Could Luke and/or Leia have killed Emperor Sidious?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



PhoenixSam5
I think so. In TESB, Kenobi called Luke their only hope, and there was another hope (Leia), and, in ROTJ, Luke was called their only hope by Obi Wan because he had to kill Vader (and presumably, the Emperor, too, because with Anakin dead, who else could do it).

Luke Skywalker was the galaxy's only hope because he was a force user and he was the only person that could kill Darth Vader, and heavily implied, if not blatanly told to us, the Emperor too. A non force user is no match for a powerful Sith or Jedi in a fight. Therefore, only a force user could kill another force user (with some exceptions, such as the clonetroopers outnumbering the Jedi, but, Palpatine knew the rebel's tricks and he could easily escape the DS2).

Kenobi and Yoda knew that Luke was their only hope.

And, if Luke died or failed to complete his task to kill the two Sith Lords that ruled the galaxy, Leia would then have to fullfill his role, for, as anakin skywalker's daughter, she was a force user too.

With Anakin on the darkside, Luke's role was now to be the new "Chosen One", and Leia would do that if he failed. (a new hope is another word for the new Chosen One). Even wookipedia stated that yoda and kenobi depended on the twins to fullfill the prophecy

Now, things didn't go quite as planned, actually Anakin fullfilled the prophecy in the end by destroying the two sith lords (himself and sidious).

Now, suppose, here's the question. Could Luke Skywalker have done it directly, by killing the Emperor too (and not just Vader, he could kill Vader possibly, he almost did) and saving the galaxy from them? Or, even more interesting, could Leia have killed the Emperor? Or even Vader, for that matter?

I think yes. I think that if Anakin never turned away from the darkside in the original trilogy, it's very possible that Luke or Leia could have killed the Emperor, unlike Kenobi or Yoda.

Luke could force jump to dodge the Emperor's sith lightning, and then kill him with his lightsaber.

But here's the problem. How would you even compare/measure how two force users would fight against each other?

Mace Windu could only win his duel against Sidious because he used Vaapad.

What force powers did Leia have to fight the Emperor with? Could she dodge his attacks? If Luke died, Leia didn't have a freaking lightsaber to fight Palpatine with? And he would just use the Force against her. We're talking about straight up fights, not Vader sneakily killing the Emperor when he's vulrenable.

I'm not that familar with force powers, so describing a duel with force users of different powers isn't exactly too easy for me.

But Darth Vader in the OT couldn't have killed Sidious in a straight up fight (that's why he needed Luke to kill the Emperor so that they could rule the galaxy as father and son), Sidious had force lightning that would damage his suit, and with that heavy weight of a suit, Anakin couldn't run and dodge the Emperor's attacks.

If Vader needed Luke to kill Sidious for him, that means totally that Luke could have killed Palpatine in a straight up fight. If you disagree with my evidence, please explain why. Speculation for all!

But Leia is a totally different story, without a lightsaber or force training. stick out tongue stick out tongue stick out tongue

Q99
I don't know if Luke could've done it at that point, but if he stays alive then sooner or later, yes.


There was an 'Infinities' comic where Luke dies and Leia gets trained by Yoda ^^


Though one does wonder how in ROTJ that Yoda is expecting her to take up the job without training!

Ushgarak
Please don't use EU material like ligfhtsabre styles here.

I nthink the tenor of the whole saga is that only Anakin could do it,as that was the point of the whole saga/prophecy thing.

That said, we are back to ROTJ's storytelling flaws here, as the Emperor would have died when the Death Star blew anyway, regardless of any Skywalker.

Q99
Originally posted by Ushgarak

That said, we are back to ROTJ's storytelling flaws here, as the Emperor would have died when the Death Star blew anyway, regardless of any Skywalker.

Luke got to evacuate in time, Palpatine could've.


Maybe what would've happened is he'd simply hold him there and prevent that from happening.

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Please don't use EU material like ligfhtsabre styles here.

I nthink the tenor of the whole saga is that only Anakin could do it,as that was the point of the whole saga/prophecy thing.

