9

  Sidious made a lot of promises, first to Trade Federation and Nute Gunray ("I will make it legal", "Not for a Sith"), latter to CIS as a whole. Yet, all of his promises for quick victory turn out to be hollow and unfulfilled.

Finally, we have Separatist Council hiding on Utapau, with their final desperate offensive on Coruscant defeated and Dooku dead. Then they move to Mustafar, and shortly after that Grievous is killed. Yet they still believe Sidious and wait patiently there like sheep to be slaughtered.

Members of the Council supposed to be shrewd and cunning beings, that made it to the top using treachery of their own. Yet, none of them suspect Sidious (although they certainly have some knowledge about the Sith), and none of them tries to strike out on their own. There were not attempts to flee, surrender or negotiate with Republic, bribe their way out etc ... either individually or in group. How could that be explained ?

Improve this question
5
  • 5
    Bad/lazy writing?
    – Hans Olo
    Mar 22, 2018 at 6:45
  • 5
    Fear of Sidious, aware of Order 66. There's at least two reasons to stick around on the winning side. (Sure the second of which isn't great, but it's possible)
    – Edlothiad
    Mar 22, 2018 at 7:36
  • They were not intelligent enough to make their own decisions, happy being pulled by the strings by Sidious
    – TimSparrow
    Mar 22, 2018 at 12:34
  • @Edlothiad Care to write answer ?
    – rs.29
    Mar 22, 2018 at 18:07
  • With my speculation, no I likely won’t, I think Tim’s answer is quite good
    – Edlothiad
    Mar 22, 2018 at 22:59

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
10

Because they were cowards

According to the prequel movies official novelizations, Separatist leader Nute Gunray (Viceroy of the Trade Federation) is a cowardly, greedy and not very intelligent being. His fear is often betrayed by foul smell.

From Episode 3 official novelization, part 2, chapter 10

[Grievous]: Repulsive sniveling grub-greedy scum, both of them. And the rest of the Separatist leadership was every bit as vile.

It is worth pointing that Gunray was disgusted even by his ally, Grievous, for cowardice and repulsive appearance.

In the movies, he is also shown very afraid of Darth Sidious. And it is not likely that such a creature could detect that he is being simply used as a disposable puppet.

Gunray (and also other Spearatist leaders) does not know the Sith lord's other identity, that he manipulates both sides. Although there is an imminent danger of losing the war, and facing charges from the winning side, he is more afraid of the Sith's wrath than anything else. At least, the Republic would be fair to their enemy, but the Sith would never be.

For other Separatist leaders, I think the logic could be the same.

Improve this answer
12
  • A quote would be useful, but I'd thought as much that a canon answer would exist.
    – Edlothiad
    Mar 22, 2018 at 12:45
  • Ah apologies. Too quick.
    – Edlothiad
    Mar 22, 2018 at 12:52
  • I don't see how you get to be Viceroy of a trade group without some degree of cunning, unless nepotism was involved.
    – JAB
    Mar 22, 2018 at 15:55
  • also it was known that their species (gunrays) was cowardly....the jedi even mentioned it in phantom menace while waiting for the viceroy to appear.
    – Thomas
    Mar 22, 2018 at 16:02
  • @Thomas They are Neimodians
    – TimSparrow
    Mar 22, 2018 at 16:03
6

This is an example of choice-supportive bias. Put most simply, having made a bad decision, the Council chooses to interpret ongoing evidence in ways that confirm they made the right choice, and ignore that they made the wrong choice.

To quote Wikipedia (emphasis mine),

In cognitive science, one predictable way that memories of choice options are distorted is that positive aspects tend to be remembered as part of the chosen option, whether or not they originally were part of that option, and negative aspects tend to be remembered as part of rejected options. Once an action has been taken, the ways in which we evaluate the effectiveness of what we did may be biased.

To be fair, trying to switch sides once it reached mid-game would have likely meant that they were torn apart by both sides... so staying with that bad decision may have been the best of what were only poor options. (But as portrayed on screen, blinded by their own bad choices seems more in line with their characters.)

Improve this answer
3
  • Is there anything on screen, in script, or in novelisations that suggests they were victims of "choice-supportive bias"?
    – Edlothiad
    Mar 22, 2018 at 12:46
  • 3
    Put another way, "in for a penny, in for a pound"
    – Paul
    Mar 22, 2018 at 12:47
  • 2
    @Edlothiad, no. It's an opinion based on their actions, and as with any psychological judgement by a non-professional, could be total hogwash. (If you want semi-aqueous hogwash, see a professional.) That said, it does seem very in line with what I recall of the film.
    – gowenfawr
    Mar 22, 2018 at 12:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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