What If? The Sith do not return?

[johnreiter]

What if Darth Gravid (the Sith lord from the Baneite order who turned to the light side) succeeded in destroying all the knowledge of the Sith collected by the Order of the Sith Lords and killing his apprentice?


What would happen to people like Hego Damask and Palpatine in this timeline, where there are no Sith to train them?
And how would the events of the prequel trilogy play out without the Sith to influence them?

 

[ATP]

What if Darth Gravid (the Sith lord from the Baneite order who turned to the light side) succeeded in destroying all the knowledge of the Sith collected by the Order of the Sith Lords and killing his apprentice?


What would happen to people like Hego Damask and Palpatine in this timeline, where there are no Sith to train them?
And how would the events of the prequel trilogy play out without the Sith to influence them?

No empire,but Republic would still fall - it was failure as space state.Worst case scenario - Vong eat them,when they finally come.

 

[Skallagrim]

In fact, the Republic was extremely successful, until the Banite Sith managed to actively subvert it. At the same time, the Sith were also manipulating events to drive the Jedi Order into more of an 'ivory tower' of isolation, which caused the Jedi to become unhealthily dogmatic and inflexible. That was paired with the 'shroud of the Dark Side' (which strengthened as the Sith increased their influence), that was able to block the Jedi ability to glimpse the future and choose the right paths with wisdom.

If the Sith go extinct early enough, then the most likely outcome is that the Republic continues to flourish, and the Jedi Order remains well-positioned to handle any problems as they emerge, before they become serious problems. The Sith-cultivated and Sith-engineered corruption and gridlock will not come to dominate.

Note also that the warping Sith influence on the Force appears to have caused the number of Jedi to have diminished in the latter stage of the Republic's history. So without the Sith, you'd have more Jedi.

Should the Vong appear down the line, their victory is by no means assured. The Republic would be under-developed militarily, having enjoyed over a millennium of general peace. They'd have to invest in a crash militarisation programme, and even then, they'd be on the back foot. On the other hand, uncorrupted, the Republic was highly dynamic, and enjoyed a vibrant free market-- which is the most effective economy. Also, while short of military prowess, the galaxy would have been spared the (deliberately!) horrible bureaucratic mismanagement of Palpatine's reign, as well as the massive destruction of the civil war. This would allow for an adequate response on short notice, without bureaucratic stupidity.

Most importantly, however, there would be many tens of thousands of Jedi, at the very peak of their power, and in tune with the Force just as they should be. The Vong wouldn't be facing Luke's recently-founded new Order. They'd be facing a Jedi Order at its height-- well-established, and never weakened by outside manipulation.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

In addition, for the Vong, they would NOT have encountered a Galaxy fragmented. The Vong infiltrators would have MUCH less success in destabilizing the Republic and its factions.

Another thought: Could the Hutt's have maintained their influence if the Jedi were at their height? If not, then the Vong MAY be able to find a troubled ally in whatever power the Hutt's have left.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

In fact, the Republic was extremely successful, until the Banite Sith managed to actively subvert it.

Let’s not be too kind to the Republic. The Ruusan Reformation was a one thousand year long suicide note.

The lack of a standing military made things a damn sight easier for its power to slowly wobble and for the Sith to take control in the end. By the by, I’m surprised the Jedi and Republic Intelligence weren’t more vigilant for that sort of thing; Dark Siders are a little like cockroaches in that they have a nasty habit of popping up again after you think you’ve got rid of them.

 

[Skallagrim]

Let’s not be too kind to the Republic. The Ruusan Reformation was a one thousand year long suicide note.

The lack of a standing military made things a damn sight easier for its power to slowly wobble and for the Sith to take control in the end. By the by, I’m surprised the Jedi and Republic Intelligence weren’t more vigilant for that sort of thing; Dark Siders are a little like cockroaches in that they have a nasty habit of popping up again after you think you’ve got rid of them.

If something takes a millennium to cause your downfall, is it still a "suicide note"? Or are all systems simply burdened by inevitable weaknesses, which -- under entropy's unfeeling weight -- ultimately cause them to decline and fall? I feel that everlasting success is an unreasonable standard, and that long-lasting success is the only achievable triumph. By this metric, the post-Ruusan Republic certainly triumphed.

