#1 Posted by SupBatz (1690 posts) - - Show Bio

One of the most attractive things about the Star Wars universe is that it is just so immense. It covers a timespan of over 4000 years. And each era has its own status quo while still feeling connected with the rest of the Star Wars Universe.

So this brings about the question of which Star Wars era people find to be the most interesting. I personally think the Old Republic era (specificalls around 3900 BBY) is the most interesting - in large part thanks to the KotOR games.

What time period(s) do you find to be the most interesting?

#2 Edited by JediXMan (29575 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm a fan of the Old Republic and NJO eras, personally. And I like some of Legacy.

#3 Posted by Silver2467 (16527 posts) - - Show Bio

Rise of the Empire, Rebellion, New Republic, and New Jedi Order. OR is about half and half. Legacy era, avoid like the plague.

#4 Posted by Captain_Yesterday (807 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't follow Star Wars that much,,,

But when I do, The Old Republic is the most interesting....

#5 Posted by John Valentine (16270 posts) - - Show Bio

Old Republic.

#6 Posted by JamesKM716 (1992 posts) - - Show Bio

Old Republic, Rise of the Empire, New Jedi Order, New Republic and Legacy

The execution of Legacy was awful from what I've heard, but the potential is fantastic.

#7 Posted by Chaos Prime (10842 posts) - - Show Bio

The Old Republic era seems very interesting need to start reading up on it alot more, especialy Revan & his early life as a Jedi.

#8 Posted by RDClip (1117 posts) - - Show Bio

Any era where the possibility exists of mass jedi vs sith battles. I honestly hate the whole "rule of two thing", it makes the sith seems like idiots to believe that having only 2 sith is a good idea.

To be specific though, the Old repulic era is the best, because it includes a huge organized sith army for the jedi to face. Plus it is also the period where the republic was at its peak, the prequel era seems to show a eroded republic and jedi order.

As for Legacy, it had great potential (still does). The problem was with execution in the comic. They introduced many potentially interesting characters and organizations, but then ignored them to focus on the cliched brooding antihero and a boring ineffectual villian. I still would like to see a comic series based on the Imperial Princess and the Grey Jedi Imperial guard vs the exiled One Sith empire.

#9 Posted by Xwraith (15318 posts) - - Show Bio

Rebellion and New Republic, but that's just me.

#10 Edited by Silver2467 (16527 posts) - - Show Bio
@RDClip said:

Any era where the possibility exists of mass jedi vs sith battles. I honestly hate the whole "rule of two thing", it makes the sith seems like idiots to believe that having only 2 sith is a good idea.

LOL @ this. The Banite Sith are idiots because they implemented the system that actually worked? Or have you not noticed yet that every Sith army in the Old Republic era failed to completely wipe out the Jedi Order and take over the galaxy? Whereas, what modus operandi succeeded in that regard? The Rule of Two.
#11 Posted by JediXMan (29575 posts) - - Show Bio

@Silver2467 said:

Rise of the Empire, Rebellion, New Republic, and New Jedi Order. OR is about half and half. Legacy era, avoid like the plague.

... I like some of Legacy...

...

Some of it...

#12 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (17585 posts) - - Show Bio

From after Revenge of the Sith up to A New Hope then to Return of The Jedi then after that a bit.

#13 Posted by JediXMan (29575 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader said:

From after Revenge of the Sith up to A New Hope then to Return of The Jedi then after that a bit.

The gap between RotS and ANH is technically part of the "Rise of the Empire" era, but commonly called "the Dark Times" by many.

The era from after Jedi to 25 ABY is the New Republic era.

#14 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (17585 posts) - - Show Bio

@JediXMan said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

From after Revenge of the Sith up to A New Hope then to Return of The Jedi then after that a bit.

The gap between RotS and ANH is technically part of the "Rise of the Empire" era, but commonly called "the Dark Times" by many.

The era from after Jedi to 25 ABY is the New Republic era.

Thanks I forgot what the different eras where called.

#15 Posted by SupBatz (1690 posts) - - Show Bio

@Silver2467 said:

@RDClip said:

Any era where the possibility exists of mass jedi vs sith battles. I honestly hate the whole "rule of two thing", it makes the sith seems like idiots to believe that having only 2 sith is a good idea.

LOL @ this. The Banite Sith are idiots because they implemented the system that actually worked? Or have you not noticed yet that every Sith army in the Old Republic era failed to completely wipe out the Jedi Order and take over the galaxy? Whereas, what modus operandi succeeded in that regard? The Rule of Two.

