Rule of Two ?

[tanerb]

So reading the Darth Bane novel, I am confused one thing. He believes the Dark Brotherhood is destined to fail because Sith are individualistic , can not work together and there needs to be only one strong Lord but at the same time he knows that in the past all strong Sith Lords from Revan to Naga Sadow failed to beat Jedi. He thinks Jedi can only be beaten by cunning not face to face war. I think until now his philosophy makes sense.

 

Then he goes ahead and make Sith lose a battle they were winning (by ordering navy to attack) and destroys all other Siths. This is just absurd. Ok, so at the end you and your apprentice will prevail and then what? beat the entire republic on their own? How will you form an empire with only 2 sith .Even if you do that, it is not a Sith empire now, it is your empire. Anyway, I guess I should have waited after the other books in the series but I am kind a pissed off so needed to rant.

[Bgiffo]

Frankly, the "rule of two" has always been a load of crap in my opinion. Most of the philosophical mouth-spew of the Jedi and Sith fall under that category as well.

[LordGarmaZabi]

Ok, so at the end you and your apprentice will prevail and then what?

 

Spend over 1000 years infiltrating the highest levels of Galactic Society through a convoluted master plan to form an Empire that will fall in less then a single human lifetime, and then condemn the first Sith Lord to throw out the Rule of Two as a heretic, even though it had clearly failed.

 

This is why I like Darth Marr, he's essentially the Anti Bane.

Edited February 19, 2014 by LordGarmaZabi

[Beniboybling]

Its more a question of ideals and what it is to be Sith than simply winning wars for Bane.

 

Yes its true that the Dark Brotherhood could have defeated the Jedi. But to what end? They'd still be as weak and diluted as before, they'd still be a silly parody of the Jedi Order and if they ever did conquer the galaxy it would only be a matter of time before Lord Kaan's underlings banded together and overthrew him - as had been happening for the past millenia or so. Remember that not long before this the Sith "ruled the galaxy" but it all fell apart.

 

Point to Marr as better if you want, but all in all he's the head of a flagging Empire plagued by self-induced chaos and has failed to defeat the Republic. I doubt Bane would be particularly impressed by his efforts, he's an idealist.

 

We should also consider that the Rule of Two was ultimately successful. And in terms of the Empire it produced it was one far more stable and more likely to survive than any previous incarnation.

 

But of course no Sith philosophy would or could ever accept the fact that they just can't win. At the heart of being Sith is trying to bend the Force to your will, but they delude themselves. If you try to control the Force it will replicate your actions and try to control you. Sidious was not brought down by a rag-tag bunch of Rebels, but by the Force itself.

 

Altogether Bane > Marr > Kaan and then the Force trumps them all.

[sell-dog]

Spend over 1000 years infiltrating the highest levels of Galactic Society through a convoluted master plan to form an Empire that will fall in less then a single human lifetime, and then condemn the first Sith Lord to throw out the Rule of Two as a heretic, even though it had clearly failed.

 

This is why I like Darth Marr, he's essentially the Anti Bane.

 

Rule of Two was actually to pave the path to the Rule of One which was the perfect Sith unlocking all secrets, power, and living forever. If Sidious and Plag hadn't tipped the scales prompting Anakin's birth it would have succeeded. Also every Sith calls any institution a mockery as the concept of an institution itself contradicts the idea of Sith being free from all limits, I never take a Sith calling something a heresy seriously.

[Sivar]

I don't pretend to be an expert in SW Lore as I haven't read most of the books but for what it's worth here are my two cents... (spoiler tag is used since some story elements in the game are used)

 

 

I think that the "Rule of Two" is mostly misunderstood and that it can have two potential possibilities:

-The first possibility is that it translates to the true master of the Sith and their Apprentice, I base this on a comment that the Emperor makes at the end of the JK storyline if you follow the dark side path, where the Emperor compares you to all other Sith in the Empire as being "no different from my slaves." Thus meaning that it's possible that the Emperor is the true master of the Sith while he has one apprentice (most likely the Wrath) who follows him with the potential to overthrow him given the right circumstances, and everybody else are simply force-wielding servants to the Master who only claim to be Sith.

 

This is further supported by the powerbases seen in the Inquisitor storyline with each Sith or Lord or Darth serving another all the way up to the top at the Dark Council members, each of whom serves the Emperor.

