The Doomed Sith Empire

[Euphrosyne]

Regarding the implausibility of a small, isolated, low-population Empire managing to take gigantic swathes of Republic territory, consider Japan and China during the Second Sino-Japanese War. Japan managed to capture huge amounts of land during the war, and if neither Russia nor the United States had moved against Japan, it stood a reasonable chance of keeping it.

 

In fact, the situation seems very similar. At the beginning of the war, China was basically unprepared, and did not have large stockpiles of advanced weapons (armor, planes) nor the means to produce them. Likewise, the Republic at the start of the conflict had been at peace for an extended period of time and was not on a war footing. China was huge, to the extent that it proved impossible for Japan to assign forces to the countryside and stop Chinese guerrilla fighters. The Republic has so many planets that it's impossible for the Empire to station troops on all of them and pacify them. China adopted a strategy of attrition, having a population far in excess of that of Japan. The Republic has a much, much larger population than the Empire and will win a war of attrition. China and Japan eventually reached a stalemate. The Republic and the Empire, before the game started, also basically stalemated.

 

Of course World War II ended with a nuke, while I'm not exactly expecting the Republic to end the conflict by blowing up Droumand Kass. But if they did it would be hilarious!

 

My point is it's not that outrageous for a tiny Empire to beat the snot out of a huge country. Integrating all the territory they took into a functioning Empire? Probably impossible for Japan, even if they could have gotten a treaty...much like the Sith Empire, actually.

I misread this post earlier on and wrote a truly massive overview of the 1937-45 war to try to prove that a) Japanese combat power vis-a-vis the National Revolutionary Army was massively overrated, although before 1944-45 the Imperial Army still possessed some technical and tactical advantages over the majority of the Guomindang's troops and b) Japan was intrinsically incapable of controlling even the parts of China it held, much less the rest of the country. Then I saw the last few paragraphs and deleted it. Hah.

 

Fundamentally, I agree with most of what you said. It is eminently possible for the Imperials to have established a presence in large swaths of Republic-controlled space, even with a massive numerical disadvantage. Much as the Japanese were able to penetrate deep into China by slipping through the gaps in Chinese armies, using the vast size of the country against its defenders, the Empire could well have occupied thousands of worlds that the Republic had no serious ability to protect. This strategy failed to destroy the Chinese armies, which were easily able to withdraw, but there's no sign that the Republic military took outrageous losses at the hands of the Sith, either. I believe that the Imps would have basically zero probability of controlling those territories in either the short term or the long term, but I'm not a BioWare writer, so whatever. And I agree that, much as Japan had no chance of "winning" the 1937-45 war, based on relative probable calculations of military power, the Empire ought to have no chance of "winning" the current war. But, again, I'm not a writer; perhaps BioWare will magic an Imp victory.

[soldierofheaven]

In my opinion the Republic and Empire are just puppets of the Jedi and Sith respectively. They fight eachother endlessly all because the Jedi and Sith got a grudge match going. My main is and always will be my BH (Mandalorian) , and i really would have liked to see more insight into their struggle in the war. The best Jetiis killer (Sith also) are Mandalorians and i hope to see a future xpac about them. Im thinking a Mando'a revival, moon of Dxun, Concord Dawn, Ordo even. I remember reading somewhere that Artus (Mandalore the Vindicated) has plans to be something more then the Empires lap dog, and im hoping he does. A third party would change things up from the constant pub sith slug fest. The galaxy map would even fit it. The Seat of the Empire on top, Core worlds, and the Mandalorians in the Outer Rim. I wouldnt mind seeing something about the Chiss Ascendancy either. They arent subjects of the Empire and as far as i can tell have stayed out of the war. The CEDF would be an interesting variable to balance Republic numerical superiority. What does everyone think ?