That said, we are back to ROTJ's storytelling flaws here, as the Emperor would have died when the Death Star blew anyway, regardless of any Skywalker.

No. As evident by what Sidious told moff jerjerrod, he knew what was going on in Endor with the shield generator, and he could tell jerjerrod when he sensed that the shield generator was destroyed. If the generator was destroyed, Sidious would have hopped onto his shuttle and escaped the DS2.

So, Luke could drag slowly 200+ pounds of his dying father, just sit there for 2 minutes (i'm talking about his chat with the unmasked vader), and then somehow just manage to escape in time, but Sidious couldn't just quickly run and get onto his shuttle and escape? That makes no sense at all.

Not to mention Luke being the only hope for the alliance. If Luke wasn't there, then Anakin (the chosen one) wouldnt kill Sidious, and then both the Emperor and his 2nd in command would live the battle and the empire wouldn't fall into chaos with the deaths of their two leaders and the rebels would lose the war.

Now, if Palpatine was going to die when the death star blew up anyways, with or without Luke or Anakin being there, then what was the point of Luke being the galaxy's only hope?

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by Q99
Luke got to evacuate in time, Palpatine could've.


Maybe what would've happened is he'd simply hold him there and prevent that from happening.

If Luke killed Vader and turned to the darkside, by being consumed by his own anger, then Luke and Sidious had the perfect time to escape, as the 4-5 minutes of force lightning and torture and chatting with the dying Anakin never would have happened. They had the perfect amount of time to escape.

I think Sidious could have won the war with the rebels had Luke turned to the darkside or if Luke was never even there in the first place.

He could have used battle meditation to focus his troops to make them better fighters against the rebel forces, or he could have created force storms against the rebels.

Or, more likely and most likely less EU fanon, Luke/sidious could have used the force to detect and stop lando and/or wedge from blowing up the death star.

Luke was their only hope because he was a distraction to Sidious, he prevented Sidious and Vader from escaping the ds2 (idk what would have happened if the redeemed anakin survived the battle of endor)

Usually, during a battle, the death of the enemy leaders can send the soldiers into chaos.

Now, an enemy leader (s) dying in a war usually doesn't make that big of a difference, but it's a very big contributing factor. If winning a war simply depended on taking out the enemy's leaders, then we could have won the american revolution or defeated the nazis without these big catastraphoic wars.

On the other hand, especially/mainly when a specific side of a war is getting a lot of victories, the death of the enemy leaders can send the enemy forces into chaos a lot.

With star wars, this was a combination of Vader, Palpatine, and the moffs all dying at the ending battle, alongside the rebels winning

Palpatine's death in and of itself, by itself, did not help the rebels win the war, but it was a very nessecary contributing factor to the rebels winning the war.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Q99
Luke got to evacuate in time, Palpatine could've.

Other than 'holding him there' being rather crap heroism, all Palpatine would have got for escaping is captivity, seeing as the film is apparently pretty clear that the Imperials lost that battle.

All the rest about some mystic way in which the Emperor could have won the battle for the Imperials is really just airy speculation which is a. not really supported in film ('use the Force' to stop Lando and co is basically meaningless as a straight statement, likely part of an EU-influenced habit of massively overstating the power of Force users) and b. irrelevant; it is the film's job to show us the stakes and in this case it did not. There is absolutely no connection made on-screen between Luke/Anakin's actions and victory; it just becomes a personal thing for them. The Rebels win through direct military means.

The mistake is due to ROTJ's troubled development process. Luke's original showdown with Palpatine was on the Imperial homeworld and separate from the military action. When they unified the plotlines, they never accounted for making Luke's quest mostly irrelevant.

SevenShackles
I figured Luke was more a tool of fate or destiny. Anakin was supposed to be this chosen one from this prophecy who would save the galaxy from some great evil.. But as it played out he also had a hand in establishing that evils power in the first place. So for the prophecy to be fulfilled his life lead him down a path where he put the evil in power then threw his son found it within himself to kill the emperor and bring an end to his evil.