 

-The other possibility is that the "Rule of Two" is a generality, meaning that for every Master there is a "true" apprentice, and with each loss of a Master or an Apprentice a new one will instantly arise as the Apprentice would become the new Master and take an apprentice or a Master would replace a fallen apprentice. While this is weaker than the above explanation in my opinion, it does still allow for the power plays and loyalties that are seen in the storyline.

 

 

 

Anyway, just my two cents on the subject based on my limited knowledge of SW Lore.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Sivar

[LordGarmaZabi]

I don't pretend to be an expert in SW Lore as I haven't read most of the books but for what it's worth here are my two cents... (spoiler tag is used since some story elements in the game are used)

 

 

I think that the "Rule of Two" is mostly misunderstood and that it can have two potential possibilities:

-The first possibility is that it translates to the true master of the Sith and their Apprentice, I base this on a comment that the Emperor makes at the end of the JK storyline if you follow the dark side path, where the Emperor compares you to all other Sith in the Empire as being "no different from my slaves." Thus meaning that it's possible that the Emperor is the true master of the Sith while he has one apprentice (most likely the Wrath) who follows him with the potential to overthrow him given the right circumstances, and everybody else are simply force-wielding servants to the Master who only claim to be Sith.

 

This is further supported by the powerbases seen in the Inquisitor storyline with each Sith or Lord or Darth serving another all the way up to the top at the Dark Council members, each of whom serves the Emperor.

 

-The other possibility is that the "Rule of Two" is a generality, meaning that for every Master there is a "true" apprentice, and with each loss of a Master or an Apprentice a new one will instantly arise as the Apprentice would become the new Master and take an apprentice or a Master would replace a fallen apprentice. While this is weaker than the above explanation in my opinion, it does still allow for the power plays and loyalties that are seen in the storyline.

 

 

 

Anyway, just my two cents on the subject based on my limited knowledge of SW Lore.

 

While your wrong, possibility one would have been...significantly better.

Edited February 19, 2014 by LordGarmaZabi

[Sivar]

While your wrong, possibility one would have been...significantly better.

 

Pardon my ignorance, but would you please elaborate on how I'm wrong and what makes what I suggested better?

[Lithy]

Pardon my ignorance, but would you please elaborate on how I'm wrong and what makes what I suggested better?

 

In the TOR timeline the rule of two does not exist yet. Darth Bane creates the rule of two after the new Sith Wars, the rule is designed to have one master and one apprentice, so 10 weaker Sith cannot rise up and defeat a Sith more powerful than any of those individual 10, thus weakening the power of the Sith as a whole. The rule of two has the master train an apprentice till said apprentice official challenges the master to a 1 on 1 duel. If the apprentice loses she was too weak to continue on the order and a new one is trained, if she defeats her master she has proven she is stronger and deserves to carry the Sith forward. The rule ASSURES ever generation is stronger than the last, which is why by the time of the Galactic Empire Darth Sidious is stronger than any Jedi in a one on one duel.

 

Maul was trained outside the rule of two and not given full access to Sith power, and Tyranous's death in episode 3 was part of the plan to convert Anakain so he was destined to die the moment he took apprenticeship.

 

For all the characters created in the line, most can be traced back to Bane, unfortunately not every generation has created characters to fill the gap but it goes something like this.

 

Bane > Zannah > Cognus > bunch of ? > Gravid > Gean > Bunch of ? ? > Unamed Twi'lek Sith > Tenebrous >

-------------------------- \ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \

------------------------Millenial (broke away from the rule of 2) Venamis (trained outside rule of 2)

------------------------------------ /----------------------------------\

(Continued) > Plaguis > Sidious > Tyranous (died) > Vader

----------------------------------- \ ----------\

-- Maul (Trained outside rule of 2) Ventress (Trained outside Rule of 2)

------------------------------------------------------ \

----------------------------------------------------- Savage (Trained outside rule by Ventress and Tyranous)

 

I know i missed a bunch of named Sith in the line, but you get the idea.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Lithy

[Beniboybling]

I don't pretend to be an expert in SW Lore as I haven't read most of the books but for what it's worth here are my two cents... (spoiler tag is used since some story elements in the game are used)

 

 

I think that the "Rule of Two" is mostly misunderstood and that it can have two potential possibilities:

-The first possibility is that it translates to the true master of the Sith and their Apprentice, I base this on a comment that the Emperor makes at the end of the JK storyline if you follow the dark side path, where the Emperor compares you to all other Sith in the Empire as being "no different from my slaves." Thus meaning that it's possible that the Emperor is the true master of the Sith while he has one apprentice (most likely the Wrath) who follows him with the potential to overthrow him given the right circumstances, and everybody else are simply force-wielding servants to the Master who only claim to be Sith.