 

Attin Vau-Merc

[rikasu]

The Sith empire is doomed and I am a Sith allways and say this with full knowledge. Why? Because the Sith is meant to be only two. The Sith now are weak like the Jedi. Running around with ten Sith in a group. Pathetic. One to embody the power and another to crave it. That is the rule of two. It is how the Sith are meant to be. I run on my own. I will not opperate with a Sith group. The empire will fall because it doesn't have a true Sith as its master. Many years from now bane will destroy this current empire and reinstitute the old foundation of the Sith. The makers of swtor have done a poor job at showing the true power of the Sith. Amazing story line and connection to the star wars legacy. Poor way of showing it. Classic good guys win bad guys lose. I suggest bio look deeper into the true makings of the Sith and Jedi and turn this war into what it should be. And equal path of destruction . The Sith should cut each other down. If I could Iwould kill every other sSith player I saw execept my apprentice. But this of course wouldn't be fair even though its the true star wars legacy. I am pleased and dissapointed. -Darth Kaiiyne

[Faerieheart]

The Sith empire is doomed and I am a Sith allways and say this with full knowledge. Why? Because the Sith is meant to be only two. The Sith now are weak like the Jedi. Running around with ten Sith in a group. Pathetic. One to embody the power and another to crave it. That is the rule of two. It is how the Sith are meant to be. I run on my own. I will not opperate with a Sith group. The empire will fall because it doesn't have a true Sith as its master. Many years from now bane will destroy this current empire and reinstitute the old foundation of the Sith. The makers of swtor have done a poor job at showing the true power of the Sith. Amazing story line and connection to the star wars legacy. Poor way of showing it. Classic good guys win bad guys lose. I suggest bio look deeper into the true makings of the Sith and Jedi and turn this war into what it should be. And equal path of destruction . The Sith should cut each other down. If I could Iwould kill every other sSith player I saw execept my apprentice. But this of course wouldn't be fair even though its the true star wars legacy. I am pleased and dissapointed. -Darth Kaiiyne

 

Rule of two, was, always will be, and is the stupidest idea of all time. Two is far too fragile to base anything on. Especially when they spend time together, or say... get on star ships, or go near any kind of technology that might malfunction and obliterate them, or well, any number of things that might kill them. Heck with only two, only one slip up at the wrong time needs to be made and now it's the two of you verses everybody. With only two people the room for failure is so abysmally small that the idea is just ludicrous, especially when you start factoring large factors of time in which the chance of screwing up, or running into an accident become larger with each second.

 

I may not like the current empires inability to organize well, but I'll be damned if I say the rule of two is better and anything but ridiculous. If the empire in it's current state loses there's enough of them that survival is still likely. Extinction of the sith in it's current state is near impossible. Rule of two, well, extinction is possibly one accident or mistake away.

 

Best part, if the apprentice does what he supposed to do, and defeats you, while turning to the light, you've just killed yourselves... oh wait... isn't that what happened?

 

And even if not, what if the apprentice makes his move, miscalculates and as a result master and student dies.

 

Rule of two = two people that are trying to take on the entire jedi order and conquer the galaxy, all why being paranoid of each other because one trying to kill the other isn't just expected it's a mandate, all while also trying to avoid all the things that can just kill you for no other reason than coincidence and bad luck.

 

Not sure about you, but that has nothing about it that sounds, logical, reasonable, a good idea, nor in any way structurally sound. It also failed.

 

The jedi weren't all killed because there were enough of them that attempts to kill them all was bound to have holes somewhere. This has happened multiple times. Numbers are necessary to longevity. Is why the current war will not end in the destruction of the sith, but what does is the rule of two because once you ween yourself down to two, then only two of you need to be killed to end it all. Even disorganized and infighting the current sith at least can survive as an order and culture despite screw ups. That makes it innately better than the rule of two. It has more sustainability and fall backs.

 

What the sith need are smarter sith in charge, not every interpretation of the code results in what a lot of the sith we see are doing.

[JediRelentless]

There should be parallel story lines. If you are playing in the republic, the republic wins, otherwise, the empire wins

 

That makes no sense.

[Emilion]

Rule of two, was, always will be, and is the stupidest idea of all time. Two is far too fragile to base anything on.

