of an EVIL GALACTIC EMPIRE. Second of all, I was making the observation as it pertains to the context IN UNIVERSE.

I am not a fictional star wars character in the fictional star wars universe; but even many of them accuse the Galactic Empire of having no legal right to exist.

Even the 2000 realized that legally, Palpatine had the legal right to do what he did, because THEY VOTED HIM THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO. They just realized what they had done too late, but it was still legal. And again, accusation and PROOF are two different things. No one has proof of Palpatine's treason. No one has proof that Darth Sidious even existed.

And yes, you and I know that the Empire is evil, but we are not discussing that. We are talking about why Vader, in the context of his universe, can or can not successfully assume the throne of the Empire if Palpatine died.

Havok wrote: And yes, you and I know that the Empire is evil, but we are not discussing that. We are talking about why Vader, in the context of his universe, can or can not successfully assume the throne of the Empire if Palpatine died.

There might be legal troubles, though - it's very possible (I'd say almost certain, in fact, if we count the EU material) that there wasn't any legal way for anyone to actually inherit the throne. The Imperial constitution might simply state that the Emperor is the head of state and of the government but there's no clause as to what will happen when the sovereign dies or abdicates. Certainly no one (seriously) claimed the throne for themselves in the aftermath of Palpatine's death - Sate Pestage acted as regent, as far as I can tell, and neither did Isard proclaim herself empress. Of course if Vader retains the loyalty of the military he can simply force the issue to his satisfaction like many emperors did in Roman times.

Tiriol wrote:

Havok wrote:

Stark wrote:To be honest, this always suggested to me that Vader respected this sort of courage or firmness in his subordinates; perhaps there's a history of Vader brutally punishing those who fuck up and try to cover it up or hide behind subordinates, and being lenient on those who can man up and admit it.

Sadly, this was way too personal for Vader to let go.

I look at it this way as well. I just never pictured Vader as this murderous choking mad man. The way Leia, Motti and even Tarken talk to him suggests that that isn't his reputation at all.

If I've understood correctly, Vader had a reputation for extreme, swift and even murderous ruthlessness that made even Tarkin squeamish from time to time (not because he was morally opposed to it, but because he didn't like the idea of that power turned against him). Junior officers feared him like God's wrath and upper echelons of power were wary and fearful of him.

I could go along with this based on what we know of Anakin's temperament and what I'm sure it is distorted to as a Sith Lord. Leia is pretty mouthy too.

That said... Vader was not someone who would kill on a whim or without any reason. Needa is just about the only one who had that unfortunate fate; Ozzel was a generally incompetent fuck-up and had pissed Vader off in the past already; Motti was an arrogant fool who thought he was somehow safe from Vader's attention; etc. In fact Vader's actions show that he tolerates dissenting opinions and is willing to admit when they are right (Dark Lord: Rise of Darth Vader shows such scene when his planned invasion of Kashyyyk doesn't go according to his plans; and remember the junior stormtrooper officer in ANH who gets away with talking back to Vader). Vader is respected by men on the field since he is not above doing dirty work himself and doesn't hide behind desk and hogging all the glory later on. He also shows no consideration for someone's political or familial background - he judges people on their achievements and merits (Piett, for example, who didn't have Core World connections, unlike Ozzel). Many of the Empire's best gathered around him on Executor because they knew that Vader didn't have patience for backroom dealings and would promote someone based not on connections but on what one had done and achieved. That is not to say that Vader didn't know how to play the system when it suited him but apparently he preferred the straight-forward method. He was not a simple-minded brute, after all, he just didn't like politics that much (I wonder where he got that from, being trained by Obi-Wan Kenobi, a man noted for his disrespect for politicians...).

Yeah, but I don't think Qui-Gon would have helped him any better here. I forgot about that on Kashyyyk as well. Even though I am not a complete fan of how Vader has been handled in those two books, they fall close enough to the character that they certainly don't contradict anything.