 

This is further supported by the powerbases seen in the Inquisitor storyline with each Sith or Lord or Darth serving another all the way up to the top at the Dark Council members, each of whom serves the Emperor.

 

-The other possibility is that the "Rule of Two" is a generality, meaning that for every Master there is a "true" apprentice, and with each loss of a Master or an Apprentice a new one will instantly arise as the Apprentice would become the new Master and take an apprentice or a Master would replace a fallen apprentice. While this is weaker than the above explanation in my opinion, it does still allow for the power plays and loyalties that are seen in the storyline.

 

 

 

Anyway, just my two cents on the subject based on my limited knowledge of SW Lore.

What your describing is the typical Rule of Two and Darth Sidious' Rule of One.

 

The Rule of Two states their can only be two a master and an apprentice - one to hold the power and one to crave it. But there can only be two, no more and no less. The Sith Emperor sees everyone beneath him as inferior, there are no apprentices, just a master and his "slaves." Slaves do not usurp masters, at least without the master willing it.

 

On the other hand what the Sith Emperor does advocate is something akin to what Sidious attempted to implement after becoming in his opinion, the greatest master of the dark side - and therefore irreplaceable.

 

To quote the Book of Sith:

 

As Darth Bane instituted the Rule of Two, so I will begin the Rule of One. The Sith will now be sustained by one - one to hold the power and others, talented in the Force, to execute my will as dark side agents.

 

...

 

As the new Rule of One is enacted, I will be free to enlist a throng of dark side followers. These talented mimics will be trained to replicate a smattering of my abilities yet will never take even a fraction of my authority.

 

This is essentially very similar to what the Sith Emperor has established in his Empire. The difference being that these individuals beneath Sidious have little to no political power, and there is no means of succession. Altogether I feel Sidious has the much better system and arguably the more "perfect" system for a total fulfillment of the Sith Code.

[LordGarmaZabi]

Pardon my ignorance, but would you please elaborate on how I'm wrong and what makes what I suggested better?

 

If my understanding of the Rule of Two is correct, Darth Bane believed that the Dark Side of the Force was like Venom, it was best when concentrated in few individuals, rather then "dilluted" across legions of Sith. He also thought that in fighting was inevitable, so rather then have a seperate Sith government who would ultimately fall into civil war, and be destroyed, it would be better for the Sith to strike from the shadows. To that end, there must be two, a master, and an apprentice. The master must instruct the pupil, but never give the slightest sliver of power. The apprentice learns through years of study, but must struggle for every achivement. If the apprentice becomes stronger then the master, he strikes down the master. In this, the Sith could survive, and even improve through infighting, rather then be destroyed by it.

 

Under the rule of two, the Sith were to exist in secret, amassing wealth and influence untill the day came when they could over throw the Republic from the Shadows, which eventually happens with Emperor Palpatine.

 

What you seemed to have suggested was two Sith ruling over an army of Dark Side users, who do not follow the Sith Code, call on the power of the dark side. This just seems like a system that would be more likely to succeed. Internal scheming seems to be the reason that, time after time, the Sith fail, reducing this, rather then embracing it, would be the most logical way path to victory. May understanding of the lore may be flawed, but the Book of Sith seems to imply to me that infighting in the Sith is just a cultural holdover from a time when the Sith had yet to encounter any civilization capable of matching them, and, after contact with such a civilization, should have been thrown out over the thousands of years, and numerous incarnations of the Sith Empire.

[DarknessInLight]

How will you form an empire with only 2 sith .Even if you do that, it is not a Sith empire now, it is your empire. Anyway, I guess I should have waited after the other books in the series but I am kind a pissed off so needed to rant.

 

Um......Darth Sidious did just that with his apprentice, Darth Vader, following the end of the Clone Wars. Darth Bane's grand plan was brought to fruition when Sidious enacted Order 66, which destroyed the one thing that could stand against the Dark Lord's plans and created the Galactic Empire from the ashes of the 25,000 year old Galactic Republic: The Jedi Order.

[AuraJurai]

Um......Darth Sidious did just that with his apprentice, Darth Vader, following the end of the Clone Wars. Darth Bane's grand plan was brought to fruition when Sidious enacted Order 66, which destroyed the one thing that could stand against the Dark Lord's plans and created the Galactic Empire from the ashes of the 25,000 year old Galactic Republic: The Jedi Order.

