The Rule of Two is paraphrased by Yoda at the end of TPM although without mentioning a directive to murder, but even then it's inherent to what the Sith represent, the desire for unlimited self-empowerment, anyway. Sith all vie for the same thing, so each Sith is a potential threat to another that must be dealt with.


Of all the Sith that appear in the movies or are mentioned, none die of natural causes. We are given little evidence that they represent an atypical sampling. Can you imagine Palpatine simply retiring from his quest for power? Neither can I.

---

人之初
性本善
性相近
習相遠

People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)

Thing is we only see a handful of Sith, so it's not much of a sampling at all. Now I'm not talking about Palpatine, or any of his predecessors, "retiring," which sounds silly. But what if a Sith Master just kept on going for as long as he could, with an apprentice who stayed with him on the premise of continuing to learn and attain power? When the master finally passes away, the new apprentice would have some pretty strong assurance that he hasn't lost any knowledge. Sith may be ambitious and self-serving, but not all of them may be brave or sure enough of themselves to off their master like that. Now I don't think it was unheard of for an apprentice to murder his master, I'm just posing the question because I don't think "mandatory murder" necessarily has to be the case with everyone.

---

"They're not triangular, but they are more or less blade-shaped"- Thrawn McEwok on the shape of Bakura destroyers

"Lovely. It's known as impugning character regarding statement of professional qualifications' in the legal world"- Karen Traviss, crying libel because I said that no soldier she interviewed would claim that he can take on billion-to-one odds

"I've already laid out rules for this thread that we're not going to make these evidential demands"- Dark Moose on supporting your claims

Tradition would be US Marines walking around with swords in their dress uniform. That would not translate to them being able to go toe to toe with the black knight.

Melee weapons in a ranged weapon world don't make much sense for the most part. Star Wars can justify it in a special case where Force users can be relatively immune to blaster fire with limited shooters because they can deflect the bolts. If I have a platoon of mooks, the Jedi could get blasted down. If I only have a couple mooks, I'd better have me a Force-using hireling. A big, dumb mook bodyguard is going to be taken down by a Jedi every time.

Based on the EU, no. It's all stabby-stabby kill-kill.



The Jedi are dead due to a Sith plot. Regardless of whether it's dramatic saber battles or Order 66, it's all by Sith design. They get credit.



There's no one for real martial artists and kendo practitioners to really fight any more, but those traditions remain alive despite their limited (at best) utility. The Jedi are also portrayed as a borderline religious order, who are caught up in their traditions and are overtaken by stagnation.[/quote]

A seemingly great point. But let's consider. It's WWIII, Tom Clancy style, mid-80's. Russian and American generals are confronting each other. But wait, the Russian was a fencing master at his military academy. Sure enough, the American was tops at the Citadel. Therefore they sword fight, right? Wrong.

It's WWII. Shinji Hideki is an LT in the Japanese Army and an ardent kendo practitioner. He can't decide whether it's more metal to carry a bokken or proper sword into battle. He confronts an American general who took fencing. What happens? They shoot at each other with firearms.

the special case with the Jedi is that blaster blocking with a saber provides a limited immunity. That's nice but what else can you do?

Star Wars isn't alone. Warhammer 40K suffers as well. It's difficult to keep melee weapons relevant without nerfing shooters.

Also, the existence of battle droids with saber-proof fighting staffs suggests that there are other threats out there which may require swordsmanship.[/quote]

If one takes EU into account, then Darth Bane specifically wanted to avoid a situation where the Master passes away peacefully and the Apprentice becomes the new Master by default. He reasoned that the Apprentice hasn't actually proven that he or she has attained the necessary power and knowledge to surpass his or her former Master if the old Master simply croaks out of old age. The Apprentice hasn't engaged in a contest of wits, will, raw power, skill and strength with the Master to see who is better if the Master dies just because biology says so.

---

Confiteor Deo omnipotenti; beatae Mariae semper Virgini; beato Michaeli Archangelo; sanctis Apostolis, omnibus sanctis... Tibit Pater, quia peccavi nimis, cogitatione, verbo et opere, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! Kyrie Eleison!

The Imperial Senate (defunct) * Knights Astrum Clades * The Mess

But here's the kicker: why would a Sith lord, the essence of selfishness, care about what happens after he is dead? I can understand the idea of some badass warrior-wizards deciding that they want to have an immortal legacy after they are gone, pass down the arts. In this sense, keeping his own memory alive is a kind of vanity and fits with the idea of all-consuming egotism and selfishness. And if there were several Sith schools, that would work. Or if the Rule of Two is "Each Sith marks his territory and in that territory there will never be more than a master and an apprentice." That would work.