I really like the idea behind the Rule of Two and the logic behind it. I think that Darth Bane really hit the nail on the head when he came up with the reasoning for the rule and the idea of the Sith always growing strgonger as Sith apprentices kill their masters under said rule. Also, the irony that Darth Sidious was the one to break this rule under Darth Plageus makes for a pretty strong statement in itself. But I feel like after the time of Darth Bane and Darth Zannah, nobody has really touched upon the Rule of Two quite so well. It really is a great principle that just isn't explained or touched upon in an intelligent manner outside of Bane's time.

#16 Posted by Crimsonlord53 (1300 posts) - - Show Bio

I like it all the first arc of legacy was good then the wheels fell off still trying to figure out if that imp pilot is cade,s half sister and if the princess is his cousin. If I had to pick one era the new republic for rouge squadron alone as well as the new jedi order and the old republic is always a solid pic.

#17 Edited by Silver2467 (16527 posts) - - Show Bio
@SupBatz said:

Also, the irony that Darth Sidious was the one to break this rule under Darth Plageus makes for a pretty strong statement in itself. 

Tenebrous and Plagueis broke the Rule of Two before Sidious did, the former by planning to live forever in a Forceful body born from Plagueis' influence on midi-chlorians and the latter by planning to have himself and Sidious rule the galaxy together as equals; in fact, if anything, Sidious was more faithful to Bane's Rule than Plagueis was because Sidious subjected Plagueis to it by killing Plagueis off and ascending to the rank of Sith Master himself. The fact that Sidious inducted Maul as his apprentice while Plagueis still lived is not outside the precepts of the Rule; if it were, then Bane and Zannah similarly broke the Rule. Bane initiated Cognus as his apprentice while Zannah still lived, and Zannah was searching for Sith candidates, like Set Harth, while Bane still lived. Having an apprentice while the Sith Master still endures is not against the Rule of Two by Bane and Zannah's example. Otherwise, by your definition, not even Bane championed his own Rule properly, which Zannah already believed to be the case since Bane sought out a means of immortality instead of allowing Zannah to replace him; Tenebrous and Plagueis in like fashion also were looking to acquire means to immortality to the suspension of the Rule of Two. Contrarily, Sidious, unlike Bane, Tenebrous, or Plagueis, at least exercised the patience to overthrow the galaxy before he educated himself in the secrets of immortality.

Additionally, the purpose of the Rule of Two was to produce a Sith Lord powerful enough to conquer the galaxy; Sidious was the Sith Lord who could accomplish that. Once Sidious came onto the scene, the Rule of Two had effectively served its original design and was no longer needed. And the fact is, if the Banite Sith took the Rule of Two to its logical extreme, then the Sith would never subjugate the galaxy because they would spend forever usurping their masters and adopting their own apprentices clandestinely. At some point or another, a Sith Lord simply had to choose not to perpetuate the cycle of supplanting positions so that they could enact the Sith's primary directive, which was to assume command over the entire galaxy. Contrary to popular belief, the Rule of Two was not meant to be permanent. Its purpose was to consummate with the most powerful Sith Lord in history. That Sith Lord could then finally subdue the galaxy under Sith dominion. Sidious mobilized that strategy, and he followed the Rule of Two with his apprentices.

Maul died before his time, and Tyranus was meant to be temporary until Anakin could transpose Tyranus (which itself does not betray the Rule either because Tyranus lacked the potential to succeed Sidious, and Bane himself advocated the practice of setting Sith candidates against one another until one outlives his usefulness and the other seizes his place). On the other hand, Vader did have the innate potential to supersede Palpatine, and Sidious recognized that. Does that mean Sidious wanted to be replaced? No. But the difference between Sidious and Plagueis is that Sidious waited until after the galaxy was already under Sith rule before he chose not to proliferate the Banite line any longer. Once the Empire was founded, Sidious established his "Rule of One" which would protract his personal rule indefinitely. But why shouldn't he do that? The galaxy was conquered. That was the ultimate goal of the Banite Order, for a Sith Lord to govern the whole galaxy; once a Sith Lord achieved that, the Rule of Two had expired. Sidious really never "broke the Rule of Two;" he just exhausted its function. It would harm the stability of the Empire if the two reigning Sith Lords continued the tradition of infighting. Yet even once the Rule of Two had been retired, Sidious still held only one Sith apprentice, Vader, purely to honor Bane's tradition and utilized his apprentice as an aid in maintaining hold over the galaxy.

Sidious never broke the Rule of Two by his relationships with either his master or his apprentices. The only way he ever "broke" the Rule was by resigning it after it already did what it was supposed to do. Why preserve a system after its objective had come to fruition? The Rule of Two did its job; therefore, it could be laid to rest.