 

Sidious did not defeat the Republic the republic is an ideal which the rebels carried on even with the loss of its physical representation nor did he actually successfully wipe out the Jedi completely all in all what lead to Sidious's downfall was his overconfidence barring the eu the troops he sent down which he arrogantly proclaimed as his best legion was defeated by the natives with little real effort the empire was always doomed all the rule of the two did was replace scheming sith lords with scheming moffs and the galatic empire was far from perfect eu wise it had a lot of corruption

Edited February 22, 2014 by AuraJurai

[drakensang]

Rule of Two was actually to pave the path to the Rule of One which was the perfect Sith unlocking all secrets, power, and living forever.

 

How the Rule of Two produces steadily stronger Sith goes like this: Darth SharpScissors apprentices Darth GraniteStone and is smashed. Darth GraniteStone apprentices Darth CopyPaper and is wrapped and smothered. Darth CopyPaper apprentices Darth DullScissors and is messily cut. Darth DullScissor apprentices Darth ChalkStone.....

[CabelHarn]

People have covered the principle of the Rule of Two, but here is my opinion having just read Plagueis recently and re-read Bane.

 

The Rule of Two was broken by the third generation of its line and continued to have its rules broken at times afterward, in that sense despite the fact that the grand plan worked it was destined to fail because of its followers not continuing to follow what Bane set down in the Rule of Two.

 

The first breaking of the Rule of Two -- Darth Cognus' first apprentice being ex-communicated. There is no way this would have been acceptable to Bane. Millenial should have been killed by Cognus immediately and replaced. This is probably the most minor way it was broken but isn't it sad it took such a small amount of time?

 

There are many instances, several mentioned in this post by others, where the Rule of Two was broken by training people outside of the Rule of Two -- that would not be considered acceptable by Bane. There should not be ANYONE but the master and the apprentice that is trained in Force use and Sith arts...this concept that you can train others but just exclude them from the Rule of Two is a fallacy that helps lead to the Grand Plans failure when Sidious/Palpatine propagates this well into the OT timeline. Depending on what you consider canon, if you believe FU is canon then part of the major formation of the Rebel Alliance is BECAUSE of the failure to follow this part of the Rule of Two by Vader training Galek who ultimately helps establish the Rebel Alliance. There's other more minor ways it undermines the grand plan. Another major way it undermines it is Sidious throwing it out for his Rule of One and having no intention to have an apprentice who will replace him. By planning for this and thus orchestrating the kind of "control" he thinks he has over Anakin/Vader it contributes to his downfall due to his entangled web of lies related to Padme being dead and the children etc. which allow for an apprentice who still has links to the Light Side who ultimately helps destroy him. Edit: There's another way in assuring even at this point the Rule of Two and Sith dominance survival if you read Plagueis...without ruining it, if Plagueis continued to exist and the two of them as a permanent pair cooperatively I believe the Sith would have remained in power.

 

The other way the Rule of Two is destroyed, represented in Plagueis book, is the concept of each apprentice having to surpass the master in power and wrest the Master title from them in combat. Who knows how many times this may have been broke prior to Plagueis, if I remember right I think even Plagueis master killed his master in a sneaky way. I don't think Bane's intent was ever for the use of subterfuge and under-handedness to be used within their process of overthrowing each other because it undermines them being stronger as generations go on. This is supported in the Bane series with his concerns that Zannah is just waiting him out until he's old and feeble enough to take the throne easily rather than challenging him to fair combat while he's still at his full capacity. Yet, this is exactly how some apprentice's defeat their master -- see Plagueis. Even one could argue part of Sidious taking over is under-handed in this regard instead of outright winning via fair combat.

 

 

I think the Rule of Two in principle, if followed strictly as Bane intended, would have not only resulted in over-throwing the Republic (as Sidious and Plagueis accomplished) but retaining power. It's only through the dilution or re-interpreting of the rules that the grand plan ultimately failed long-term post taking over.

 

Ultimately I believe this is because Sith are incapable (at the least majority and thus a long-term line like this will fail because of it) of living to the Rules of Two because they will ultimately want to find a way to extend their life and just be the permanent master and this concern will then force the apprentice to extend the ideals of being patient and sneaky in their machinations to over-throwing the master. Sadly we even see Bane start to slide into the former in the third book because his fear of Zannah not following his rules already first generation.

