StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Despite Palpatine's considerable political acumen and mastery of the Force, the Galaxy was too big to remain completely loyal to him. Why would his New Order be any different? Aside from defectors to the Rebel Alliance, we only hear of a few incidents involving high-level disloyal Imperials- the Valkyrie-styled coup led by several Grand Moffs, and Grand Admiral Zaarin's insurrection.

So some conjectural questions: what could be the motivations by pro-Imperial members to want to dispose Palpatine and Vader, other than for their own personal gain? Could it be possible, as Publius speculates, that there were New Order hardliners more Imperial than the Emperor himself? Would there have been any way for a charismatic insurrectionist like Zaarin, or a powerful schemer like Tarkin, to form their own Imperial insurgencies against the throne? What mechanisms, other than the sheer inertia from the declaration of the Empire, prevented such insurgencies from forming? And could any of these have become co-belligerents with the Rebels?

Battlehymn Republic wrote: So some conjectural questions: what could be the motivations by pro-Imperial members to want to dispose Palpatine and Vader, other than for their own personal gain?

One reason I can think of is the chance to put together a government with a better mechanism for succession, or perhaps a belief that the Emperor and/or Vader create dthe Empire fo rtheir own personal gain and that the Empire would be better off without those two.

Could it be possible, as Publius speculates, that there were New Order hardliners more Imperial than the Emperor himself?

Probably, I don't think that Palpatine was as racist or sexist as his New Order ended up becoming, I bet in his own mind he discriminated based on Force ability more than anything else.

Would there have been any way for a charismatic insurrectionist like Zaarin, or a powerful schemer like Tarkin, to form their own Imperial insurgencies against the throne?

The Rebels did it, the biggest requirement is popular support and lots of it.

What mechanisms, other than the sheer inertia from the declaration of the Empire, prevented such insurgencies from forming? And could any of these have become co-belligerents with the Rebels?

Admiral Harkov did become a co-belligerent with the Rebels, albeit briefly. As far as preventing insurgencies, I am sure Palpatine's mastery of the Force played a part in that.

Battlehymn Republic wrote:So some conjectural questions: what could be the motivations by pro-Imperial members to want to dispose Palpatine and Vader, other than for their own personal gain?

Dissatisfaction with the rate of change the New Order was bringing?

Could it be possible, as Publius speculates, that there were New Order hardliners more Imperial than the Emperor himself?

I believe one of the Grand Admirals was, but I cannot remember who or where I read it edit: Peccati Syn, and it isn't stated, so that must have been conjecture on my part.

Would there have been any way for a charismatic insurrectionist like Zaarin, or a powerful schemer like Tarkin, to form their own Imperial insurgencies against the throne?

If they had the funds to fund it, the time to set the pawns properly, and the need for it, I don't see why it would be difficult for an insurrectionist to pull an army out of nowhere, both the Seperatists and the Republic were able to, with the public having no idea this was happening.

What mechanisms, other than the sheer inertia from the declaration of the Empire, prevented such insurgencies from forming?

Massive Popularity (From Wedge's Gamble, Shadows of Mindor, and others), a system of cutthroat organizations that want to take you out so they can try their hand at couping (ISB, Imperial Intelligence, Sith Cult of the Week) , a command of personal debts at the top (Vader).

Battlehymn Republic wrote:And could any of these have become co-belligerents with the Rebels?

Possibly, if they could agree to spilt power if they managed to succeed, but it wouldn't seem likely with the New Order's basis.

Darth Fanboy wrote:One reason I can think of is the chance to put together a government with a better mechanism for succession, or perhaps a belief that the Emperor and/or Vader create dthe Empire fo rtheir own personal gain and that the Empire would be better off without those two.

They would have to be quite dumb to work with either of those, given how Palpatine is the only thing that holds the Empire together; a successful coup against him would inevitably destroy all order in the galaxy.

Ars Dangor wrote:We rule through might and fear—fear of the chaos that would ensue should the Imperial government falter.

Probably, I don't think that Palpatine was as racist or sexist as his New Order ended up becoming,

The New Order was not intrinsically sexist, morons like Daala to the contrary. Racist, perhaps, to some degree, but not as a central element of official policy.

I bet in his own mind he discriminated based on Force ability more than anything else.

Correct; his long-term plans, as revealed in the DESB, were to slowly turn the Empire into a quasi-Sithian theocracy as a stepping stone towards absorbing the galaxy into his will at the crowning moment of his Dark Side apotheosis.