But with the entire continuity of the Order passing down violently through a single line, there's too many points of failure. What happens when you get an apprentice who recognizes power, wants it for himself, but doesn't care about keeping it going? "After I am dead, what do I care what follows?" Or "I don't plan on dying, ever."

In this case, multiple Sith lines would allow for some going extinct or an apprentice becoming a master without murdering his master.

"You have nothing more to teach me and we are too evenly matched to fight."

"Indeed. As one master to another, GTFO out of my territory."

"Sure thing. Hail evil!"

I guess part of the problem is any of the EU crap I've read with the Sith in it present them as pretty much evil-evil. There's nothing seductive, alluring, or persuasive about them. It's all "rah-rah, kill your friends, kill your family, lulz about the dark side and get sith-faced." They're all pretty much locked into a teenager's concept of evil badassery.

So it's an EU thing then, but we all know Lucas doesn't oversee most of the EU. It wouldn't be his fault if some simplistic EU writer made every Sith a traitor and backstabber.



What do you expect? We had Vader, the Emperor, and no other mentioned Dark Side users wiping out the Jedi as early as ANH. I don't know how a Jedi is "weak" if he dies in a galactic-scale war to without ever being close to the guy who planned things but didn't do any of the fighting. The Jedi are hardly wiped out by just two Sith, when it's two Sith and an entire galaxy of armies that they control.



The Jedi aren't real life generals, who lacks supernatural powers and would be realistically spending most of their time behind desks. They're field agents who go on special missions, but don't expect to be confronted with numerous enemy troops in direct battle. And even in direct battle, they demonstrated the ability to defeat many times their number using a lightsaber. A Jedi could probably benefit from using a blaster for long-range attacks, but using one would interfere with simultaneous use of the lightsaber, which is an incredible versatile defensive weapon in their hands.

If you're going to say that lightsabers are unrealistic, no one's going to argue that. But I don't see how this is relevant to the original topic, since the movies are very clear that the Jedi hold impractical religious traditions, and also do not expect to see heavy combat. Their impractical traditions are at least partially justified in their universe.

---

"They're not triangular, but they are more or less blade-shaped"- Thrawn McEwok on the shape of Bakura destroyers

"Lovely. It's known as impugning character regarding statement of professional qualifications' in the legal world"- Karen Traviss, crying libel because I said that no soldier she interviewed would claim that he can take on billion-to-one odds

"I've already laid out rules for this thread that we're not going to make these evidential demands"- Dark Moose on supporting your claims

Actually at least two of Bane's Sith strayed from his rule. One was seduced by the Light Side while another rejected the rule altogether and escaped his Master


Don't generalize something just because you've read something with a bad portrayal. And plese explain this reasoning in more detail

The EU is a huge, monstrous thing, with many semi-contradictory sources. I stopped following it closely years ago, so this whole "everyone is a backstabbing murderer" thing is something I just picked up in this thread from you guys.

It sucks when writers get specific like this, without actually thinking through their details. I liked the portrayal in other sources which were more vague, yet more sensible on the matter. The "Sith" title almost seemed like semantics, because Palpatine and other Sith seemd to have no problems taking on lesser trainees who may not have rated as full Sith Lords. The RPG materials described High Inquisitor Tremayne, there were several Force-wielding Emperor's Hands, the Jedi Knight computer games had Jerec and Desann, and the Clone Wars cartoon had Asajj Ventress. The impression that I got was that "Sith Lord" is the equivalent of "Jedi Master," and that the Sith could have lesser apprentices around. Even the Original Trilogy had Palpatine and Vader trying to convert Luke in TESB, and I doubt that convincing Luke to murder Vader was always part of that plan before ROTJ.

When Yoda says there are always two Sith, "no more, no less," it should be noted that he's not in a position to speak authoritatively. Now on one hand, when it comes to fiction, lines are an expressions of authorial intent. But in-universe, Yoda is literally going off of information more than a thousand years out-of-date, which is when the Sith were thought to have gone extinct. The idea of every Sith following Darth Bane's rule is kind of dumb, when the Sith are an order of one master. If a Sith Master doesn't like the rule, he can change it just like that.

And the prequel movies themselves even imply a rather loose interpretation of the Rule of Two. Palpatine must have been courting Dooku around the same time that Maul was still alive, which was "ten years" before AOTC. General Grievous was "trained in the Jedi arts" by Dooku, with full knowledge of Palpatine. The EU has come up with its own non-Force related origin for Grievous, but apparently Lucas's intention was that he was a disgruntled failed Jedi who turned to cybernetics to make up for the power that he lacked. So in Lucas's mind, Grievous was pretty much another low-level Sith trainee.