Furthermore, it did this despite the machinations of the Sith. Without those, I can easily see the order established by the Ruusan Reformation lasting two or even three thousand years, instead of 'merely' a single millennium. The Republic was doing quite well for many centuries, after all. It took effort to undermine it. Failing systems require little effort to be toppled, by contrast.

I'd additionally argue that the lack of a strong military -- while a weakness in its own way -- made the efforts of the Banite Sith far more difficult, rather than easier. What did the Sith do, after all? They worked very hard to militarise the galaxy! If the Republic had been more centralised and more militarised, their work would have been far less cumbersome, because in that case, the political order would already have resembled far more closely the kind of system they desired.

I do agree that the Jedi (and to some extent the Republic) considered the Dark Side threat 'handled' far too complacently. By that point, the Sith had resurfaced something like three times before! By this stage, they really ought to have known "oh, those fuckers will be back a few centuries from now, be sure of that".

 

[Agent23]

All systems inevitable decay and splinter or become too centralized and tyrannical.

As to the jedi, well, when a particular trait is genetic and you make it impossible for those with the trait to breed you grr a whole lot less of em.

Even without the Sith, who usually ended up as power madened megalomanics with oversized egos even if teh didn't start that way, were all gone, ot is not impossible that someone else would have stuck a wrench in the wheel on the republic.

Maybe some Jedi that is disgruntled with the current situation finds a Holocron or some scion of a great and powerful political family turns out to be force sensitive and too much of a megadick and decides to fuck with the established order.

TBH I have grown more and more to share David Brin's view on the Force.

It is also a frigging annoying plot device.

And frankly I hate how some lower tier bits of canon like novels and games try to rationalize the Jedi's stupidity.

 

[Skallagrim]

TBH I have grown more and more to share David Brin's view on the Force.

I'd say Brin is completely wrong on most points when it comes to SW. The underlying problem is that Brin mostly doesn't get SW, and approaches it mostly as sci-fi, which it isn't. He had this argument with Stover, who knows it's a mythology, and that it should be seen as such. Different 'ontologies' (as it were) must be applied.

There's also the issue that Brin takes issue with SW being 'reactionary' in its fundamental assumptions -- even if Lucas didn't consciously intend that. Brin is right about that, but I very much approve of that exact characteristic. Progressive stories tend to be horrid; all the good ones are rooted in tradition. For all its author's progressive quibbles and his obsession with 'science', the Foundation series was ultra-reactionary in its core assumptions, too. And Brin had zero problems with it then, even writing authorised fanfic for it, because it was "suitably sci-fi" for his tastes.

Brin's issue, then, seems to be that he doesn't properly understand what SW is, and approaches it as if it is something that it very much isn't.

It is also a frigging annoying plot device.

It's not a plot device, as such. Treating it like that will surely make you dislike it (as an audience), or mis-apply it (as a writer; e.g. everyone dong the sequels).

The Force isn't a plot device. The Force is, in fact, the plot. It is the hand of the author setting events up in such a way as to produce adventure and stakes. In the old tragedies, when things needed to be set in motion, or stered right, the playwright had the Gods do it. Zeus came from up high and wielded lightning, wrecking the hero's ship at just the right time to strand him on the island where the story needed him to be.

In SW, it is the Force. When Lucas talks about the "will of the Force", he might as well be saying "authorial intent". That's what it is.

In a serious, "modern" style sci-fi tale, that kind of thing would be unaccectable, and called "bad writing". But in a myth, in a fairy-story... it is one of the mainstays. A key element to the very concept.

 

[Agent23]

I'd say Brin is completely wrong on most points when it comes to SW. The underlying problem is that Brin mostly doesn't get SW, and approaches it mostly as sci-fi, which it isn't. He had this argument with Stover, who knows it's a mythology, and that it should be seen as such. Different 'ontologies' (as it were) must be applied.