The Rebels did it, the biggest requirement is popular support and lots of it.

Which the Rebels gained only after Palpatine's first public death; prior to that, Palpatine was extremely popular (WEG, RotJ novelisation, other sources) and the Rebels a fringe movement (RotJ novelisation illustrates this best; even if you do not take that passage at face value, it does give a sense of what order of magnitude the Rebels are at. Further, WEG sources give extremely minimal hard numbers for Rebel forces). The prime requirement is taking out Palpatine and causing a general collapse; as long as he lives, he will retain the support of the government and the populace.

Admiral Harkov did become a co-belligerent with the Rebels, albeit briefly. As far as preventing insurgencies, I am sure Palpatine's mastery of the Force played a part in that.

Mainly, the popularity of the New Order itself and Palpatine personally prevented rebellion from below; in the upper echelons, masterful court politics and National Socialist-esque inter-organisation competition were a strong deterrent to the formation of anti-Palpatinian alliances.

Battlehymn Republic wrote:Despite Palpatine's considerable political acumen and mastery of the Force, the Galaxy was too big to remain completely loyal to him. Why would his New Order be any different? Aside from defectors to the Rebel Alliance, we only hear of a few incidents involving high-level disloyal Imperials- the Valkyrie-styled coup led by several Grand Moffs, and Grand Admiral Zaarin's insurrection.

Though obviously inspired by the 20th July Plot, the Moffic conspiracy in Empire: Betrayal bears little direct similarity to the actual event; in reality, a group of admittedly elitist and quasi-fascist but still patriotic officers intended to remove Hitler in vain hopes of bringing a ruinous war to an end, whereas in the comic it is simply a half-assed power grab by a few oligarchs who see a weakening in the Imperial system. A closer approximate to 20th July would be the Jax Coup against the reborn Emperor (first described in Crimson Empire), when he was quite clearly turning into a madman bringing the Empire to ruin, or the fizzled Dark Side Adept Putsch in Dark Empire II.

So some conjectural questions: what could be the motivations by pro-Imperial members to want to dispose Palpatine and Vader, other than for their own personal gain?

Since all examples we have seen have been exactly that (even the aforementioned coup attempts against Palpatine Reborn, though those to somewhat lesser extent), it does appear to be the prime motivation.

Could it be possible, as Publius speculates, that there were New Order hardliners more Imperial than the Emperor himself?

It is possible; we do know (from the ISB) that Lord Crueya Vandron was pushing the COMPNOR totalitarians rather farther than more moderate elements in the Empire would have preferred, and Tarkinist/extreme New Order elements such as Tarkin himself or his successor as Governor, Oversector Outer, Ardus Kaine (known as a co-founder of COMPNOR and later a secessionist from the Isard regency) are known to have inhabited the higher ranks of the Imperial authority. Another example to the same effect would be Grand Admiral Ishin al-Raz, though he would not be applicable in this scenario, being fanatically loyal to Emperor Palpatine personally.

Would there have been any way for a charismatic insurrectionist like Zaarin, or a powerful schemer like Tarkin, to form their own Imperial insurgencies against the throne?

Since it did happen, we do know it was possible to conspire against Palpatine, or even attempt coups. If you meant ones that would be successful in any longer perspective, the answer is in all likelihood no.

And could any of these have become co-belligerents with the Rebels?

Possibly; Fliry Vorru, former Moff of Corellia, could be described as such, and Sate Pestage's clone also to some effect. The Rebel Alliance/New Republic was willing to cooperate with the Empire, as represented by Admiral Teren Rogriss, against Warlord Zsinj. The key question here would be the relative success of the Rebellion; in its early stages, its support would likely have been more of a liability than an aid to a moderately successful Imperial coupist.

I still think that the Zaarin allies with the Rebels idea is rather compelling. It would be interesting if there was some sort of internal revolt within the bureaucracy or the military of the Empire against Palpatine/Vader.

Even assuming that the Rebels would admit him (far from certain, given their extreme bias against the higher-ranking Imperials and earlier - false - high-ranker defections {e.g., Admiral Griff} putting them on their guard), and that he would choose to join them (also uncertain, given his, shall we say, less than optimum strategic skill and control of his temper), his fleet would, from what the game implies, not be a very substantial asset, especially when one consider loyalist and "sleeper agent" elements in it (I would find it rather hard to believe that he could have rooted them all out). Zaarin's major contribution to the Rebel cause would in that case be the information that he, as a Grand Admiral, would be privy to. Then again, is there not some ret-con having Palpatine being aware of his treachery in advance? That might limit this, as well.