I like what was implied in the movies, or shown in various other EU sources, so much more than the strict portrayal of the "Rule of Two" in several of the books.

---

"They're not triangular, but they are more or less blade-shaped"- Thrawn McEwok on the shape of Bakura destroyers

"Lovely. It's known as impugning character regarding statement of professional qualifications' in the legal world"- Karen Traviss, crying libel because I said that no soldier she interviewed would claim that he can take on billion-to-one odds

"I've already laid out rules for this thread that we're not going to make these evidential demands"- Dark Moose on supporting your claims

Actually it was less strict then you think in EU. For example Plagueis was still alive when Sidious trained Maul. Although Plagueis didn't see Maul as a true apprentice anyways.

I also remember training a few wannabe's to be nothing more then henchmen isn't really a violation.

From my reading of the Darth Bane series, I always saw it as not a reflection on the nature of the Sith that the apprentice would eventually betray the master, but as the nature of the dark side and the lust for power it causes. Hence the rule of two was designed to focus that in a productive manner. In the books themselves Bane's thoughts about large orders of Sith, like those that had risen and fallen in the past, was that they were as a whole weak and unstable because of the very nature of the dark side being selfish. So to have a large group of Sith would not work, as by nature the master would be reluctant to teach all of the apprentices, and the apprentices reluctant to let the others succeed. Bane figured that this was the reason why any long-term order of the Sith was doomed to failure, as most of the effort put into it would be wasted and without a common enemy they would eventually turn on each other.
Yet with a small group or pairing, it would be easier for the master to teach as it plays on the selfish aspects of the dark side more directly. When a master increases their apprentice's ability, the pair as a whole becomes stronger giving the master access to more opportunities. Likewise, as the apprentice serves the master he or she learns more and becomes more powerful. The sense I got was that the idea is that eventually you will have the two Sith playing a game of catch up with each other, to the point where they are both equally knowledgeable and the apprentice kills the master and takes over. The rule of two also is not a rigid thing, the apprentice is practically expected to take his or her own student. This is also convenient, as should the apprentice fail to kill the master, the master may decide to keep the apprentice's student as the new apprentice.
While the idea has its holes as well, it's hard to argue with the results, as it achieved what it set out to do, put a Sith Lord at the top of galactic civilization.

I actually liked the way the Darth Bane books portrayed the Sith. It wasn't like they were all super-selfish egomaniacs, rather that it was the influence of the dark side that while not causing such feelings amplified them over time, and that those who sought the power of the dark side would have some sort of inherent selfishness, which if not controlled could be their downfall over time.

At what point does one stray far enough to not be considered a Sith any longer?

If we look at religion as an example, making one or two changes makes you no longer a Catholic, but a Lutheran or a Protestant.

I think the Sith should work the same way. The overall belief is in the Dark Side, the Sith, follow specific teachings and if you stray from that you aren't a Sith anymore, you are a Nightsister of Prophet of the Dark Side or whatever other dumb EU thing there is.

Also, given the way Yoda speaks and phrases what he says, I think he is speaking very authoritatively on how the Sith work, in universe and out. Even given the loose manner the movies portray the way the Sith work with whom and when they are training, there is always only one Master and one Apprentice.

The new Plageuis book and The Clone Wars cartoon may screw around with that from what I can tell, but it still seems to hold.

Lucas has had varying authority over the EU. So no, I won't hold him responsible for every bad idea there. I doubt he even knows what the Yuuzhan Vong are since there's no story after ROTJ.

But the whole Rule of Two thing seems to be his idea, something he or a personal ghostwriter put into the scripts, and his minions paid close attention to the prequel-era EU books to make sure everything tied.

I find the EU a deeply frustrating and disappointing experience. The novels I've read have been terrible. The comics have been terrible. Frankly, I think my most enjoyable EU experience has been the flight sims: X-Wing, TIE Fighter, and X-Wing Alliance. I've skimmed the wikis and none of the newer material seems very compelling.

Oh, well. It's not like my opinion's going to change their production schedule any.

It depends on what you've read and personal taste really. Stay the fuck away from most of the stuff by KJA and Traviss. If you haven't read Stover I implore you to try his books. And have you read the comics and Novels by JJM?

KJA is the devil. Not familiar with either of the two authors you've mentioned. I intend to remedy that.