Luke being the only hope of the universe or last hope was from the perspective of people with little to no hope of beating the empire. From the perspective of the audience watching all six films Luke being a plot device rather than the great hero seems more likely.

So if they challenged the emperor with their limited knowledge and training they would most likely die.lighting shooting out of a seemingly beat up old man's hands is enough of a trump card/surprise attack to kill Luke or Leia right out the gate. If not we need to look to Sidious's only other show of battle skill. His battle with yoda. With that as all we can work off of Luke obviously doesn't have a chance. The emperor seemed to have great sensing ability so I doubt Leia could sneak up on him and beyond that and a few pew pew shots she has nothing to bring to this.

Galan007
Aside from force lightning(of which Luke was evidently clueless about), even if RotJ Palpatine merely retained an insignificant micro-fraction of the skill/speed he displayed in his battle with Mace during RotS, he would have been able to effortlessly trounce RotJ Luke as though he were a talentless feeb.

For all his hype, during RotJ Luke looked like a blind kid trying to hit a pinata with a stick when he fought Vader... A far cry from those who were dubbed "Jedi" back in his father's heyday. thumb down

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by Galan007
Aside from force lightning(of which Luke was evidently clueless about), even if RotJ Palpatine merely retained an insignificant micro-fraction of the skill/speed he displayed in his battle with Mace during RotS, he would have been able to effortlessly trounce RotJ Luke as though he were a talentless feeb.

For all his hype, during RotJ Luke looked like a blind kid trying to hit a pinata with a stick when he fought Vader... A far cry from those who were dubbed "Jedi" back in his father's heyday. thumb down

"Stopped they must be. On this all depends. Only a fully trained Jedi Knight with the Force as his ally will conquer Vader and his Emperor. If you end your > training now, if you choose the quick and easy path as Vader did, you will become an agent of evil."

Galan007
Luke never conquered the Emperor, and the childlike 'saber skills' he displayed against Vader were atrocious-- he was nowhere near Clone Wars-era Jedi in terms of saber prowess. Imho.

SevenShackles
Luke nearly equals younglings skill level lol.

Galan007
Originally posted by SevenShackles
Luke nearly equals younglings skill level lol. Pretty much. Heck, where saber-play is concerned, the Padawan Zett Jukassa definitely would have made short work of RotJ Luke.

...Yet Luke dubbed himself "Jedi". El.Oh.El.

CosmicComet
Luke's spastic flailing was far too much for Vader at least apparently.

I guess it just means his aggression and speed was more than sufficient to overcome any calculated skill advantage Vader had him?

'Obi Wan has taught you well', Vader said.

I wouldn't get too caught up in trying to compare choreography across generations, skill is based on the narrative. Though even then, its clear that beserker rage, as Luke was displaying there, can overcome decades of experience in advantage.

Galan007
Personally, I don't think Vader was going all out. /shrug

SevenShackles
Originally posted by Galan007
Personally, I don't think Vader was going all out. /shrug
I agree. He obviously wanted his son to join Him all the way till the end, not slaughter him.

queeq
Of course not, Vader wanted Luke to help out getting rid of Sidious.

Vensai
In ROTJ? Make it a thousand Luke and Leias and they still get stomped by Sidious...

queeq
Hmm...dunno.

Vensai
Originally posted by queeq
Hmm...dunno.

If Sidious can blitz three jedi council members with ease, Luke and Leia stand no chance.

queeq
Still: I dunno... Those three were just standing there. No Jedi reflexes, extremely long response time. Honestly, that whole Jedi Order in the PT looked like a bunch of sleepy old men unable to understand or feel or see what was happening around them. That scene with Sidious proved how 'asleep' the Jedi were. Luke and Leia certainly don't look 'asleep' in the OT.

Vensai
Originally posted by queeq
Still: I dunno... Those three were just standing there. No Jedi reflexes, extremely long response time. Honestly, that whole Jedi Order in the PT looked like a bunch of sleepy old men unable to understand or feel or see what was happening around them. That scene with Sidious proved how 'asleep' the Jedi were. Luke and Leia certainly don't look 'asleep' in the OT.