Darth Hoth wrote: They would have to be quite dumb to work with either of those, given how Palpatine is the only thing that holds the Empire together; a successful coup against him would inevitably destroy all order in the galaxy.

Zaarin and Trachta both felt they could pull it off. After Palpatine was depose there was a lot of internal chaos in the Empire but it was hardly galactic anarchy.

The New Order was not intrinsically sexist, morons like Daala to the contrary.

Hey I hate her to but there is evidence to suggest that there was sexism in the New Order, there is little evidence to prove that there wasn't.

Racist, perhaps, to some degree, but not as a central element of official policy.

COMPOR places an ad in Labyrnith of Evil saying that "nonhumans need not apply", so tell me, if the predecessor to an organization dedicated to preserving the New Order is actively discouraging the involvement of nonhumans, how is racism not a big part of their policy? (I risk letting this discussion get off track.)

Which the Rebels gained only after Palpatine's first public death;

Not the majority of popular support, but you cannot seriously say that the Rebels did not enjoy a large amount of popular support in parts of the galaxy. They certainly had enough to instigate the REbellion to begin with, and they eventually had enough to raise a sizeable military. Dac ring a bell?

prior to that, Palpatine was extremely popular (WEG, RotJ novelisation, other sources) and the Rebels a fringe movement

I recognize that the Empire could not bring its full might to bear against the REbels , but my point is that the Alliance had enough support to raise a susbstantial military, including support from powerful words such as Dac.

Darth Fanboy wrote:Zaarin and Trachta both felt they could pull it off. After Palpatine was depose there was a lot of internal chaos in the Empire but it was hardly galactic anarchy.

In fact, it was; Imperial authority was shattered and divided between vying factions (Pestage/Isard regency, which went through three coups and counter-coups in six months, impromptu Central Committe of Grand Moffs, Lord Shadowspawn, and others). The central Imperial government, such as it was, retained control of just over a third of the Empire; independent Warlord Zsinj controlled another third, and the rest was divided between the Rebels and hundreds of minor warlords.

Hey I hate her to but there is evidence to suggest that there was sexism in the New Order, there is little evidence to prove that there wasn't.

What evidence exists is brain bugs caused by KJA's moronic portrayal of Daala, whose deranged ramblings were taken at face value by hack authors. The only source pointing in that direction that is not directly derivative of Daala that I can think of off the top of my head is Mike Stackpole's Rogue Squadron, and taken at face value that book says that the Imperial Navy considered women literally subhuman and not part of the human species, which is mindboggling enough to break suspension of disbelief. This when Stackpole is notorious for making his Imperial characters moustache twirlers. By contrast, there is not one shred of evidence for institutionalised Imperial misogyny in the ISB or related sources; one would think that if this was an intrinsic part of the New Order ideology, it would be described in the books primarily concerned with COMPNOR's ideology and structure.

COMPOR places an ad in Labyrnith of Evil saying that "nonhumans need not apply", so tell me, if the predecessor to an organization dedicated to preserving the New Order is actively discouraging the involvement of nonhumans, how is racism not a big part of their policy? (I risk letting this discussion get off track.)

Perhaps they were recruiting in a neighbourhood with great anti-alien feelings, and wanted to capitalise on that? One local political poster does not adequately represent a pan-galactic political party; does the fact that some New York RINOs promote homosexual marriage make that a core part of the Grand Old Party's programme?

Not the majority of popular support, but you cannot seriously say that the Rebels did not enjoy a large amount of popular support in parts of the galaxy. They certainly had enough to instigate the REbellion to begin with, and they eventually had enough to raise a sizeable military. Dac ring a bell?

A Rebellion that was absolutely minuscule in size; WEG lists their total ground forces as numbering 1.5 million, which comes out to less than 0.1 troopers on average per Sector (assuming that Chommell Sector, with some tens of thousands of populated planets, is typical; we know that the Empire controls "billions of worlds").

I recognize that the Empire could not bring its full might to bear against the REbels , but my point is that the Alliance had enough support to raise a susbstantial military, including support from powerful words such as Dac.

Support from one world is absolutely insignificant on a galactic scale, even if that world is a Coruscant-type ecumenopolis, much less if it is some Outer Rim planet. Notwithstanding, the support of the governments of lesser polities does not equal popular support. We have numerous sources, including the G-canon RotJ novelisation, which clearly and unambiguously state that Palpatine was enormously popular throughout the galaxy and that his policies had massive popular support.

