They are not Sith. Useful tools, given limited power, and easily disposable. The secrets of the Sith are about wanting power and knowledge, and the master uses the apprentice to study and grow that power.
The Inquisitors are not at that level.
Spoilers 'Obi-Wan Kenobi' series [Spoiler Discussion]
- Thread starter Reverend
- Start date
The Inquisitors are not at that level.
Or at least Jerec himself. The rest of his 'Dark Jedi' were a sad lot of misfits and rejects, when you boil down your SW villains. Sariss was the only one I saw with any real potential.
It might also be worth remembering that the Rule of Two is in and of itself derived directly from the Jedi Code (twisting in intent though it may be.)
Right off the bat in TPM Lucas established that the code forbids a Jedi from taking on more than one apprentice at a time. Since the Sith were originally Jedi, it stands to reason that they retained the practice along with the robes, holocrons, temples and lightsabers.
While for the Jedi it seems a matter of principle, for the Sith it seems much more pragmatic; take on more than one apprentice and sooner or latter, they'll start killing each other, or worse, join forces and kill you (then each other.) Not having an apprentice at all would be even more dangerous since a lone Sith Lord would be seen as weak and vulnerable by all the others, who would make it their business to eliminate them, then steal all the powerful secrets they're obviously hording for themselves.
At first that worked to an extent with Sith pairing off, setting up with own Empires, or fiefdoms within a more powerful Sith's Empire though alliances of convenience, playing power games. Circling each other like wary scorpions. Each waiting for an opportunity to get their retaliation in first, before it all inevitably collapsed and Bane narrowed the definition of the rule from "only one apprentice for a Master at a time" to "only one apprentice and a Master at all"; a cult of two.
This is why the idea of Sith Academies in Legends never made much sense. You'd never get that many Sith cooperating in such close proximity to each other. Now, Academies run by specific Sith Lords to train/indoctrinate assassins to serve them and them alone on the other hand, makes perfect sense, and that is exactly what the Fortress Inquisitorius really is. A resource to exploit for sure, but they're never going to be getting any good apprentices from it since it's designed to trap the weak, not the strong. If by chance some truly promising candidate turned up in such a place, any Sith with half a brain would get them out of there fast so they can be trained and indoctrinated separately (as Sidious did with Maul.)
Somewhat related side note: I know a lot of people question how Yoda could know about the 'Rule of Two' & Bane, but I find that stems from the convoluted version of events from the EU novels. From what Lucas has said over the years, and what appeared in the TPM novelizations (based on Lucas's notes), the idea wasn't that Bane and the Sith Order vanished for good when all the others died. Instead he went into hiding *before* the collapse, sat out the slaughter in hiding (no need for an elaborate super-weapon mass genocide plot) *then* re-emerged as the lone survivor once most of the others were done killing each other, and the Jedi had picked off the rest. It wasn't until he was near the end of his life that he took an apprentice and established the new way of doing things.
So it seems far more likely that the Jedi were well aware of Bane and that it was his Empire (of that of his inheritors) that they finally overthrew, possibly centuries later. Indeed I like to think that it was the Rule of Two that actually allowed them to take over the galaxy the first time, because prior to that they were spending most of their energy on in-fighting, and their vendetta against the Jedi. With just two Sith they could accumulate far more power and control.
Incidentally I've also seen interviews with Lucas early on where he said there was never any war between Sith & Jedi, that that was an invention of the fans (in which I assume he includes the EU authors which really tells you what he thought if it all) and the demise of the Sith was their own doing. Given what happened in TCW, he seems to have later changed his mind in that though. Good thing; since what the hell else would the Sith need revenge against the Jedi for?
Right off the bat in TPM Lucas established that the code forbids a Jedi from taking on more than one apprentice at a time. Since the Sith were originally Jedi, it stands to reason that they retained the practice along with the robes, holocrons, temples and lightsabers.