They're still Jedi Council members who should be fast enough to block blaster bolts at Geonosis. Luke or Leia do not have that level of reflexes. Sidious would blitz them easy.

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Vensai
In ROTJ? Make it a thousand Luke and Leias and they still get stomped by Sidious...

Well if we go purely by the films then "a thousand" of anyone might be too much for any Jedi/Sith (assuming they're all armed).

Originally posted by Vensai
They're still Jedi Council members who should be fast enough to block blaster bolts at Geonosis. Luke or Leia do not have that level of reflexes. Sidious would blitz them easy.

The assumption is that those Council Members should be better than ROTJ Luke.

But that doesn't necessarily make them faster/stronger than Luke. His natural force potential may make him faster/stronger. So he may last a bit longer than them.

Still the guy did defeat Boba Fett pretty quick and did legitimately defeat Vader (well that was the original intention anyway).

Seeing the prequels is whats made us assume Vader would have been holding back. Although I still don't see why Vader would let Luke chop off his hand.

Vensai
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Well if we go purely by the films then "a thousand" of anyone might be too much for any Jedi/Sith (assuming they're all armed).



The assumption is that those Council Members should be better than ROTJ Luke.

But that doesn't necessarily make them faster/stronger than Luke. His natural force potential may make him faster/stronger. So he may last a bit longer than them.

Still the guy did defeat Boba Fett pretty quick and did legitimately defeat Vader (well that was the original intention anyway).

Seeing the prequels is whats made us assume Vader would have been holding back. Although I still don't see why Vader would let Luke chop off his hand.

I thought the holding back idea was because Luke mentioned that Vader couldn't being himself to kill his son.

Galan007
Originally posted by Vensai
If Sidious can blitz three jedi council members with ease, Luke and Leia stand no chance. You think Palpatine's swordsmanship during RotJ would have been on par with what it was during RotS? I doubt he so much as touched a light saber during that 23 year span of time. /shrug

He'd still smoke Luke, though. No doubt.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
The assumption is that those Council Members should be better than ROTJ Luke.

But that doesn't necessarily make them faster/stronger than Luke. His natural force potential may make him faster/stronger. So he may last a bit longer than them.

Still the guy did defeat Boba Fett pretty quick and did legitimately defeat Vader (well that was the original intention anyway).

Seeing the prequels is whats made us assume Vader would have been holding back. Although I still don't see why Vader would let Luke chop off his hand. Lets be honest, the saber skills of a CW-era Padawan were vastly beyond those of RotJ Luke. That said: assuming 3 elite CW-era Jedi Masters weren't any better than RotJ Luke is a drastic, and completely unwarranted, overhype of Luke's prowess, imo. Remember, force potential is utterly inconsequential without the proper skill/know-how in which to apply said potential--- and Luke had barely began to scratch the surface of his christ-power at the time of RotJ.

Luke's 'defeat' of Boba Fett was laughable at the very least.

The prequel films had nothing to do with why I believe Vader was holding back. We saw the conflict in him during ESB. We saw even more conflict in him during RotJ. Luke said it best: "You couldn't bring yourself to kill me before and I don't believe you'll destroy me now."

JakeTheBank
The Return of the Jedi duel, while great, wasn't a legitimate "fight". The only purpose of the duel was to trigger Luke's descent to the dark side and force him to turn. Vader and Palpatine both were attempting to egg on Luke to turn, and as such, they had no real intent of killing him (at least not at first). And the only time Luke had Vader on the ropes was when Luke momentarily gave in to his darker emotions and overwhelmed his father.

In a "real" fight, Vader would have curbed him. Palpatine even more so.

PhoenixSam5
Originally posted by JakeTheBank
The Return of the Jedi duel, while great, wasn't a legitimate "fight". The only purpose of the duel was to trigger Luke's descent to the dark side and force him to turn. Vader and Palpatine both were attempting to egg on Luke to turn, and as such, they had no real intent of killing him (at least not at first). And the only time Luke had Vader on the ropes was when Luke momentarily gave in to his darker emotions and overwhelmed his father.