Darth Hoth wrote:What evidence exists is brain bugs caused by KJA's moronic portrayal of Daala, whose deranged ramblings were taken at face value by hack authors. The only source pointing in that direction that is not directly derivative of Daala that I can think of off the top of my head is Mike Stackpole's Rogue Squadron, and taken at face value that book says that the Imperial Navy considered women literally subhuman and not part of the human species, which is mindboggling enough to break suspension of disbelief. This when Stackpole is notorious for making his Imperial characters moustache twirlers. By contrast, there is not one shred of evidence for institutionalised Imperial misogyny in the ISB or related sources; one would think that if this was an intrinsic part of the New Order ideology, it would be described in the books primarily concerned with COMPNOR's ideology and structure.

Which I suppose raises the question of weather we can simply dismiss a canon source because we feel it is unrealistic. Personally though I can't complain; I may choose for example to disregard some of miss Travis's work on the grounds that it is incompatible with the rest of the Star Wars Universe.

However, is the above ideology of the Navy with regards to women really so improbable? Humans have believed many staggeringly retarded things throughout history. Some individuals who-for reasons that escape me-admire the Empire and may wish to polish its image might dispute claims of institutional sexism, and maybe in this case they're even right. But to dismiss the claim simply because its retarded seems foolish.

You haven't to my knowledge cited anything as evidence that their is no Imperial sexism. Are you not basically dismissing pieces of canon evidence on little or nothing but the fact that you find them implausible, and the fact that they are not explicitly corroborated in your preferred sources?

A Rebellion that was absolutely minuscule in size; WEG lists their total ground forces as numbering 1.5 million, which comes out to less than 0.1 troopers on average per Sector (assuming that Chommell Sector, with some tens of thousands of populated planets, is typical; we know that the Empire controls "billions of worlds").

Source? I thought it was 51 million or so.

Secondly, the Alliance military may have been small, but that does not mean that it did not have large numbers of sympathizers. The Alliance survived by staying hidden and mobile. Open warfare would have been an invitation for the Empire to anhialate them. In fact, is it not the case that when the Alliance was established, a number of worlds openly declared their support and were quickly suppressed, despite the Alliance asking them not to? I recall something to that effect, but I can't recall the source I'm afraid.

Support from one world is absolutely insignificant on a galactic scale, even if that world is a Coruscant-type ecumenopolis, much less if it is some Outer Rim planet. Notwithstanding, the support of the governments of lesser polities does not equal popular support. We have numerous sources, including the G-canon RotJ novelisation, which clearly and unambiguously state that Palpatine was enormously popular throughout the galaxy and that his policies had massive popular support.

I rather think that the Mon Calimari's home world was more than just "some Outer Rim planet." Wasn't it a Sector Capital (not sure about this one), and a major star ship producer? Also, it was by no means the only world to throw its support behind the Alliance. I should probably post a list of various members and supporters, but for now I'll merely throw out Bothawui, Sullust, Corillea, and of course Alderan as other worlds which gave significant support to the Alliance. Note: these are not trailer trash planets in the middle of nowhere.

Also, you are correct that governmental support does not equal popular support, but the Alliance, while militarily small, seems to have had a significant number of sympathizers in the general populace, at least in the Outer Rim. Speaking of G-canon, I could point you to the end sequence of Return of the Jedi, which shows sizable celebrations on a diverse range of worlds, including Coruscant. So it would seem that, at some point, public opinion began to shift away from Palpatine. You can, or course, nitpick and suggest that these scenes are not conclusive, but the intent seems rather clear.

Finally, please define "massive popular support." Bush had "massive popular support" after 911 (around 80 or 90% as I recall), but that leaves a good 10 or 15% who feel differently. I simply do not believe that the Alliance could have taken the Galaxy, however disorganized the Empire was, if more than 99% of the Galaxy stood behind the New Order. At the very least, support for the Empire must have waned after Palpatine died, which would suggest that it was more his personality that was popular, than the policies he instituted.