There's also the issue that Brin takes issue with SW being 'reactionary' in its fundamental assumptions -- even if Lucas didn't consciously intend that. Brin is right about that, but I very much approve of that exact characteristic. Progressive stories tend to be horrid; all the good ones are rooted in tradition. For all its author's progressive quibbles and his obsession with 'science', the Foundation series was ultra-reactionary in its core assumptions, too. And Brin had zero problems with it then, even writing authorised fanfic for it, because it was "suitably sci-fi" for his tastes.

Yes, please, tell me about how he is a leftist "libertarian" cunt ultra progressive.
Asshole literally banned me when we got into a political shouting match and I have seen how holier than thou he can be.

Brin's issue, then, seems to be that he doesn't properly understand what SW is, and approaches it as if it is something that it very much isn't.

Yeah, he is pretty much a hardcore trekie on top of being a leftist progressive, there is very little space in his worldview for something like Jedi and the force.

Thst doesn't mean that the whole dark side/light side/will of the force crap isn't one of the worst plot decices ever.

Yes, I know I am overrerionalizing it, but still, Chaos is a much better all encompassing force for a mythology.

And the people of the Galaxy at large are indeed basically collateral damage ona fight ", between the two branches of a nasty aristocratic house", even worse, they are the playthings of a schizophrenic op plot device that is inferior to the warp.

It's not a plot device, as such. Treating it like that will surely make you dislike it (as an audience), or mis-apply it (as a writer; e.g. everyone dong the sequels).

The "plot" is basically, "how do I make Kurosawa movies and some Dune and Asimove fan fiction work together with the mc being a relatable farm boy backed by an action girl princess and a lovable reformed rogue".

The Force isn't a plot device. The Force is, in fact, the plot. It is the hand of the author setting events up in such a way as to produce adventure and stakes. In the old tragedies, when things needed to be set in motion, or stered right, the playwright had the Gods do it. Zeus came from up high and wielded lightning, wrecking the hero's ship at just the right time to strand him on the island where the story needed him to be.

It is a very silly plot.

In SW, it is the Force. When Lucas talks about the "will of the Force", he might as well be saying "authorial intent". That's what it is.

So, plot device.
Because it is a magical mcguffin that is just there to drive the plot.

In a serious, "modern" style sci-fi tale, that kind of thing would be unaccectable, and called "bad writing". But in a myth, in a fairy-story... it is one of the mainstays. A key element to the very concept.

Again, I dislike the force, I preferred it when it was not that heavily emphasized and it has always annoyed me.

I would have preferred if they could have gone without it.

Or just had it as some magical ability some rare people had.

Not intrinsically good or bad, not something one "believes in" but ultimately just a tool.

And instead of "believing in the force" Like should have been told to "believe in himself".

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I'd additionally argue that the lack of a strong military -- while a weakness in its own way -- made the efforts of the Banite Sith far more difficult, rather than easier. What did the Sith do, after all? They worked very hard to militarise the galaxy! If the Republic had been more centralised and more militarised, their work would have been far less cumbersome, because in that case, the political order would already have resembled far more closely the kind of system they desired.

The Republic lucked out with having no main geopolitical enemies at the time, although that wasn't certain. God only knows what could have been lurking out in the Unknown Regions.

And convincing a professional military manned by volunteers to turn on the Republic and the Jedi (after a thousand years of peace and prosperity) is a tad harder than Clone soldiers either conditioned from birth to obey orders without question or having a full blown inhibitor chip in their brains.

The fact that the Sith desire a more militarised Republic, evil purposes aside, just strikes me as them being more aware of how power really works than the idealistic lunatics who founded that iteration of the Republic. Without a proper military (not even a behemoth army, but a strong Navy), the Republic had no real force to back up its laws, and thus slowly lost legitimacy. Anti-slavery laws were flagrantly disregarded in the Outer Rim as there was no fuckhuge battlegroup and its marine contingent to stomp order into that corner of the galaxy.

Look, I like George Lucas and the universe he created, but he is fanciful liberal at heart. Not nearly to the same extent as Roddenberry, but Ruusan would have given Heinlein a stroke. A demilitarised Republic was slowly picked apart over the centuries, by pirates, gangster, and eventually overmighty mega-corps, and if the Sith hadn't killed it off then someone else would have.