 

Not entirely with you on that. I mean, Revan and Malak were only two and they managed to bring the Republic to the brink of destruction, sure Revan was turned light and all that, but still; two Sith who managed to combat the entire Republic and the Jedi, and succeed, at least for a time. 3000 years later, the Empire of that time has nearly complete dominion over the entire galaxy - with Emperor Palpatine/Darth Sidious and Darth Vader at the helm. Here it is once again "the rule of two" which comes into play. Sure, we all know how that ended, but still, you can't deny that this is effective, at least for a while.

Also it is much easier to only worry about the machinations of one other individual instead of the dozens of Sith vying for power in the Cold War Era-Sith Empire.

Furthermore, if we have learned nothing else from the Dark Side it is that there always seem to be some remnants of it, lingering in the dark corners of the galaxy. Even after the defeat of Emperor Palpatine (and his subsequent three deaths) there were still the remnants of the Empire, and the Sith; most notably Darth Krayt, Roan Fel, Darth Wyyrlok III and Darth Caedus.

So the rule of two might not be as fragile as you think, although there does seem to be a trend that the Dark Side always falls.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Emilion

[zzoorrzz]

...although there does seem to be a trend that the Dark Side always falls.

 

That's only because the stupid writers write that, not because it would make sense by any means.

[Faerieheart]

Not entirely with you on that. I mean, Revan and Malak were only two and they managed to bring the Republic to the brink of destruction, sure Revan was turned light and all that, but still; two Sith who managed to combat the entire Republic and the Jedi, and succeed, at least for a time. 3000 years later, the Empire of that time has nearly complete dominion over the entire galaxy - with Emperor Palpatine/Darth Sidious and Darth Vader at the helm. Here it is once again "the rule of two" which comes into play. Sure, we all know how that ended, but still, you can't deny that this is effective, at least for a while.

Also it is much easier to only worry about the machinations of one other individual instead of the dozens of Sith vying for power in the Cold War Era-Sith Empire.

Furthermore, if we have learned nothing else from the Dark Side it is that there always seem to be some remnants of it, lingering in the dark corners of the galaxy. Even after the defeat of Emperor Palpatine (and his subsequent three deaths) there were still the remnants of the Empire, and the Sith; most notably Darth Krayt, Roan Fel, Darth Wyyrlok III and Darth Caedus.

So the rule of two might not be as fragile as you think, although there does seem to be a trend that the Dark Side always falls.

 

Illogical writing does not a reasonable truth make. The badguys are always as powerful as they need to be for the story. Which means the less badguys the more powerful they are so as to be a bigger threat to the protagonist. Also the darkside doesn't always lose, just like it's overemotional rulers it's rule is fleeting a short lived.. As for remnants of the darkside... well there's a difference between being darkside and being sith.

 

Sith is a specific culture of darkside users and those that draw from it by direct association. There is a reason dark jedi is not the same as sith. The sith do go extinct thanks to the rule of two. Pretenders that call themselves sith because they think it sounds cool is not the same as actually being sith.

 

In fact the farther back one goes the more "sith" one would be as the more pure ones connection to it's origins. By the time one is sith through nothing more than piecemeal writings and claims of word, being sith has died.

 

As for the dark side, as long as people that can use the force breathe it always will exist. I would argue even Yoda uses the darkside now and then without truly meaning to. I mean really all it requires is a slip of emotion while using the force. The main difference is how quickly one can reign those emotions in. Same with trying to destroy the light side of the firce is a fruitless idea unless one destroys all like that can have the force.

 

The jedi and sith however as cultures can however be destroyed. This does not mean there cannot be Neojedi or Neosith but they are not true jedi or true sith any more than Neonazis are true nazi's. But we're talking semantics now as well as philosophy.

 

Mostly to me, rule of two is is one of those bad idea, probably misinterpreted from any easily misunderstood line from Yoda that is bad in a mostly good work. It's one of many blights on the star wars universe. I mean shoot, Palpatine didn't even blink at the idea of turning Luke and making him one of them despite it meaning there would be three. I personally think Yoda meant nothing more than that, where there's one sith, there must be another because that's how they work. There's always at least a master and an apprentice. Not counting those temporary moments when one is dead. Is not saying there cannot be multiple sets. His quote was that the sith had returned and that while one has been found and killed, their existence means there must be at least one other, and the killing of one does not end the threat., At no point in movie cannon is the rule of two by the meaning of only two sith at one time ever treated as a law, at least not by the sith themselves.