What I kind of have in mind would either be hardliners (New Order cultists, Tarkin types) or more military-minded strongmen (Zaarin, perhaps the Moff cabal) deciding to rebel against the throne intelligently and declaring Palpatine to have betrayed the Empire, and declaring co-belligerence with the Rebel Alliance. Now, doubtless they would be unable to do anything substantial (any palace coups would likely result in deaths to all plotters), but perhaps they could survive as a rebel-type faction. Zaarin, after all, had many advanced TIE prototypes in his capacity, and seemed to be rather popular within the Admiralty- if he had been more careful, he or a similar character could have planned a campaign to become a guerrilla and wage a better propaganda war illustrating Palpatine's more controversial moves such as the dissolution of the Imperial Senate and setting up a Sith theocracy of two. Such a hypothetical Imperial insurgent faction would probably not play a big role in the end of the Empire- that's all up to the work of the heroes, but it could have interesting consequences in the aftermath, considering the Rebel Alliance is all but the New Republic and would be definitely against any faction that would try to reestablish a galactic empire. Of course, any insurgency from within the Empire itself is always subject to betrayal.

I guess it's just because "true Empire" type factions have cropped up in fanon occasionally, and I was wondering if they had any "real" basis in canon.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Which I suppose raises the question of weather we can simply dismiss a canon source because we feel it is unrealistic. Personally though I can't complain; I may choose for example to disregard some of miss Travis's work on the grounds that it is incompatible with the rest of the Star Wars Universe.

However, is the above ideology of the Navy with regards to women really so improbable? Humans have believed many staggeringly retarded things throughout history. Some individuals who-for reasons that escape me-admire the Empire and may wish to polish its image might dispute claims of institutional sexism, and maybe in this case they're even right. But to dismiss the claim simply because its retarded seems foolish.

You haven't to my knowledge cited anything as evidence that their is no Imperial sexism. Are you not basically dismissing pieces of canon evidence on little or nothing but the fact that you find them implausible, and the fact that they are not explicitly corroborated in your preferred sources?

First, it is up to those who claim that the Empire as a whole employs sexist policies to prove it, not the other way around. One does not prove a negative.

Once one eliminates Daala's crap (which one should, given that she was a) incompetent and quite insane, and b) never a duly commissioned officer of the Imperial Navy in the first place, so she would not know what she was talking about), the one piece of relatively objective evidence that indicates Imperial sexism (in the Navy only, at that, not in the bureaucracy or elsewhere in the military) is in a book in a series full of grievous errors by an author known to screw up continuity; taken at face value, the there cited "Non-HuMan" states that the authorities equate women with aliens, which is about as stupid as it gets. If one ignores the sheer insanity of it all, there are still very good methodological reasons for why we should treat this claim very carefully. First, this is the only source where this "Non-HuMan" policy is ever mentioned, yet it claims to be universal; if it was a basic part of Navy protocol, why is it that we never, ever hear of it elsewhere? Outliers are by definition suspect. Second, this policy would, taken at face value, prohibit all women and aliens from serving as commissioned officers in the Imperial Navy. Since we have examples that plenty of individuals in these two categories did exactly such service, with distinction in some cases, this claim is demonstrably false.

Source? I thought it was 51 million or so.

The WEG 2nd edition revised rulebook gives the statement, corroborated by some other (SESB, I think), and we know from the AotC ICS that the Mining Guild alone controlled billions of planets (not necessarily all permanently settled). The fifty-one million would refer to major members, perhaps Sector capitals.

SWRPG, p. 6 wrote:Before you can adventure in the galaxy, you better know something about it. First off, it's Big - the Empire rules billions of worlds.

Secondly, the Alliance military may have been small, but that does not mean that it did not have large numbers of sympathizers. The Alliance survived by staying hidden and mobile. Open warfare would have been an invitation for the Empire to anhialate them. In fact, is it not the case that when the Alliance was established, a number of worlds openly declared their support and were quickly suppressed, despite the Alliance asking them not to? I recall something to that effect, but I can't recall the source I'm afraid.

Cite your sources clearly, please. What is the evidence for large amounts of popular support for the Rebellion, prior to Palpatine's death? Note that anecdotal evidence will not suffice, since on the scale of billions of worlds it does not matter if Prince X or Farmer Y, or even all of Planet Z, disliked the Imperial government; we cannot extrapolate general tendencies from such small samples.

I rather think that the Mon Calimari's home world was more than just "some Outer Rim planet." Wasn't it a Sector Capital (not sure about this one), and a major star ship producer? Also, it was by no means the only world to throw its support behind the Alliance. I should probably post a list of various members and supporters, but for now I'll merely throw out Bothawui, Sullust, Corillea, and of course Alderan as other worlds which gave significant support to the Alliance. Note: these are not trailer trash planets in the middle of nowhere.

Mon Calamari was a starship producer, but apparently not a major one (in Dark Apprentice, I think it had a single cruiser near completion in its orbital shipyards). There is also the retarded crap that their warships were really armed luxury liners; I am not certain if that has been ret-conned since. As for it being a Sector capital, I do not know; it was represented in the Senate, so that would indicate that it was so.