While for the Jedi it seems a matter of principle, for the Sith it seems much more pragmatic; take on more than one apprentice and sooner or latter, they'll start killing each other, or worse, join forces and kill you (then each other.) Not having an apprentice at all would be even more dangerous since a lone Sith Lord would be seen as weak and vulnerable by all the others, who would make it their business to eliminate them, then steal all the powerful secrets they're obviously hording for themselves.
At first that worked to an extent with Sith pairing off, setting up with own Empires, or fiefdoms within a more powerful Sith's Empire though alliances of convenience, playing power games. Circling each other like wary scorpions. Each waiting for an opportunity to get their retaliation in first, before it all inevitably collapsed and Bane narrowed the definition of the rule from "only one apprentice for a Master at a time" to "only one apprentice and a Master at all"; a cult of two.
This is why the idea of Sith Academies in Legends never made much sense. You'd never get that many Sith cooperating in such close proximity to each other. Now, Academies run by specific Sith Lords to train/indoctrinate assassins to serve them and them alone on the other hand, makes perfect sense, and that is exactly what the Fortress Inquisitorius really is. A resource to exploit for sure, but they're never going to be getting any good apprentices from it since it's designed to trap the weak, not the strong. If by chance some truly promising candidate turned up in such a place, any Sith with half a brain would get them out of there fast so they can be trained and indoctrinated separately (as Sidious did with Maul.)
Somewhat related side note: I know a lot of people question how Yoda could know about the 'Rule of Two' & Bane, but I find that stems from the convoluted version of events from the EU novels. From what Lucas has said over the years, and what appeared in the TPM novelizations (based on Lucas's notes), the idea wasn't that Bane and the Sith Order vanished for good when all the others died. Instead he went into hiding *before* the collapse, sat out the slaughter in hiding (no need for an elaborate super-weapon mass genocide plot) *then* re-emerged as the lone survivor once most of the others were done killing each other, and the Jedi had picked off the rest. It wasn't until he was near the end of his life that he took an apprentice and established the new way of doing things.
So it seems far more likely that the Jedi were well aware of Bane and that it was his Empire (of that of his inheritors) that they finally overthrew, possibly centuries later. Indeed I like to think that it was the Rule of Two that actually allowed them to take over the galaxy the first time, because prior to that they were spending most of their energy on in-fighting, and their vendetta against the Jedi. With just two Sith they could accumulate far more power and control.
Incidentally I've also seen interviews with Lucas early on where he said there was never any war between Sith & Jedi, that that was an invention of the fans (in which I assume he includes the EU authors which really tells you what he thought if it all) and the demise of the Sith was their own doing. Given what happened in TCW, he seems to have later changed his mind in that though. Good thing; since what the hell else would the Sith need revenge against the Jedi for?
Last edited:
Jerec was also an inquisitor. The legends version of them.
Action figures and character in video games.
Luke only survived because of his plot armor.
You had one job, Obi-Wan.
...which makes the series rather meaningless, as there was never a true threat to Luke and the Lars, and Kenobi could run off at the request of Bail to find his daughter who would also face no danger the viewers would ever believe.
That statement presupposes that the show was about Luke being in jeopardy. It was not. It was about trauma. It's consequences, as well as how to process and moving past it. That last sequence had nothing to do with Luke, and everything to do with Reva.
It was a major plot point of the series, since Reva--who was desperate to kill Kenobi--learned why he had planted his feet on a desert world, so quite obviously, Luke's life was going to be in danger--but he could not be because his story has a future.
Reva's change could have come just as easily in facing Kenobi himself, since meeting the man she wanted to kill, then being convinced that hers was the self-destructive way born of childhood pain would have been relevant to her history, as well as Kenobi's The twins were used as a "look! its Luke and Leia again!" bit of misplaced fanservice.
If Reva's conflicted journey and Vader still raging over receiving his ROTS beatdown-of-the-ages were the central motivators of the antagonists, both could have been served in the year or two after ROTS, with a teenaged Reva reaching adulthood under Vader's wing, while Vader--still thirsting to kill Kenobi for the former's life of self-inflicted disasters--would be in a far more fresh, hostile state of mind in that period.