Good good

There are only two sith, however there are dark side force users that are not part of the sith. Dark Jedi are one.

Desann and Jeric (from the Kyle Katarn games) count as Dark Jedi, not sith.

Palpatine was, as far as I can tell, one of the few that went away from it due to his obsession with himself, not the sith legacy. He had the perfect apprentice, Anakin, who could've been taught in the ways of the Sith, then taken over. But instead Palp decided to purposefully place Anakin in a majorly hindering life support suit, turning a powerful, great Jedi turned dark into a puppet of intimidation. I seriously doubt Anakin was taught anything of the Sith due to how Palpatine taught Dooku (who was utterly shocked that in his moment of weakness he was betrayed).

Imperial528 there really points it out. Revan suggested the rule of two. Bane implemented it. When all you care for is power, what happens to that annoying guy who's almost about to take your spot? kill him. In a massive order, it'd cause it to kill themselves (as My brother once said, Jedi don't defeat the sith, SITH defeat the sith. Emperor was killed by Darth Vader. Revan was defeated by Malak, not Bastila).

With only two sith, A: The Master has no reason to betray his apprentice, or stupidly fight any other sith. B: The Apprentice has nobody else to fight with over getting taught, and has no reason to betray his master until he can't learn anything else.

It works well, and they can have a group of dark jedi, or force users to go do their public bidding/fighting.

A: Of course he has, whenever the pupil appears to be too impulsive and impatient for his own good and might take his "final exam" prematurely. In case you forgot, impulsiveness and impatience are primary Sith virtues. B: Of course he has, whenever he notices that his master is ogling for a replacement which should be constantly considering A.

---

人之初
性本善
性相近
習相遠

People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)

In case A:, the apprentice would be dead. In case B, apprentice is dead anyway thus can't start a stupid fight with somebody else.

Then again, how many times do we see a Sith lord betray and kill his apprentice for no good reason? (Besides Palp, who is stupid).

hmm, what about adapting the sabre to be a long range weapon? or maybe spreading out the blade into a shield? (it doesn't fit in-universe, but makes sense if it were more useful tool)

---

========================================
If you believe in Telekinesis, raise my hand.

That's one of those things I've gone in circles on. I had a moment of fanboy joy when I saw Darth Maul's second blade extend in TPM but the overall bad taste that movie left in my mouth made me question my thinking.

On one hand, the idea of using the lightsaber tech in different ways makes sense. The sword is not the only bladed weapon in history. We could easily see light axes, light pole-arms, lightdirks, light-blade whipped around on a chain, light boomerangs that return to the thrower like Xena's death frisbee, etc. There is absolutely nothing to prevent all of this. On the other hand, it somehow feels like nasty EU wank. Sort of like starting with A, B, X, and Y-wing fighters and going for E, V, T, and K-Wings. Yes, I understand why you did it but it's going wrong now.

That's one of those things I've gone in circles on. I had a moment of fanboy joy when I saw Darth Maul's second blade extend in TPM but the overall bad taste that movie left in my mouth made me question my thinking.

On one hand, the idea of using the lightsaber tech in different ways makes sense. The sword is not the only bladed weapon in history. We could easily see light axes, light pole-arms, lightdirks, light-blade whipped around on a chain, light boomerangs that return to the thrower like Xena's death frisbee, etc. There is absolutely nothing to prevent all of this. On the other hand, it somehow feels like nasty EU wank. Sort of like starting with A, B, X, and Y-wing fighters and going for E, V, T, and K-Wings. Yes, I understand why you did it but it's going wrong now.

Who says they can't have a one handed blaster they can easily holster or hold in their offhand?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Oh man... that was funny.

I guess I missed those primary virtues when they were talking about the 1000 years it took them to plan and execute their revenge against the Jedi.

Or like, how we know that Sith apprenticeships take lifetimes.

Missed the point completely. Yeah, it took them 1000 years to execute a grand scheme that condemned over a dozen generations of Sith to impotently sit in the shadows, despite the primary allure of the Dark Side being (you know, according to Yoda in ESB) that it allows access to great power quickly as opposed to the slow and deliberate approach of the Jedi. It's completely against the nature of the Sith, cult of ruthless selfishness they are, to work in utter silence and anonymity just so some shmuck possibly centuries later could reap the rewards and become king of the cosmos. If Palpatine had been born 500 years earlier, there's no way to have him agree with such a scheme without also fundamentally altering the character.

Bad, shoddy and OOC writing is what makes this work and that's what I criticise. Maybe you should try your hand at addressing that.

---

人之初
性本善
性相近
習相遠

People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)