But I feel like after the time of Darth Bane and Darth Zannah, nobody has really touched upon the Rule of Two quite so well. It really is a great principle that just isn't explained or touched upon in an intelligent manner outside of Bane's time.

Darth Plagueis by James Luceno disagrees.

@JediXMan said:

@Silver2467 said:

Rise of the Empire, Rebellion, New Republic, and New Jedi Order. OR is about half and half. Legacy era, avoid like the plague.

... I like some of Legacy...

...

Some of it...

This is all subjective preference; people can like or dislike whatever they want. I was just offering my own opinion on what to look for and what to stay away from.
#18 Posted by JediXMan (29575 posts) - - Show Bio

@Silver2467 said:

@JediXMan said:

@Silver2467 said:

Rise of the Empire, Rebellion, New Republic, and New Jedi Order. OR is about half and half. Legacy era, avoid like the plague.

... I like some of Legacy...

...

Some of it...

This is all subjective preference; people can like or dislike whatever they want. I was just offering my own opinion on what to look for and what to stay away from.

I know. Personally, as you know, I enjoyed the earlier issues of Legacy. And, obviously, I like Roan Fel and the Fel Empire overall, including the Imperial Knights. I don't like the Jedi of that era, the GA, or the One Sith philosophy.

Honestly, the scenes involving the Empire and Bastion were the best parts.

Also, I like LotF except for the last two issues. FotJ can curl up and die.

#19 Posted by SupBatz (1690 posts) - - Show Bio

@Silver2467 said:

@SupBatz said:

Also, the irony that Darth Sidious was the one to break this rule under Darth Plageus makes for a pretty strong statement in itself.

Tenebrous and Plagueis broke the Rule of Two before Sidious did, the former by planning to live forever in a Forceful body born from Plagueis' influence on midi-chlorians and the latter by planning to have himself and Sidious rule the galaxy together as equals; in fact, if anything, Sidious was more faithful to Bane's Rule than Plagueis was because Sidious subjected Plagueis to it by killing Plagueis off and ascending to the rank of Sith Master himself. The fact that Sidious inducted Maul as his apprentice while Plagueis still lived is not outside the precepts of the Rule; if it were, then Bane and Zannah similarly broke the Rule. Bane initiated Cognus as his apprentice while Zannah still lived, and Zannah was searching for Sith candidates, like Set Harth, while Bane still lived. Having an apprentice while the Sith Master still endures is not against the Rule of Two by Bane and Zannah's example. Otherwise, by your definition, not even Bane championed his own Rule properly, which Zannah already believed to be the case since Bane sought out a means of immortality instead of allowing Zannah to replace him; Tenebrous and Plagueis in like fashion also were looking to acquire means to immortality to the suspension of the Rule of Two. Contrarily, Sidious, unlike Bane, Tenebrous, or Plagueis, at least exercised the patience to overthrow the galaxy before he educated himself in the secrets of immortality.

...

But I feel like after the time of Darth Bane and Darth Zannah, nobody has really touched upon the Rule of Two quite so well. It really is a great principle that just isn't explained or touched upon in an intelligent manner outside of Bane's time.

Darth Plagueis by James Luceno disagrees.

I don't think I expressed what meant clearly enough. First, I'll note that I haven't read Darth Plagueis yet so I can't really comment on anything that occurred in it. But in my original statement, I wasn't referring to Sidious' having multiple apprentices or his training Maul while still being trained by Plagueis being the factors which, in my opinion, made him unfaithful to the Rule of Two. I was refering specifically to his abandoning the rule after conquering the galaxy (though after reading your points about abandoning the rule after it has served its purpose I have had a change of heart and agree with what you pointed out) and his killing Darth Plagueis in his sleep.

The image of Darth Sidious killing his master in his sleep (going simply by the reference to this event in Revenge of the Sith being that I haven't read Darth Plageus yet) was always a particularly potent image for me simply because I felt like it was the biggest betrayal of Bane's rule. The thing I always took most from the Rule of Two was that it's most important component was the apprentice challenging the master to a duel after learning everything worth learning from the master. This was bascially the focus of Darth Bane: Dynasty of Evil and it distraught Bane very much when Zannah appeared reluctant to challenge him. The entire purpose of the Rule of Two was to ensure that the Sith would always grow stronger with each new apprentice. This was guarenteed by the inevitable battle between the master and the apprentice which would prove who deserved to carry on the order and to train a new apprentice. Palpatine having killed his master as he slept felt reminiscent of Bane's point that, before the Rule of Two, apprentices would kill masters through trickery (teaming up with other apprentices, taking advantage of vulnerablity etc) thus resulting in a weaker master who had not proved himself or herself worth of carrying on the lineage.

