Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for science fiction and fantasy enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In the sense that Vader considers himself a different person from Anakin (one would say "different, yet the same" with emphasis on "different"), does Sidious feel the same about himself in regard to Palpatine, only putting up with being called Palpatine for practical reasons?

share|improve this question
3  
The New Essential Guide to Characters (released shortly after Attack of the Clones) said that Sidious was a centimeter taller than Palpatine. Maybe he stands up straighter because he has more confidence as Sidious. – Thunderforge Feb 15 at 22:24
1  
@Thunderforge - Or maybe his cloak was a centimeter thick.. :P – LcSalazar Feb 16 at 12:16
up vote 28 down vote accepted

This is explicitly answered in the official novelisation for Revenge of the Sith. In short, Sidious considers Palpatine to be his disguise (to the world outside) and Sidious to be his real self.

Then Sidious, for some reason, decided to intervene.

“Don’t fear what you’re feeling, Anakin, use it!” he barked in Palpatine’s voice. “Call upon your fury. Focus it, and he cannot stand against you. Rage is your weapon. Strike now! Strike! Kill

later...

Palpatine examined the damage to his face in a broad expanse of wall mirror. Anakin couldn’t tell if his expression might be revulsion, or if this were merely the new shape of his features. Palpatine lifted one tentative hand to the misshapen horror that he now saw in the mirror, then simply shrugged.

“And so the mask becomes the man,” he sighed with a hint of philosophical melancholy. “I shall miss the face of Palpatine, I think; but for our purpose, the face of Sidious will serve. Yes, it will serve.”


As @hypnosifl has pointed out in a comment, there's a very relevant quote from Palpatine actor Ian McDiarmid that states that Lucas had very much the same idea in mind; Sidious was always the true form and that he wore Palpatine's unblemished face like a mask. When he became hideously scarred, that was, ironically, his true face.

'Naturally, Lucas had a better way of summing up the relationship. "He said this casually, 'You should think of Palpatine's eyes as contact lenses...' So there's Palpatine's eyes and my eyes and that was very interesting. So, in fact, his face, which is the same as mine, was the unreal aspect. My own face was the mask. And then when I get into the mask, that is the evil person - that's the real face."'

share|improve this answer
    
Doesn't your quote suggest it's the other way around? That Sidious is the disguise and Palpatine is the real self? And so the mask becomes the man, so the mask was Sidious, the man Palpatine but now, the mask has become the man. So, he used to consider Palpatine his "real" self and Sidious the persona but, by this point, they have switched places. – terdon Feb 16 at 13:10
    
@terdon - I think he means that his ruined face now suits his true persona (not 'becomes' in the sense of being one thing, then another but 'becomes' in the sense of fitting/being appropriate – Valorum Feb 16 at 13:48
    
@terdon You could just as easily read that as the mask, Palpatine, now becoming the real man, Sidious. His appearance has changed so that it is no longer a mask. – DCShannon Feb 16 at 20:04
    
@DCShannon ah, yes, that one makes more sense for me. – terdon Feb 16 at 21:27
1  
This bit from an interview with Ian McDiarmid also seems relevant: 'Naturally, Lucas had a better way of summing up the relationship. "He said this casually, 'You should think of Palpatine's eyes as contact lenses...' So there's Palpatine's eyes and my eyes and that was very interesting. So, in fact, his face, which is the same as mine, was the unreal aspect. My own face was the mask. And then when I get into the mask, that is the evil person - that's the real face."' – Hypnosifl Feb 22 at 19:47

Lets consider in what way is Anakin "different" from Vader. While Anakin has some dark attitude he is mostly a light side guy. He is tragically seduced by the dark side and loses all his natural senses and good feelings, murdering children and becoming an emotionless Dark Lord.

At this point, quoting Obi-Wan:

OBI-WAN: When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed.

In his redemption, on Return of The Jedi, Vader gets in touch with his deep feelings, starts to care about his son, at that moment he becomes Anakin again, a good man.

Now, when it comes to Palpatine/Sidious:

Sidious is an evil character, he cares about no one but himself. Also he is a master planner, it is all about his plan to become the ultimate ruler of the Universe.

When he is acting as Palpatine, even though he is hiding his dark nature, he is moving forward with his plan and manipulating things to work in his advantage. He is carefully inciting Anakin with the Dark Side, and creating a Galactic war to stay in power.

So, with Anakin/Vader you can see a clear distinction between the two personalities, and there's no point where they coincide.

With Palpatine/Sidious both personalities have the same goal and motivations, and he is acting as both at the same time.

So no, Palpatine is not a different person than Sidious in the same way as Darth Vader is.

share|improve this answer
2  
Also, Palpatine murdered his own father while he was still basically an untrained child, before he was ever introduced to the Sith—and before the Sidious persona had ever been thought up. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Feb 15 at 15:13
5  
Technically Palpatine's the ultimate ruler of the Star Wars galaxy rather than the greater universe we supposedly share with the Star Wars galaxy. – Mark Rogers Feb 15 at 19:11
17  
"...becoming an emotionless Dark Lord." Actually, it's emotions that are precisely why Force users turn to and stay within the embrace of the Dark Side. Emotionless is one of the last possible adjectives that could be used to describe a Dark-sider. Unsympathetic? Of course. Emotionless? Anything but. – Ellesedil Feb 15 at 19:21
    
@Ellesedil - You're right. I meant it like disaffected, that doesn't care for anyone. English is not my first language. Could you suggest another word? – LcSalazar Feb 16 at 12:20

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.