[rikasu]

You should be a Jedi then. The Sith are meant to be only two. They will allways fight it is tgecway of the Sith. You have strong master and five weak apprentices.they band together kill the master then each other.what do you have.a weaker master.numbers are not power my weak minded friend.they are simply more dead bodies. If both master and apprentice dies the frce finds a new being to inheret the dark side and lead it to the teachings of true Sith.bane destroyed an entire army of Sith and Jedi without laying a finger in them. Now..would you like to revoke your statement. Edited May 6, 2013 by rikasu

[rikasu]

Illogical writing does not a reasonable truth make. The badguys are always as powerful as they need to be for the story. Which means the less badguys the more powerful they are so as to be a bigger threat to the protagonist. Also the darkside doesn't always lose, just like it's overemotional rulers it's rule is fleeting a short lived.. As for remnants of the darkside... well there's a difference between being darkside and being sith.

 

Sith is a specific culture of darkside users and those that draw from it by direct association. There is a reason dark jedi is not the same as sith. The sith do go extinct thanks to the rule of two. Pretenders that call themselves sith because they think it sounds cool is not the same as actually being sith.

 

In fact the farther back one goes the more "sith" one would be as the more pure ones connection to it's origins. By the time one is sith through nothing more than piecemeal writings and claims of word, being sith has died.

 

As for the dark side, as long as people that can use the force breathe it always will exist. I would argue even Yoda uses the darkside now and then without truly meaning to. I mean really all it requires is a slip of emotion while using the force. The main difference is how quickly one can reign those emotions in. Same with trying to destroy the light side of the firce is a fruitless idea unless one destroys all like that can have the force.

 

The jedi and sith however as cultures can however be destroyed. This does not mean there cannot be Neojedi or Neosith but they are not true jedi or true sith any more than Neonazis are true nazi's. But we're talking semantics now as well as philosophy.

 

Mostly to me, rule of two is is one of those bad idea, probably misinterpreted from any easily misunderstood line from Yoda that is bad in a mostly good work. It's one of many blights on the star wars universe. I mean shoot, Palpatine didn't even blink at the idea of turning Luke and making him one of them despite it meaning there would be three. I personally think Yoda meant nothing more than that, where there's one sith, there must be another because that's how they work. There's always at least a master and an apprentice. Not counting those temporary moments when one is dead. Is not saying there cannot be multiple sets. His quote was that the sith had returned and that while one has been found and killed, their existence means there must be at least one other, and the killing of one does not end the threat., At no point in movie cannon is the rule of two by the meaning of only two sith at one time ever treated as a law, at least not by the sith themselves.

In fact it was a rule. Revan states it and bane reinstated it. Your straying to far into bloodlines. Being born as it and becoming it are no different. Multiple Sith may as well be Jedi. That is the rule and if no one likes it then guess what..it is what it is

[rikasu]

Rule of two, was, always will be, and is the stupidest idea of all time. Two is far too fragile to base anything on. Especially when they spend time together, or say... get on star ships, or go near any kind of technology that might malfunction and obliterate them, or well, any number of things that might kill them. Heck with only two, only one slip up at the wrong time needs to be made and now it's the two of you verses everybody. With only two people the room for failure is so abysmally small that the idea is just ludicrous, especially when you start factoring large factors of time in which the chance of screwing up, or running into an accident become larger with each second.

 

I may not like the current empires inability to organize well, but I'll be damned if I say the rule of two is better and anything but ridiculous. If the empire in it's current state loses there's enough of them that survival is still likelym. Extinction of the sith in it's current state is near impossible. Rule of two, well, extinction is possibly one accident or mistake away.

 

Best part, if the apprentice does what he supposed to do, and defeats you, while turning to the light, you've just killed yourselves... oh wait... isn't that what happened?

 

And even if not, what if the apprentice makes his move, miscalculates and as a result master and student dies.

 

Rule of two = two people that are trying to take on the entire jedi order and conquer the galaxy, all why being paranoid of each other because one trying to kill the other isn't just expected it's a mandate, all while also trying to avoid all the things that can just kill you for no other reason than coincidence and bad luck.