It does not bother me that Sidious had multiple apprentices or that he trained Maul while still under Plagueis' tutelage - as you pointed out, Zannah did just this when she planned to take Set Harth as her apprentice. I was merely refering to the manner by which Sidious murdered his master. Perhaps this situation between Plagueis and Sidious was altered by Luceno in Darth Plagueis but assuming it wasn't, I feel that Sidious blantantly betrayed the Rule of Two in the way he ascended to master.

All of that being said, I enjoyed the points you made about Sidious being right in abandoning the rule after taking over the galaxy. I had not seen it in that way initially but have come to agree with you that the time had come where it was ok to abandon the Rule of Two. So I'll revoke any implication I made that Sidious betrayed the Rule of Two (with counter-productive results) aside for the manner by which he murdered Plagueis.

#20 Edited by Silver2467 (16527 posts) - - Show Bio
@SupBatz said: 

I don't think I expressed what meant clearly enough. First, I'll note that I haven't read Darth Plagueis yet so I can't really comment on anything that occurred in it. But in my original statement, I wasn't referring to Sidious' having multiple apprentices or his training Maul while still being trained by Plagueis being the factors which, in my opinion, made him unfaithful to the Rule of Two. I was refering specifically to his abandoning the rule after conquering the galaxy (though after reading your points about abandoning the rule after it has served its purpose I have had a change of heart and agree with what you pointed out) and his killing Darth Plagueis in his sleep.

The image of Darth Sidious killing his master in his sleep (going simply by the reference to this event in Revenge of the Sith being that I haven't read Darth Plageus yet) was always a particularly potent image for me simply because I felt like it was the biggest betrayal of Bane's rule. The thing I always took most from the Rule of Two was that it's most important component was the apprentice challenging the master to a duel after learning everything worth learning from the master. This was bascially the focus of Darth Bane: Dynasty of Evil and it distraught Bane very much when Zannah appeared reluctant to challenge him. The entire purpose of the Rule of Two was to ensure that the Sith would always grow stronger with each new apprentice. This was guarenteed by the inevitable battle between the master and the apprentice which would prove who deserved to carry on the order and to train a new apprentice. Palpatine having killed his master as he slept felt reminiscent of Bane's point that, before the Rule of Two, apprentices would kill masters through trickery (teaming up with other apprentices, taking advantage of vulnerablity etc) thus resulting in a weaker master who had not proved himself or herself worth of carrying on the lineage.

It does not bother me that Sidious had multiple apprentices or that he trained Maul while still under Plagueis' tutelage - as you pointed out, Zannah did just this when she planned to take Set Harth as her apprentice. I was merely refering to the manner by which Sidious murdered his master. Perhaps this situation between Plagueis and Sidious was altered by Luceno in Darth Plagueis but assuming it wasn't, I feel that Sidious blantantly betrayed the Rule of Two in the way he ascended to master.

Ah, I see. My mistake then. I actually forgot that that was one of the reasons people often cite to suggest Sidious broke the Rule. To put that into context, Plagueis also killed Tenebrous through trickery, and when Sidious attacked Plagueis, Plagueis woke up. Sidious didn't just attack Plagueis as Plagueis slept, and that ended it. He fired a brief burst of Lightning at Plagueis, which woke Plagueis up, after which Sidious took his time killing him. Since you have not read the novel, I will refrain from completely spoiling the scene, but believe me when I say, the entire scene conveyed several dimensions of superiority in power of Sidious over Plagueis. So your concern that it fails to present the apprentice as more powerful than the master are unfounded. 
 