Tiriol wrote:

Havok wrote: And yes, you and I know that the Empire is evil, but we are not discussing that. We are talking about why Vader, in the context of his universe, can or can not successfully assume the throne of the Empire if Palpatine died.

There might be legal troubles, though - it's very possible (I'd say almost certain, in fact, if we count the EU material) that there wasn't any legal way for anyone to actually inherit the throne. The Imperial constitution might simply state that the Emperor is the head of state and of the government but there's no clause as to what will happen when the sovereign dies or abdicates. Certainly no one (seriously) claimed the throne for themselves in the aftermath of Palpatine's death - Sate Pestage acted as regent, as far as I can tell, and neither did Isard proclaim herself empress. Of course if Vader retains the loyalty of the military he can simply force the issue to his satisfaction like many emperors did in Roman times.

EU aside though, we know that Palpatine needs and wants to continue Sith dominance of the galaxy. If not in Vader, then in Luke, as we saw on screen. It is just as reasonable to believe that there are provisions in place the put Darth Sidious's apprentice on the throne, assuming he has not learned the secret to immortality, which at the time of ROTJ, he obviously hasn't if he is looking for an even MORE powerful replacement for Vader, and in essence, himself.

Palpatine believes in the way of the Sith and he is not going to let his Empire crumble after his death if he doesn't manage to achieve his ultimate goal.

Havok wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:Hell, Anakin's dislike of politics was very clear in the Prequels.

Of course, this attitude will not serve him well if he's trying to replace Palpatine.

Why? Why do you have to play at politics when you say jump, and the stormtroopers point their guns and everyone then says, "how high".
That has been my point.

Why wouldn't people get their status from Vader just as they would with Palpatine? Why does the military stop following Vader, even though they do his bidding without hesitation already? Since when does an Emperor that is above reproach, can see the future, and has no fear of anyone or anything alive, with just cause, need to play at politics? Especially in an Empire where politics have been eliminated?

You guys are seriously confusing what Palpatine DID with what Darth Sidious, The Emperor was DOING. What politics did Palpatine need to play at after he dissolved what was left of the Imperial Senate? Even if you take the EU into account, Palpatine didn't deal with anyone but the most powerful, and even they paled to his position. And everyone that ever attempted to thwart Vader or his position ended up dead, no matter how cunning or well planned out their attempts were. Why does this change without Palpatine around, when Vader becomes the Avatar of the Dark Side?

The Empire is afraid of Palpatine because he has Vader and his military, which Vader commands, despite retarded claims to the contrary. So again, why does that fall apart when what and who you are fearful of in the first place, now becomes the Emperor? Totalitarian states are run on fear, in all it's forms. Vader, even moreso that Palpatine, in the public eye, personifies that, yet for some reason, the Empire dissolves with Vader on the thrown... WHY?

Now if you want to say Vader can't run the bureaucracy of the Empire... OK, fine. However neither could Palpatine without help. Why wouldn't Vader have that same help?

Palpatine was once a politician. He understood and could manipulate politics. He manipulated the Senate well enough to transition seamlessly from 'republic' to 'constitutional monarchy' (which is probably how a lot of senators imagined the government would look in Ep. III, with the Senate at least continuing to matter), and then to 'absolute dictatorship.'

Originally, the Senate was holding all the cards, and Palpatine was able to take those cards, and move them into his hands largely with the consent of the people (since he didn't yet have the armed force to compel obedience). Moreover, he was then able to deal the cards out by delegating authority, while still keeping enough mutually balanced power blocs (Tarkin, Vader, the imperial bureaucracy, the imperial intelligence services) that none of them grew powerful enough to threaten his own position.

This is a skill that Vader lacks. Vader replaces this skill with the use of personal terror. He's not stupid or a brute, but he has very little, if any, political subtlety. So the real question is: can Vader manage a complicated political environment where he must master ALL aspects of the Imperial state, not just maintain his own specialist position as Palpatine's hatchet-man and confidant?