In a "real" fight, Vader would have curbed him. Palpatine even more so.

This thread alone is why I despise the prophecy of the Chosen One and I have my own retcons for canon. In the OT, Luke was supposed to defeat the Emperor, but Anakin turned good and did it as a suprise.

With the PT, Anakin is the only person who can defeat Palpatine, and Luke is just a catalyst to redeem him, meaning that Luke or Leia could never kill Palpatine, because only Anakin could do it. That's a lame idea.

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Galan007


Lets be honest, the saber skills of a CW-era Padawan were vastly beyond those of RotJ Luke. That said: assuming 3 elite CW-era Jedi Masters weren't any better than RotJ Luke is a drastic, and completely unwarranted, overhype of Luke's prowess, imo. Remember, force potential is utterly inconsequential without the proper skill/know-how in which to apply said potential--- and Luke had barely began to scratch the surface of his christ-power at the time of RotJ.

I'm not saying your wrong, but like I've already pointed out it's the Prequels that have brought us to this conclusion. But every available evidence pre-prequels had Luke and Vader as peers.



Originally posted by Galan007


The prequel films had nothing to do with why I believe Vader was holding back. We saw the conflict in him during ESB. We saw even more conflict in him during RotJ. Luke said it best: "You couldn't bring yourself to kill me before and I don't believe you'll destroy me now."

Originally posted by Vensai
I thought the holding back idea was because Luke mentioned that Vader couldn't being himself to kill his son.

Why's everyone forgetting that Luke had no desire at all to fight Vader? At least Vader wanted to fight him to turn to the Dark Side. Luke didn't even want to fight his Father.

Anyway if you read the ROTJ novel (written and edited before the prequels) it was always perfectly clear that Luke was legitimately fighting Vader as an equal. And worst of all Vader was trying.

Galan007
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
I'm not saying your wrong, but like I've already pointed out it's the Prequels that have brought us to this conclusion. But every available evidence pre-prequels had Luke and Vader as peers.Vader was always conflicted, and there was always good in him. These facts were driven home time and time again. Even before the prequels were released, I never believed Luke and Vader were peers--- I thought it was made abundently clear that Vader was holding back because he never truly wanted to kill his son.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Why's everyone forgetting that Luke had no desire at all to fight Vader? At least Vader wanted to fight him to turn to the Dark Side. Luke didn't even want to fight his Father. After Vader mentioned turning Leia to the dark side, Luke stopped holding back.

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Galan007
Vader was always conflicted, and there was always good in him. These facts were driven home time and time again. Even before the prequels were released, I never believed Luke and Vader were peers--- I thought it was made abundently clear that Vader was holding back because he never truly wanted to kill his son.

After Vader mentioned turning Leia to the dark side, Luke stopped holding back.

Yeah Luke obviously wasn't holding back in that final frenzy attack. But what about the rest of the fight? They were fighting pretty evenly.

And it was always made just as clear that Luke was holding back just as much (if not more so) "I will not fight you Father," "You are unwise to lower your defenses!"

Like I said read the novel. It makes it clear they were peers. Which of course makes no sense at all now.

Galan007
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Yeah Luke obviously wasn't holding back in that final frenzy attack. But what about the rest of the fight? They were fighting pretty evenly.

And it was always made just as clear that Luke was holding back just as much (if not more so) "I will not fight you Father," "You are unwise to lower your defenses!" They were both holding back initially. The difference is that Luke stopped holding back after Vader's attempt at mind-phuckery, while Vader never seemed to go all-out.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Like I said read the novel. It makes it clear they were peers. Which of course makes no sense at all now. Imo the film(which supersedes the novel in terms of canonicity) is clear. The good in Vader prevented him from wanting to slay his own son, thus he was constantly holding back-- Lucas drove that point home multiple times via character statements.

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Galan007
They were both holding back initially. The difference is that Luke stopped holding back after Vader's attempt at mind-phuckery, while Vader never seemed to go all-out.

Yeah I agree.