More importantly, though Bane himself personally stressed the concept of the apprentice engaging the master in a fight, there is absolutely no reason that it invariably must happen that way. If Bane had any weaknesses, it was an overemphasis on combative talent. He was hardly the best manipulator of galactic events in the Banite Order; quite honestly, he might have be the worst out of them in that regard. Though he did begin the process of gather resources and altering the course of events, that was by no means his best trait. Sith Lords like Tenebrous, Plagueis, and Sidious on the other hand were profoundly gifted in that area. And really, a Sith apprentice defeating the master in a fight is not the only way to prove superiority. Plagueis trained himself never to sleep, yet Sidious manipulated him to fall asleep and render himself vulnerable. After Plagueis' death, Sidious trained himself never to sleep so as not to make the same "mistake" of sleeping. He also displayed powers of resistance and influence that Plagueis lacked. The purpose of killing the master is to prove surpassing power. If the master is weak enough to be killed by the apprentice, then the apprentice has succeeded. It makes no difference how the apprentice does this, as long as they do it personally instead of, say, bombing the master's quarters or something like that. What Bane wanted to preclude was the prospect of many Sith apprentices killing one master in concert, because that requires the efforts of several to overtake the one, and that demonstrates weakness on the part of any one Sith apprentice. But if there is only one Sith apprentice to any one master, and that Sith apprentice kills the master, then the Sith apprentice is more powerful. It really is that simple. Whether they cross blades or not is inconsequential. If Plagueis was weak enough that Sidious could make him fall asleep (despite the fact that Plagueis had not slept before that in about two decades) and then evince far more power in the Force than Plagueis when Plagueis woke up, then Sidious is more powerful and is the rightful master, in the same way that if Plagueis can so easily set up a scenario where Tenebrous' attention is turned away from him so that Plagueis can crush Tenebrous with boulders, then Plagueis is more powerful and is the rightful apprentice. 
 
Plagueis and Sidious were far more accomplished as philosophers and possessed far deeper insights into the Force than Bane did. This is natural, of course, as they were a thousand years after Bane and had a thousand years' worth of philosophical advancement and more Sith from which to accumulate information from. And with that said, this is an excerpt from Sidious' writings that exposits on his assessment on selecting apprentices and the dangers one presents. He lists the various ways an apprentice might kill a master, but notice here that he does not condemn any way that a Sith apprentice kills the master. If the apprentice shows ascendancy over the master in any of the areas listed, then those are valid areas from which the apprentice is greater than the master. Combat is not the only way to prove supremacy. There are other ways, equally as legitimate.

The relationship between a Sith Lord Master and apprentice is far more powerful than any other teacher and student, a duality greater than the fundamental entities of mind and matter. It is vital that neither believes there is greater strength in a single Sith Lord, or in an Order that exceeds two.
Because you are not yet a Master yourself, you might assume that it is the Master's duty to bestow all of his knowledge of the dark side to his apprentice. You could not be more mistaken. It is the apprentice's duty to learn all that he can from the Master, and the Master's right to refrain from revealing all of his secrets. My own Master, Darth Plagueis, made the grave error of teaching me too much, at which point he became unnecessary.
Choosing an apprentice can be a strenuous endeavor. The most important thing to remember is that the apprentice's purpose is to serve the Master. Only when you consider how few beings are worthy of becoming a Sith Lord can you begin to understand the enormity of your responsibility.
You want someone capable of carrying out your orders, but not someone who has every intention of killing you before you can accomplish your goals. And you can expect that your apprentice will come to want your life, for it is only natural for the apprentice to aspire for more. An apprentice should be ambitious, but if your own ambition is to life, you must be mindful.
Choose someone as a successor and you will be succeeded.
Choose someone hungrier and you will be devoured.
Choose someone quicker and you won't dodge the blade at your back.
Choose someone with more patience and you won't block the blade at your throat.
Choose someone more devious and you'll hold the blade that kills you.
Choose someone more clever and you'll never know your end.
Despite these cautions, an apprentice is essential. A Master without an apprentice is a Master of nothing.

--Taken from Jedi vs Sith: The Essential Guide to the Force

Practically speaking, this idea that combat is not the mandatory manner for an apprentice to usurp the master is also attested to by the fact that although Plagueis and Sidious emphasized manipulative mastery where Bane emphasized physical mastery, Plagueis and Sidious are still far stronger, far faster, and far more dangerous physical opponents than Bane ever was. They exhibited realms of combative ability that Bane never came close to. So even if you were to decide that Plagueis and Sidious "broke" the Rule of Two because they neglected to kill their masters in a direct fight, the Sith line hardly suffered for it. Plagueis and Sidious still outstrip Bane and Zannah as combative masters. 
 
All in all, I still disagree with you. There is no reason to believe that just because a Sith apprentice chooses an alternative route to killing his master than a duel, that means that the Sith apprentice has "broken" the Rule of Two. Sidious killing Plagueis the way he did is not outside the qualifications of the Two-Sith Rule.
#21 Posted by Inverno (13061 posts) - - Show Bio

The Old Republic fascinates me the most.

#22 Edited by Bushwhacker_ (576 posts) - - Show Bio

ANH-ROTJ

#23 Posted by Immortal777 (6898 posts) - - Show Bio

Old Republic

Online
#24 Posted by JediXMan (29575 posts) - - Show Bio

@Bushwhacker_ said:

ANH-ROTJ

Rebellion.