 

[Agent23]

The Republic lucked out with having no main geopolitical enemies at the time, although that wasn't certain. God only knows what could have been lurking out in the Unknown Regions.

And convincing a professional military manned by volunteers to turn on the Republic and the Jedi (after a thousand years of peace and prosperity) is a tad harder than Clone soldiers either conditioned from birth to obey orders without question or having a full blown inhibitor chip in their brains.

The fact that the Sith desire a more militarised Republic, evil purposes aside, just strikes me as them being more aware of how power really works than the idealistic lunatics who founded that iteration of the Republic. Without a proper military (not even a behemoth army, but a strong Navy), the Republic had no real force to back up its laws, and thus slowly lost legitimacy. Anti-slavery laws were flagrantly disregarded in the Outer Rim as there was no fuckhuge battlegroup and its marine contingent to stomp order into that corner of the galaxy.

Look, I like George Lucas and the universe he created, but he is fanciful liberal at heart. Not nearly to the same extent as Roddenberry, but Ruusan would have given Heinlein a stroke. A demilitarised Republic was slowly picked apart over the centuries, by pirates, gangster, and eventually overmighty mega-corps, and if the Sith hadn't killed it off then someone else would have.

Britbong, I am surprised I agree with you this much.

Th this I would like to add that there were other Force-based thingies that could cause problems out there, not just the ones within the republic.

Like the witches of Dathomir.

It was inevitable that they would hit some form of Seldon crisis or
Outside Context Problem.

Oh, and also, to @Skallagrim to my list of derivation sources we should add the Hero with one rhodand faces.

Star Wars was great, but whatever is said it was basically the equivalent of junk food.

But when we once got a nice huge and juicy burger made with black Angus beef and prime quality crunchy onion and Buffalo heart tomstoes and fresh lettuce with a huge ass cane sugar coke with lots of frosty ice and an extra large helping of french fries that are crunchy on the outside and creamy and juicy on the inside, or a kinder egg, right now we are getting a small, mouldy bun with a burned soy patty and a small, de-carbonized diet coke somebody put some salt in, or a disgusting mouldy aspartan pumped, burned mini-muffin with zero sugar that has hair in it.

 

[Skallagrim]

The Republic lucked out with having no main geopolitical enemies at the time, although that wasn't certain. God only knows what could have been lurking out in the Unknown Regions.

And convincing a professional military manned by volunteers to turn on the Republic and the Jedi (after a thousand years of peace and prosperity) is a tad harder than Clone soldiers either conditioned from birth to obey orders without question or having a full blown inhibitor chip in their brains.

The fact that the Sith desire a more militarised Republic, evil purposes aside, just strikes me as them being more aware of how power really works than the idealistic lunatics who founded that iteration of the Republic. Without a proper military (not even a behemoth army, but a strong Navy), the Republic had no real force to back up its laws, and thus slowly lost legitimacy. Anti-slavery laws were flagrantly disregarded in the Outer Rim as there was no fuckhuge battlegroup and its marine contingent to stomp order into that corner of the galaxy.

Look, I like George Lucas and the universe he created, but he is fanciful liberal at heart. Not nearly to the same extent as Roddenberry, but Ruusan would have given Heinlein a stroke. A demilitarised Republic was slowly picked apart over the centuries, by pirates, gangster, and eventually overmighty mega-corps, and if the Sith hadn't killed it off then someone else would have.

Counter-argument(s):

-- The Republic, post-Ruusan, was explicitly founded upon the (appararent) extermination of the one truly peer-level enemy in known existence. The previous period had seen centuries filled with the excesses of unrestrained military forces, so the reaction to this was ultimately quite natural. I actually agree that a good fleet would have been a vital addition (in the old EU, the New Republic did try for this, and for the better). But I can see why, at the time, overwhelming sentiment would be against that. I would not see this as "idealistic lunacy", but as a quite understandable (if ultimately imperfect) response to lived experience.