The Skywalker twins were not necessary to tell that story at all.
Well by that logic Luke's life has never been in danger at any point in the OT, because he's the protagonist, and thus all of his ordeals are rendered meaningless . . . Except that's not how storytelling works. Credible narrative jeopardy exists independently from the larger metatextual implications of the story just existing.
So I contest that Luke WAS indeed in danger by the sheer dint of the fact that there was a lightsaber wielding nutter chasing him through a desert canyon in the pitch dark. He could have died that night . . . but he didn't. He could have died on Hoth (more than once), but he didn't. He could have died on Bespin, but he didn't. And he could have died any number of ways on or above Endor, but he didn't.
Name one other thing that could have credible motivated Obi-Wan to abandon his post. Go on. I'll wait . . .
Nice try. No sale. I'm talking about a streaming series that was supposed to focus on Obi-Wan and Reva's journey, and did not need the appearance of a character who was in no danger due to the OT's existence. Luke was viewer bait as much as the creation of Jango Fett and his "son" had been in the PT. Unnecessary.
Who said he needed to leave the planet at all in order to have his showdown with main antagonist Reva? That was the focus of the plot, which could have easily served as the reason for Kenobi to reconnect with the Force while still on Tatooine. Entire films take place in one, central location, with the plot and characters moving the story forward. For example, with the exception of an Atlantic Ocean and New Jersey scene, the majority of Captain America: The Winter Soldier took place in Washington, D.C., with its numerous plotlines able to be carried out in that one, central location, despite the global implications of the threat. Are you actually saying the Leia kidnapping plot (and Kenobi forced to leave Tatooine) was necessary at all when Reva could have been written to be more resourceful in her hunting of Kenobi?
Oh, and about Vader? Yes, yes, flashing lightsabers--hooray, but he did not need to be in the Kenobi series. The strength of ANH's Vader and Kenobi's reunion was the payoff of these longtime enemies finally facing each other after some long period of time. One could feel the distant history between the two. Their sensing each other aboard the Death Star, then performing their cat-and-mouse game until meeting held all the anticipatory tension the two old adversaries needed, which served the film perfectly. It was not necessary for the purposes of the story of Kenobi and Vader to have a round two between the PT and OT to understand their character progression and effect on the galaxy around them.
Last edited:
I'm still waiting for the necessary Star Wars story.
Reva was interested in using Leia to draw out Obi-Wan. And she wanted to use Obi-Wan to draw out Anakin and get her revenge. Leia and Obi-Wan were tools for her and nothing else. But Reva's revenge plan had ended up serving as a catalyst for Obi-Wan's own character arc. He probably would have continued self flagilating on Tatooine if it were not for her.
Frankly, I thought she had a stronger connection to Obi-Wan's narrative than Mon Mothma did for Cassian Andor's narrative.
Frankly, I thought she had a stronger connection to Obi-Wan's narrative than Mon Mothma did for Cassian Andor's narrative.
Kenobi should not have won that fight at the end. He should have been near beat and had to retreat. Having him win just makes Vader look weak and calls into question on why he just didn't finish him off or capture him.
I wasn't the biggest fan of having him face Vader. I would have had it be only a year or so after Episode III if so.
I wasn't the biggest fan of having him face Vader. I would have had it be only a year or so after Episode III if so.
They kinda had to go with Obi-Wan winning to match the implications in the dialogue of A New Hope.
I've been waiting for you, Obi-Wan.
We meet again at last.
The circle is now complete.
When I left you, I was but the learner.
Now I am the master.
I do think they were mindful of that, because they even have Obi-Wan refer to him simply as "Darth", justifying why he refers to him that way in ANH.
Yes and yes on both points.
Before Kenobi was made, we could conclude that the last time they met was on Mustafar and where Obi-wan took down Vader. Hence the dialogue, Obi-Wan was still the stronger one and defeated him. If they had Vader beat the crap out of Obi-Wan on the last battle of that show, that line would no longer make sense.