 

Not sure about you, but that has nothing about it that sounds, logical, reasonable, a good idea, nor in any way structurally sound. It also failed.

 

The jedi weren't all killed because there were enough of them that attempts to kill them all was bound to have holes somewhere. This has happened multiple times. Numbers are necessary to longevity. Is why the current war will not end in the destruction of the sith, but what does is the rule of two because once you ween yourself down to two, then only two of you need to be killed to end it all. Even disorganized and infighting the current sith at least can survive as an order and culture despite screw ups. That makes it innately better than the rule of two. It has more sustainability and fall backs.

 

What the sith need are smarter sith in charge, not every interpretation of the code results in what a lot of the sith we see are doing.

My posts above are meant for you. You think like a Jedi. Sith have no fear.you yourself are weak.

[Highborne]

My posts above are meant for you. You think like a Jedi. Sith have no fear.you yourself are weak.

 

You have less than no imagination. The Sith Code is about freedom - why should my choices be bound by the edicts of dusty bones dead these last thousand or more years? If I have the will to train different apprentices in different ways, and the strength to keep them in line, then I have the right to do so - to think otherwise is to limit one's self, one's options and one's legacy.

 

And on a more practical level, diversity is strength - with many minds and wills each attacking the same problem from different angles, a solution is far more likely to be found, to be benefit of all the Sith.

 

To allow yourself to be chained by the empty words of long-dead fools.....now that is "thinking like a Jedi".

[rikasu]

You have less than no imagination. The Sith Code is about freedom - why should my choices be bound by the edicts of dusty bones dead these last thousand or more years? If I have the will to train different apprentices in different ways, and the strength to keep them in line, then I have the right to do so - to think otherwise is to limit one's self, one's options and one's legacy.

 

And on a more practical level, diversity is strength - with many minds and wills each attacking the same problem from different angles, a solution is far more likely to be found, to be benefit of all the Sith.

 

To allow yourself to be chained by the empty words of long-dead fools.....now that is "thinking like a Jedi".

Your path is that of the many Sith masters on korriban yet my path is that of the one who destroyed your political and missguided ways. Why have many apprentices strong in certain ways when you cab have one strong in everyway. Because many make the Sith weak. Like the Jedi.my ways are of the true Sith. Not the polatics

[Highborne]

Not entirely with you on that. I mean, Revan and Malak were only two and they managed to bring the Republic to the brink of destruction, sure Revan was turned light and all that, but still; two Sith who managed to combat the entire Republic and the Jedi, and succeed, at least for a time. 3000 years later, the Empire of that time has nearly complete dominion over the entire galaxy - with Emperor Palpatine/Darth Sidious and Darth Vader at the helm. Here it is once again "the rule of two" which comes into play. Sure, we all know how that ended, but still, you can't deny that this is effective, at least for a while.

 

Revan and Malak had access to the Star Forge. I rather doubt that there are too many more Rakata super-factories lying around unused....

 

Also it is much easier to only worry about the machinations of one other individual instead of the dozens of Sith vying for power in the Cold War Era-Sith Empire.

 

True, although it also makes one lazy. It's far more entertaining to keep track of complex alliances/feuds/what have you than to keep an eye on one resentful apprentice who will inevitably try to assume the role of Master far too soon.

 

Furthermore, if we have learned nothing else from the Dark Side it is that there always seem to be some remnants of it, lingering in the dark corners of the galaxy. Even after the defeat of Emperor Palpatine (and his subsequent three deaths) there were still the remnants of the Empire, and the Sith; most notably Darth Krayt, Roan Fel, Darth Wyyrlok III and Darth Caedus.

 

And the Rule of Two died with Darth Caedus. His apprentice, like Palpatine's, had been turned away from the Dark Side, and unlike Palpatine, he didn't have any Dark Side Adepts who could fill the gap. Darth Krayt scorned the Rule of Two, and adhered instead to the Rule of One, as did Wyyrlok, and Fel wasn't even a devotee of the Dark Side at all...until the very end.