Palpatine's political skill was such that he could easily outmaneuver any opposition within the state- we know this because he did exactly that to secure power in the first place. Where is the evidence of Vader's political skill? Without that skill, and without people who are personally loyal to him, not just in the sense of 'will obey' but in the sense of 'actively seek to further his interests,' he's not going to make all that good an emperor. Nobody does.

Who does Vader have who's loyal to him that way, the way that people like Himmler and Goebbels were to Hitler? Men who could be trusted with independent power over political features of the state, because the dictator could depend on them to further his interests, and not their own, so long as he lived?

Havok wrote:EU aside though, we know that Palpatine needs and wants to continue Sith dominance of the galaxy...

How? I mean, we see evidence that Palpatine values his Sith knowledge, but is there evidence that he views it as important enough to risk being overthrown by an apprentice as a 'real' Sith would?

Palpatine in the movies has a history of taking on damaged apprentices- Maul, who's a brute, Dooku, who's old and somewhat limited in power compared to the great masters, and Vader, who very quickly winds up mutilated and weakened and so psychologically dependent on Palpatine that it's almost impossible to imagine Vader betraying him except under the incredibly extreme circumstances we see in RotJ.

Why does he do that? Is it because that's the best he can find? Or is that because he legitimately fears the idea of taking on a Sith apprentice to serve as confidant, hatchet-man, and enabler of his schemes, but who is potentially stronger than he is?

You know, for the longest time I thought Vader spared Needa, because the actor stands up on his own when the guards pick him up.

I always thought it was a bit funny how Piett looks like he's about to have a nervous breakdown right after the Falcon escapes and the crew are all watching Vader for his reaction.

Simon_Jester wrote:How? I mean, we see evidence that Palpatine values his Sith knowledge, but is there evidence that he views it as important enough to risk being overthrown by an apprentice as a 'real' Sith would?

"Once more the Sith will rule the galaxy."
"Darth Vader will become more powerful than either of us!"

Of course, in ESB, the Emperor goes from worrying that Luke can't be allowed to become a Jedi because he could destroy them, to letting Vader try and turn him to the Dark Side because he would be a "powerful ally." If you want to go one step further and use the novelizations, Vader expected the Emperor would die.

Why does he do that? Is it because that's the best he can find?

Yes. He tells Greivous that Dooku's death was neccesary to make room for a younger, stronger apprentice.

Minor point nobody answered.

Ryag Han wrote:no, not really. legally is the key world here. Palpy never actually had any real successor. Tarkin is a Grand Moff, while Thrawn a Grand Admiral. im not sure which one has a higher position.

Apples and oranges. Grand Moff is a political position (a regional governor if I remember correctly) and Grand Admiral is a military rank. Therefore, I'd pick Tarkin over Thrawn for rulership of the Empire. To use a real-world analogy, putting Thrawn on the throne would be like putting the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the Oval Office instead of the Vice President.

I have no idea what would happen to Thrawn in said situation, given that though Tarkin is an anti-nonhuman bigot in the EU (shows up as early as Rogue Planet, 29 BBY), he also recognizes genius when he sees it (ref. Qwi Xux in Jedi Search and Adm. Daala's backstory in Darksaber).

TC Pilot wrote:

Why does he do that? Is it because that's the best he can find?

Yes. He tells Greivous that Dooku's death was neccesary to make room for a younger, stronger apprentice.

It is also be a mistake on Simon_Jester's part to think of Dooku as a second rate apprentice. He is strong in the Force, one of the best swordsmen in the Jedi Order, and also wealthy and respected. Dooku's strength in combat is very clear in the films- he swiftly beats both Anakin and Kenobi in Attack of the Clones, and is an even match for Yoda. He takes out Kenobi once again in Revenge of the Sith. And the same is shown to be true in both Clone Wars series- he easily owns Ventress and he's a match for Grevious as well.