Originally posted by Galan007
Imo the film(which supersedes the novel in terms of canonicity) is clear. The good in Vader prevented him from wanting to slay his own son, thus he was constantly holding back-- Lucas drove that point home multiple times via character statements.

True, but like I said the exact same holds for Luke (minus his final frenzy attack).

JakeTheBank
Originally posted by Galan007
They were both holding back initially. The difference is that Luke stopped holding back after Vader's attempt at mind-phuckery, while Vader never seemed to go all-out.

Imo the film(which supersedes the novel in terms of canonicity) is clear. The good in Vader prevented him from wanting to slay his own son, thus he was constantly holding back-- Lucas drove that point home multiple times via character statements.

thumb up

Galan007
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
True, but like I said the exact same holds for Luke (minus his final frenzy attack). Right, but again: the difference is that Vader, unlike Luke, never got pissed and went all-out during their battle(a 'final frenzy attack', as you call it.) He held back the entire time, because deep down, he was good. Remember, that entire scene was ultimately about the redemption of Vader-- about him turning from the dark and going back to the light-- about him converting from Darth Vader back to Anakin Skywalker.

Here are a few pertinent comments Luke made during RotJ:
"I know there is good in you, the Emperor hasn't driven it from you fully."

"Search your feelings, Father, you can't do this. I feel the conflict within you. Let go of your hate."

"Your thoughts betray you, Father. I feel the good in you, the conflict."

"You couldn't bring yourself to kill me before and I don't believe you'll destroy me now."

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
thumb up Glad to see you back... And especially in this forum. thumb up

JakeTheBank
Originally posted by Galan007
Right, but again: the difference is that Vader, unlike Luke, never got pissed and went all-out during their battle(a 'final frenzy attack', as you call it.) He held back the entire time, because deep down, he was good. Remember, that entire scene was ultimately about the redemption of Vader-- about him turning from the dark and going back to the light-- about him converting from Darth Vader back to Anakin Skywalker.

Here are a few pertinent comments Luke made during RotJ:
"I know there is good in you, the Emperor hasn't driven it from you fully."

"Search your feelings, Father, you can't do this. I feel the conflict within you. Let go of your hate."

"Your thoughts betray you, Father. I feel the good in you, the conflict."

"You couldn't bring yourself to kill me before and I don't believe you'll destroy me now."

Glad to see you back... And especially in this forum. thumb up

QFT

And thanks, man! I've actually decided to check out the other forums outside of the comic book ones for the first time since I've registered. laughing out loud

But yeah. Even going by the Original Trilogy's intent and barring the "retcons" from the Prequels, Vader held back the entire time. The only time Luke got the upper hand was because he briefly gave in to the Dark Side, which was why Palpatine got all orgasmic over it.

If RotJ Luke fought Vader in a "forum battle" devoid of plot, Vader would have likely best him. Palpatine would obliterate him.

Galan007
Originally posted by JakeTheBank
And thanks, man! I've actually decided to check out the other forums outside of the comic book ones for the first time since I've registered. laughing out loud Lol, odd as it sounds, this forum is actually a breath of fresh air. The intelligent poster/idiot poster ratio here isn't nearly as bad as it is in the CBF.

JakeTheBank
Originally posted by Galan007
Lol, odd as it sounds, this forum is actually a breath of fresh air. The intelligent poster/idiot poster ratio here isn't nearly as bad as it is in the CBF.

Co-signed lol.

I was greeted by some of the usual parties when I logged back in a couple of days ago.

Kickballjedi
"Now, suppose, here's the question. Could Luke Skywalker have done it directly, by killing the Emperor too (and not just Vader, he could kill Vader possibly, he almost did) and saving the galaxy from them?"

You ask several questions here, but the base of all of them is could Luke "defeat"/kill the Emperor? The reason he threw his saber away was because he knew he was trapped. If he killed Vader, he would become an agent of evil and ruled by Palpatine, if he killed Palpatine he would continue down the Dark Path with his father at his side. Even when Anakin redeemed himself by killing the Emperor, he knew the only escape for him was death, he chose that path to save his son.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.