-- Even if the Republic had set up a professional, but not too powerful, military (mainly a fleet)... I don't agree that this would be so very difficult to subvert by the Sith. Observe how when Revan turned against the Republic, most of the fleet went with him. That fleet wasn't crewed by clones. They went willingly, because under the 'right' circumstances, a military will almost always follow a leader who appreciates the military... rather than a lily-livered civilian government. The Sith would no doubt be able to engineer those 'right' circumstances. This would take time and effort... but so did the creation of the clone army, when you factor the whole lead-up to its creation (and the 'growing time') as part of the investment.

-- What evidence we get ultimately indicates (both directly and indirectly) that for the longest time, the Republic's local forces (run by the member-polities) had a good grip on keeping order. The corruption and excesses are all tied to the machinations of the Sith. (E.g. the rise of slavery is strongly tied to the renewed ascendancy of the Hutts in the Galactic East, which was a result of concerted efforts by the Sith. I think the Zyggerrians becoming a major slaver-power again was also actually a recent development.) This demontrates that the most obvious faults of the Old Republic are not the result of its initial set-up, but must purely be attributed to the Sith influence.

-- Based on the above, my general assssment remains that without the Sith doing their thing, the Republic would have continued to function as it did in its first five-to-seven centuries or so, i.e. splendidly, for a very long time. Considering also that the Jedi would be in a far better position, I think that the major "outside threat" (the Vong) could be effecively confronted. It could indeed be argued that the Vong invasion would prompt a re-evaluation, and the establishment of a permanent, well-armed fleet thereafter. Thus actually yielding the result we both think would be best. (Mainly a permanent fleet; the New Republic had already banned slavery and adopted a charter of sapient rights to be universally enforced.)



I ultimately agree that ideally, the Republic should have been slightly more centralised (e.g. explicitly banning slavery and certain other violations), and that it should have had a serious fleet & marine corps to enforce law and order. But I don't think that the Republic was a failure due to not having these things. It performed remarkably well despite not being perfect. Indeed, it did better than any other attempt at galactic governance in the setting. (Although if we disregard the Denningverse and take The Unifying Force as the 'final chapter' it was meant to be, then we're left with the suggestion that the galacy is thereafter left with a superior government, which will lead to an even longer and more sustainable era of peace. In my own head, I prefer that reading...)



Re: Lucas's political leanings -- the intended interpretation of the late-stage Old Republic seems to be 'gilded age in space', with Lucas implicitly taking the position that the weak government not controlling the megacorps is very much a bad thing. So if anything, "the Old Republic was poorly set up" is actually the intended reading, derived from his lefty ideas. Whereas my own take ("the Old Republic was actually very well-designed") is an interpretation based on a more conservative world-view that inherently distrusts overly-large governments...

I think that matters would be better-clarified if Lucas had possessed a greater understanding of certain socio-economic realities, since the picture he paints simply doesn't make sense at times.



But in conclusion: I simply don't think that there was any version of the Old Republic that we might design that wouldn't be vulnerable to Sith manipulation. They corrupt things, and turn them into tools of evil. Whatever tools you give the Republic... those would eventually be perverted to serve the Sith. The more powerful the tool, the easier it would be to corrupt. Note how the Jedi is at his best when he rejects power, and falls when he seeks power. This is tied into the metaphysics of the setting.

Hence my belief that the Old Republic's unassuming, powerless nature was actually the best possible guard against corruption. It didn't prevent the process, but it at least ensured that anyone corrupting the tools of power would still be denied access to powerful tools.

 

[Agent23]

Counter-argument(s):

-- The Republic, post-Ruusan, was explicitly founded upon the (appararent) extermination of the one truly peer-level enemy in known existence. The previous period had seen centuries filled with the excesses of unrestrained military forces, so the reaction to this was ultimately quite natural. I actually agree that a good fleet would have been a vital addition (in the old EU, the New Republic did try for this, and for the better). But I can see why, at the time, overwhelming sentiment would be against that. I would not see this as "idealistic lunacy", but as a quite understandable (if ultimately imperfect) response to lived experience.

Yaaayyyu, EU/UN in space....

Because those orgs are doing so well IRL.