 

So the rule of two might not be as fragile as you think, although there does seem to be a trend that the Dark Side always falls.

 

And somewhere, somehow, some of its practitioners (eg Darth Nihl, Darth Bane, etc.) survive to carry on their traditions in secret, until they feel strong enough to challenge the Jedi once more.

[Highborne]

Your path is that of the many Sith masters on korriban

 

Wrong. You speak of the Brotherhood of Darkness; yet those fools made three key errors.

 

First, they allowed a Dark Jedi to lead them, a person who had no understanding of Sith philosophy.

 

Second, they forged no bonds with each other, only from each of them to the centre. Their edifice was only as strong as their leader...and Kaan was weak.

 

Third, and worst of all, they failed to exploit the potential for strength that their diversity of thought granted them. Instead of each seeking out new ways of destroying the Jedi armies, they enslaved themselves to the will of their leader.

 

There was no freedom to be found in the Brotherhood of Darkness. I do not seek to recreate them, but to learn from their errors.

 

yet my path is that of the one who destroyed your political and missguided ways.

 

You mean the one that stood back and let the Jedi do your dirty work at the final Battle of Ruusan.

 

Why have many apprentices strong in certain ways when you cab have one strong in everyway.

 

How many are offered such opportunities? Zannah was a clumsy and unskilled manipulator until Bane had had several years to teach her such skills - had he heeded your advice, he would have discarded her. Plagueis was substandard at direct physical combat and slew his master by trickery - should Tenebrous have passed him over, to seek elsewhere for your ephemeral "perfect apprentice"?

 

The only apprentice to meet your requirements - a balance of power in the Force, a fine and calculating mind and the skill for combat - was Sidious himself, and he was of a power such as you see once in a millennium.....if that. To expect one to appear every generation, to be missed by the Jedi, and to

 

Because many make the Sith weak. Like the Jedi.

 

What tripe! Not only is what I propose nothing like the hidebound, stultified Jedi "Order", to say that the Jedi are weak is to ignore the fact that for centuries at a time, they have free run of the galaxy, while the Sith skulk about and snatch crumbs that fall from their notice. Repeating the same old tactics in similar situations and expecting different results is madness - the wise person strives to learn the lesson that their enemies' success would teach.

 

my ways are of the true Sith. Not the polatics

 

And pray tell me, how did the Exiles assert and maintain their superiority over the Sith people when they landed on Korriban? They were but few after all, and had just lost a war, while the Sith were many, accustomed to combat, and strong in the Force. With a mixture of politics and displays of strength, of course. If you seek to escape politics, then you should live as a hermit, for anywhere you find two or more sentient beings, you will find politics.

 

What legacy did the Rule of Two leave after the demise of Caedus? A foul taste upon the galaxy's tongue, that's all. It ended alone and unmourned, with no devotees surviving to rekindle what little wisdom the Banite Sith had discovered in their millennium of hiding.

[rikasu]

You have less than no imagination. The Sith Code is about freedom - why should my choices be bound by the edicts of dusty bones dead these last thousand or more years? If I have the will to train different apprentices in different ways, and the strength to keep them in line, then I have the right to do so - to think otherwise is to limit one's self, one's options and one's legacy.

 

And on a more practical level, diversity is strength - with many minds and wills each attacking the same problem from different angles, a solution is far more likely to be found, to be benefit of all the Sith.

 

To allow yourself to be chained by the empty words of long-dead fools.....now that is "thinking like a Jedi".

Your path is that of the many Sith masters on korriban yet my path is that of the one who destroyed your political and missguided ways. Why have many apprentices strong in certain ways when you cab have one strong in everyway. Because many make the Sith weak. Like the Jedi.my ways are of the true Sith. Not the polatics

[Highborne]

Your path is that of the many Sith masters on korriban yet my path is that of the one who destroyed your political and missguided ways. Why have many apprentices strong in certain ways when you cab have one strong in everyway. Because many make the Sith weak. Like the Jedi.my ways are of the true Sith. Not the polatics

 

Repeating yourself does not make you any the more accurate.

[maxetius]

roleplaying forum ------->

[sir_star_wars]

What happens next, Papa?