Now, during A New Hope we could think that Darth Vader was a name, and that he just called him by his name when saying 'Darth'. Now, after decades of lore establishing Darth as a little and Obi-Wan being aware that, calling him 'Darth' emphasis the fact he is now truly aware that his friend is gone and replaced by a Lord Of The Sith, hence him using the title instead of the name Vader. As if using Vader still implies there is a person in there. Simply referring to him as Darth says 'I don't acknowledge that there is anything left in that suit. Vader is still a person, I don't you as that anymore. You are simply a 'Darth' to me, a Sith. Nothing more.' Which is interesting, because it stresses the point that, like the a Sith, many Jedi also deal in absolutes.
I'd argue that part of why Vader loses is because Obi-Wan compromises him emotionally. Which ties in nicely with what we see of Vader's duels in ESB and ROTJ. He's not at his best when he engages emotionally with his opponent.
No one is at their best. Obi-Wan had allowed his fear, guilt and despair get the best of him during his duel with Anakin on Mapuzo and nearly lost his life. In fact, he nearly lost his life when he had allowed his anger over Qui-Gon being struck down by Maul, get the best of him on Naboo. In the end, Maul's own cockiness had saved Obi-Wan.
But why didn't Obi Wan kill Vader if he was only a Sith at that point?
Something I've been thinking about for a bit, mostly to challenge my own preconceptions: did Obi-Wan actually win that fight? Or did they fight each other to a standstill, with Obi-Wan withdrawing while Vader was down because he knew neither of them could resolve their impasse that day.
I think it's interesting and makes a little more sense if it's viewed through that lens; Kenobi was deeply connected to the force in that moment. So perhaps he had a clarity of vision that told him not only that he could not redeem his friend, but also that had he pressed on Vader would have rallied and eventually cut him down. Or they'd both destroy each other, and that either way his destiny lies elsewhere. So his withdrawal seems less like a wasted opportunity to end Vader, and more like a tactical retreat.
After all; what would it really have achieved if he killed Vader there and then? This is Vader at his most hollow and aimless. It's not until he becomes aware of Luke that he become a focused and unstoppable force of nature again. Loosing Vader would have weakened Palpatine, sure, bit not crippled him. The Empire doesn't need Vader to operate, and Sidious doubtless has more than one contingency in place if he ever needed a replacement apprentice.
Indeed, it's possible killing Vader then and there may be the worst possible thing Kenobi could have done for the galaxy as perhaps it could trigger a chain of events that led to Palpatine finding out about Luke and/or Leia with nobody left to hide or protect them.
I think it's interesting and makes a little more sense if it's viewed through that lens; Kenobi was deeply connected to the force in that moment. So perhaps he had a clarity of vision that told him not only that he could not redeem his friend, but also that had he pressed on Vader would have rallied and eventually cut him down. Or they'd both destroy each other, and that either way his destiny lies elsewhere. So his withdrawal seems less like a wasted opportunity to end Vader, and more like a tactical retreat.
After all; what would it really have achieved if he killed Vader there and then? This is Vader at his most hollow and aimless. It's not until he becomes aware of Luke that he become a focused and unstoppable force of nature again. Loosing Vader would have weakened Palpatine, sure, bit not crippled him. The Empire doesn't need Vader to operate, and Sidious doubtless has more than one contingency in place if he ever needed a replacement apprentice.
Indeed, it's possible killing Vader then and there may be the worst possible thing Kenobi could have done for the galaxy as perhaps it could trigger a chain of events that led to Palpatine finding out about Luke and/or Leia with nobody left to hide or protect them.
Well that is his title (retroactively; yes I know), so it's not really something that needs a justification. It mostly just serves as Kenobi accepting that there is no more Anakin, no more Jedi in the twisted evil thing that stands before him; just Sith. It's also somewhat of a mirror to how Palpatine addresses Luke in RotJ: "So be it . . . Jedi."
Last edited:
Similar threads