-- Even if the Republic had set up a professional, but not too powerful, military (mainly a fleet)... I don't agree that this would be so very difficult to subvert by the Sith. Observe how when Revan turned against the Republic, most of the fleet went with him. That fleet wasn't crewed by clones. They went willingly, because under the 'right' circumstances, a military will almost always follow a leader who appreciates the military... rather than a lily-livered civilian government. The Sith would no doubt be able to engineer those 'right' circumstances. This would take time and effort... but so did the creation of the clone army, when you factor the whole lead-up to its creation (and the 'growing time') as part of the investment.

-- What evidence we get ultimately indicates (both directly and indirectly) that for the longest time, the Republic's local forces (run by the member-polities) had a good grip on keeping order. The corruption and excesses are all tied to the machinations of the Sith. (E.g. the rise of slavery is strongly tied to the renewed ascendancy of the Hutts in the Galactic East, which was a result of concerted efforts by the Sith. I think the Zyggerrians becoming a major slaver-power again was also actually a recent development.) This demontrates that the most obvious faults of the Old Republic are not the result of its initial set-up, but must purely be attributed to the Sith influence.

-- Based on the above, my general assssment remains that without the Sith doing their thing, the Republic would have continued to function as it did in its first five-to-seven centuries or so, i.e. splendidly, for a very long time. Considering also that the Jedi would be in a far better position, I think that the major "outside threat" (the Vong) could be effecively confronted. It could indeed be argued that the Vong invasion would prompt a re-evaluation, and the establishment of a permanent, well-armed fleet thereafter. Thus actually yielding the result we both think would be best. (Mainly a permanent fleet; the New Republic had already banned slavery and adopted a charter of sapient rights to be universally enforced.)

That does not make them immune to crumbling or having a warlord emerge, or getting bogged down by bureaucracy due to the increased centralization.

I ultimately agree that ideally, the Republic should have been slightly more centralised (e.g. explicitly banning slavery and certain other violations), and that it should have had a serious fleet & marine corps to enforce law and order. But I don't think that the Republic was a failure due to not having these things. It performed remarkably well despite not being perfect. Indeed, it did better than any other attempt at galactic governance in the setting. (Although if we disregard the Denningverse and take The Unifying Force as the 'final chapter' it was meant to be, then we're left with the suggestion that the galacy is thereafter left with a superior government, which will lead to an even longer and more sustainable era of peace. In my own head, I prefer that reading...)

Ok...

Re: Lucas's political leanings -- the intended interpretation of the late-stage Old Republic seems to be 'gilded age in space', with Lucas implicitly taking the position that the weak government not controlling the megacorps is very much a bad thing. So if anything, "the Old Republic was poorly set up" is actually the intended reading, derived from his lefty ideas. Whereas my own take ("the Old Republic was actually very well-designed") is an interpretation based on a more conservative world-view that inherently distrusts overly-large governments...

Except that we never had an idea how the republic got formed and why it deteriorated, and "the Sith did it", is a lazy excuse.
Furthermore, Lukas did say a few interesting things about royalty and how it needs to rsdistr beauty to be followed.

And from my POV too much central bureaucracy was one of the reasons why megacorps arise and why planets neglected their defense, like Naboo.

I think that matters would be better-clarified if Lucas had possessed a greater understanding of certain socio-economic realities, since the picture he paints simply doesn't make sense at times.

Also, a lot of your sources are not produced by Lukas himself, but are various for in materials whose canonicity is suspect.

But in conclusion: I simply don't think that there was any version of the Old Republic that we might design that wouldn't be vulnerable to Sith manipulation. They corrupt things, and turn them into tools of evil. Whatever tools you give the Republic... those would eventually be perverted to serve the Sith. The more powerful the tool, the easier it would be to corrupt. Note how the Jedi is at his best when he rejects power, and falls when he seeks power. This is tied into the metaphysics of the setting.

Power doesn't just corrupt, it attracts the pathologically corrupt, this is me butchering a quote from Frank Herbert...

Hence my belief that the Old Republic's unassuming, powerless nature was actually the best possible guard against corruption. It didn't prevent the process, but it at least ensured that anyone corrupting the tools of power would still be denied access to powerful tools.

Yeah, well, there is a point where of you have a centralized government and decentralized armed forced one might go into conflict with the other.

Or the cracks on the framework can help some alternate actors like megacorpos become all powerful.