[rikasu]

Wrong. You speak of the Brotherhood of Darkness; yet those fools made three key errors.

 

First, they allowed a Dark Jedi to lead them, a person who had no understanding of Sith philosophy.

 

Second, they forged no bonds with each other, only from each of them to the centre. Their edifice was only as strong as their leader...and Kaan was weak.

 

Third, and worst of all, they failed to exploit the potential for strength that their diversity of thought granted them. Instead of each seeking out new ways of destroying the Jedi armies, they enslaved themselves to the will of their leader.

 

There was no freedom to be found in the Brotherhood of Darkness. I do not seek to recreate them, but to learn from their errors.

 

 

 

You mean the one that stood back and let the Jedi do your dirty work at the final Battle of Ruusan.

 

 

 

How many are offered such opportunities? Zannah was a clumsy and unskilled manipulator until Bane had had several years to teach her such skills - had he heeded your advice, he would have discarded her. Plagueis was substandard at direct physical combat and slew his master by trickery - should Tenebrous have passed him over, to seek elsewhere for your ephemeral "perfect apprentice"?

 

The only apprentice to meet your requirements - a balance of power in the Force, a fine and calculating mind and the skill for combat - was Sidious himself, and he was of a power such as you see once in a millennium.....if that. To expect one to appear every generation, to be missed by the Jedi, and to

 

 

 

What tripe! Not only is what I propose nothing like the hidebound, stultified Jedi "Order", to say that the Jedi are weak is to ignore the fact that for centuries at a time, they have free run of the galaxy, while the Sith skulk about and snatch crumbs that fall from their notice. Repeating the same old tactics in similar situations and expecting different results is madness - the wise person strives to learn the lesson that their enemies' success would teach.

 

 

 

And pray tell me, how did the Exiles assert and maintain their superiority over the Sith people when they landed on Korriban? They were but few after all, and had just lost a war, while the Sith were many, accustomed to combat, and strong in the Force. With a mixture of politics and displays of strength, of course. If you seek to escape politics, then you should live as a hermit, for anywhere you find two or more sentient beings, you will find politics.

 

What legacy did the Rule of Two leave after the demise of Caedus? A foul taste upon the galaxy's tongue, that's all. It ended alone and unmourned, with no devotees surviving to rekindle what little wisdom the Banite Sith had discovered in their millennium of hiding.

 

It will return as allways.caeudus is but a mark . Your true fault will be this. In order to do what you beleive correct you must have peace with other Sith. Peace is a lie there is only passion. Without the passion of learning from and become the new Darth what will the Sith have. Through passion I gain strength through strength I gain power. Where shall your strength and power come from if you have no desire to destroy and take the mantle as the new dark lord.throughpower iI gain victory. Victory as what? A group if sSith. Without them you would be weak. Through victory my chains are broken . Your chains could never be broken as your tied by your weakness. And the force shall set me free. You would merely be a puppet of the force never knowing your true potential...lastly the Jedi did not kill the Sith for bane he destroyed both armies through trickery and cunning. You are simply a lost Jedi. You do not understand what it Trully means to be Sith.

[platinumruggo]

But there has to be one canon, so that wouldn't work.

 

There can be one canon, but that doesn't matter that other storylines CAN'T exist right?

[Highborne]

It will return as allways.caeudus is but a mark . Your true fault will be this. In order to do what you beleive correct you must have peace with other Sith. Peace is a lie there is only passion. Without the passion of learning from and become the new Darth what will the Sith have. Through passion I gain strength through strength I gain power. Where shall your strength and power come from if you have no desire to destroy and take the mantle as the new dark lord.throughpower iI gain victory. Victory as what? A group if sSith. Without them you would be weak. Through victory my chains are broken . Your chains could never be broken as your tied by your weakness. And the force shall set me free. You would merely be a puppet of the force never knowing your true potential...lastly the Jedi did not kill the Sith for bane he destroyed both armies through trickery and cunning. You are simply a lost Jedi. You do not understand what it Trully means to be Sith.