Of the other worlds you list, none was, as far as I am aware, officially aligned with the Rebellion prior to the Emperor's death. Corellia, in particular, notably remained independent of the New Republic for a fairly long time, and was not very enthusiastic for joining it.

Also, you are correct that governmental support does not equal popular support, but the Alliance, while militarily small, seems to have had a significant number of sympathizers in the general populace, at least in the Outer Rim.

Again, cite your sources, please.

Speaking of G-canon, I could point you to the end sequence of Return of the Jedi, which shows sizable celebrations on a diverse range of worlds, including Coruscant. So it would seem that, at some point, public opinion began to shift away from Palpatine. You can, or course, nitpick and suggest that these scenes are not conclusive, but the intent seems rather clear

.

Author's intent is not canon. We see celebrations on a few backwater worlds, and in a single block on Imperial Centre (that scene shows, what, thousands of celebrants? Hardly representative for a population of 365 trillions.). WEG and other sources that give clear statements on the magnitude of Palpatine's popularity, as relative to the scale of the galaxy, take precedence over anecdotal evidence, even if it is of higher canon.

Finally, please define "massive popular support." Bush had "massive popular support" after 911 (around 80 or 90% as I recall), but that leaves a good 10 or 15% who feel differently. I simply do not believe that the Alliance could have taken the Galaxy, however disorganized the Empire was, if more than 99% of the Galaxy stood behind the New Order. At the very least, support for the Empire must have waned after Palpatine died, which would suggest that it was more his personality that was popular, than the policies he instituted.

We do not have the evidence to determine the exact degree of support for the Rebellion, but we do have enough sources to indicate that it was minuscule. Naturally, as you pointed out, support for the Empire and the New Order did decline rather considerably after Palpatine's death, when military dictators, ideological fanatics, ravening lunatics and Dark side theocrats started to tear the galaxy apart. Such would only be reasonable, would you not agree?

Battlehymn Republic wrote:What I kind of have in mind would either be hardliners (New Order cultists, Tarkin types) or more military-minded strongmen (Zaarin, perhaps the Moff cabal) deciding to rebel against the throne intelligently and declaring Palpatine to have betrayed the Empire, and declaring co-belligerence with the Rebel Alliance. Now, doubtless they would be unable to do anything substantial (any palace coups would likely result in deaths to all plotters), but perhaps they could survive as a rebel-type faction. Zaarin, after all, had many advanced TIE prototypes in his capacity, and seemed to be rather popular within the Admiralty- if he had been more careful, he or a similar character could have planned a campaign to become a guerrilla and wage a better propaganda war illustrating Palpatine's more controversial moves such as the dissolution of the Imperial Senate and setting up a Sith theocracy of two. Such a hypothetical Imperial insurgent faction would probably not play a big role in the end of the Empire- that's all up to the work of the heroes, but it could have interesting consequences in the aftermath, considering the Rebel Alliance is all but the New Republic and would be definitely against any faction that would try to reestablish a galactic empire. Of course, any insurgency from within the Empire itself is always subject to betrayal.

Since Palpatine personally was the most popular part of the Empire, any smear campaign directed at him personally will fizzle and fail, or worse, provide major backlash. Remember, the general populace is not aware of his Sithian affiliation; to them, he was (thanks to the Imperial propaganda) the great statesman who brought down the aristocratic Jedi Knights and established secular rule. Joe Average considers the Force to be a hoax and the Jedi cheap frauds; to come and claim that Palpatine is one of them (as per KotOR II and other sources, we have at least indications that the Jedi/Sith conflict is blurred enough that the average citizen sees little difference between the factions) would be the equivalent of touting crackpot theories in the streets ("Hear me, people! Obama is the Antichrist! Yes, really!"). In the best-case scenario, most will probably view the Imperial traitors as cowardly traitors against the Empire, as was the general German perception of the 20th July plotters. Their benefit will not be in propaganda, but in the intelligence assets they bring.

I guess it's just because "true Empire" type factions have cropped up in fanon occasionally, and I was wondering if they had any "real" basis in canon.

They do, insofar that the faction exists, but they tend to be very loyal to Palpatine personally, so they make for poor coupists. Tarkin would be the exception perhaps; he was both ambitious and powerful enough that a rebellion by him might draw supporters, and even then it is a long shot. But if you want such a scenario, he is probably the best bet.