 

Your thesis is interesting, but it has three critical flaws:

 

First, you presume that my followers and allies supplant my strength - that my affiliations and alliances create personal weakness. They do not; they add to my strength - in areas where I am vulnerable, they guard me, in areas where I am strong, they lend force to my blows. By taking carefully-chosen allies and engendering loyalty in my followers, I become stronger, not weaker.

 

Second, you presume that my desire for allies comes from personal weakness; it does not. It comes from a rational understanding that by adding the strength of others to my own, my will gains greater force. Only if I begin relying upon others to do what I can (and therefore should) do myself do I become weaker, and a disciplined mind can prevent this from happening.

 

Third, you presume that I must have "peace" with other Sith to work with them. This is incorrect: I need merely have an understanding with them - so long as they stand to benefit from the understanding, they will not betray me, as it is not in their interests to do so. Even Banite Sith can co-operate, albeit in a rigid hierarchy, and in the Old Sith Empire, co-operation - once a pecking order was established - was the norm, and the overlord could expect with some confidence the loyalty of his followers, even as each competed with all others to improve their position within the Order.

 

With these three underlying assumptions in shambles, your entire thesis falls apart, resting on millennia-old dogma and stale misanthropy. By rejecting these, I become free to choose my course as suits my own purposes, to take allies, apprentices and followers as I see fit to further my own purposes and expand the choices available to me. By embracing them, you embrace your own slavery.

 

Not a slavery of the body, a far more insidious thing: slavery of the will. And what's worse, you're not even the slave of anyone living, who could earn your respect and allegiance - you're the slave of dust and bones! And a particularly ineffective slave, at that - by refusing to learn the lessons that the many past defeats of the Sith offer, you merely set the stage for a repeat performance. Sure, you'll do a lot of damage to the Jedi, you'll kill a lot of them, you may even have the illusion of victory for a time....but history will repeat itself as it has several times before, because you refuse to change the pattern.

[Highborne]

There can be one canon, but that doesn't matter that other storylines CAN'T exist right?

 

...."canon" means that "This Happened". So the answer to your question is yes and no: so long as you don't contradict canon, other storylines can exist. But only so far as they are compliant with the canon.

[Faerieheart]

Reven wasn't really sith, he was a fallen Jedi, and as SITH existed before Reven, I personally could care less what he sais, and certainly do not take his word as gospel. He's a fallen jedi that doesn't even stay fallen for long. To say a fallen jedi makes some silly statements and suddenly sith which existed long before he was even a sperm are completely redefined. You're just in love with the rule of two (literally meaning just two rather than what Lucas seemed to actually mean). The original sith didn't work that way. The principles of the sith code doesn't fit with it well. I mean really.

[Highborne]

Reven wasn't really sith, he was a fallen Jedi, and as SITH existed before Reven, I personally could care less what he sais, and certainly do not take his word as gospel. He's a fallen jedi that doesn't even stay fallen for long.

 

Not quite true. Vitiate made him a Sith, although how much knowledge of Sith lore this gave Revan is debateable.

 

To say a fallen jedi makes some silly statements and suddenly sith which existed long before he was even a sperm are completely redefined. You're just in love with the rule of two (literally meaning just two rather than what Lucas seemed to actually mean). The original sith didn't work that way. The principles of the sith code doesn't fit with it well. I mean really.

 

While I agree with your overall point (that restricting the Sith Order to two people is rather silly, at best), Lucas was quite clear: the Banite Sith, at least, adhered to precisely that rule. Partly out of Bane's philosophical disgust with the Brotherhood of Darkness which came before him (and really was a rather pathetic bunch of nincompoops), and partly due to the practical concern of remaining hidden from the Jedi - the more people who belong to the Sith Order, the more know about it and could potentially let slip its ongoing existence.

 

On a philosophical level, Darth Bane was certainly entitled to teach as he pleased, although he certainly is not the final arbiter of what is or is not "Sith". On a practical level, the Rule of Two made a great deal of sense in the decades and centuries following the Battles of Ruusan, because any hint of a renewed Sith Order would have kept the Jedi on their guard and searching for it.

 

But generally, whenever the Sith can walk openly, it is a remarkably silly rule.