 

If the Rule was genuinely followed generation by generation to a T I have little doubt not only would Sidious have taken out the Jedi and Republic but retained power long-term handing it to his apprentice who over-threw him and so on continuing the line of the Rule of Two. It is through the fallacies in the Dark Side and Sith (such as ultimately being incapable to cooperate with each other long-term even when there's only two) that allows the Light to always remain ultimately more powerful.

Edited February 23, 2014 by CabelHarn

[tanerb]

slide into the former in the third book because his fear of Zannah not following his rules already first generation.

 

If the Rule was genuinely followed generation by generation to a T I have little doubt not only would Sidious have taken out the Jedi and Republic but retained power long-term handing it to his apprentice who over-threw him and so on continuing the line of the Rule of Two. It is through the fallacies in the Dark Side and Sith (such as ultimately being incapable to cooperate with each other long-term even when there's only two) that allows the Light to always remain ultimately more powerful.

 

what you say is strange because exactly what you say on "being incapable of cooperation" is the fundamental behind the rule of two. it believes in individual strength not teamwork or cooperation.

however,there is no way a closed system like rule of two work in the long run. There is huge a chance that master will be killed/die before his apprentice comes close to being a master and there goes your plan.

[kirorx]

The idea is that the apprentice kills the master and this on goon cycle would make each generation of Sith stronger and more powerful than that last.

 

It's not about military might its about absolute power

 

The system in place gives way to Sith that are more cunning and deceitful than just a powerhouse of destruction.

 

In the end this plan did work.

 

Palpatine was a product of the rule of two and he used his intellect to destroy the Jedi

 

Of course he did go through a few unworthy apprentices; maul and dooku.

Though vader was redeemed in the end even vader fell right into the darth bane rule and killed palpatine

[Rudolf_Saebjorn]

I don't like the rule of two. Darth Krayt is THE BEST.

[DarthDymond]

I don't like the rule of two. Darth Krayt is THE BEST.

Personally I like how the Sith, as an institution, frequently change radically and reinvent themselves, while the Jedi remain more-or-less the same over time, with only some relatively minor doctrinal changes.

 

It provides a nice contrast, kind of like the Shadows and Vorlons for any Babylon 5 fans out there.

[Euphrosyne]

Personally I like how the Sith, as an institution, frequently change radically and reinvent themselves, while the Jedi remain more-or-less the same over time, with only some relatively minor doctrinal changes.

Perhaps this is because the Sith philosophy is inherently anti-institutional, much like the basis of the Nazi Bewegung was anti-institutional. Where the Nazis focused on the Führerprinzip and the ultimate authority of Hitler, the Sith focus on the ultimate authority of individuals, who are informed by the context of tradition to varying degrees but never ruled by it (or, for that matter, never ruled by anything whatsoever).

[Rudolf_Saebjorn]

Darth Krayt did it best. He had a whole bunch of sith with cool outfits.

[Kaedusz]

The Rule of Two ended with Tenebrous,so the only thing it achieved is to gather a bunch of powerbase and sith lore for Plagueis and Sidious to carry out their plans.

[VanorDM]

The idea is that the apprentice kills the master and this on goon cycle would make each generation of Sith stronger and more powerful than that last.

 

But the whole system is based on a flawed premise. That each generation will at some point become powerful enough to throw down the previous.

 

Given the nature of the Sith, you'll have Masters who will do their best to avoid letting their apprentice become that powerful, because the Master isn't ready to die yet. They'll hold them back just enough to stay in power until they're (the master) too old to fight any longer. That means the next generation is actually weaker then the previous.

 

Likewise there will be apprentices who don't want to wait until they're ready to face their master 1v1 and will find some other way to get rid of them, which again means they're actually weaker then the previous generation.

 

Lastly as was pointed out, there will be cases where a Master gets killed by a Jedi, or even just an accident. All it would take is one faulty hyperdrive, and the whole Sith Empire dies.

Edited March 13, 2014 by VanorDM

[that_Spartan_IV]

Sorry to Necro a thread, but I didn't feel like starting another one.

 

My problem is while it DID work....its success only lasted about 25 years.

 

Good job Darth Bane! All those thousands of years and it worked! For a little bit.

 

Boy wasn't that worth all the effort? No? Yeah I didn't think so either :/

[jedimasterjac]

Sorry to Necro a thread, but I didn't feel like starting another one.

 

My problem is while it DID work....its success only lasted about 25 years.

 

Good job Darth Bane! All those thousands of years and it worked! For a little bit.

 

Boy wasn't that worth all the effort? No? Yeah I didn't think so either :/

 

It's pretty difficult for the core of Sith philosophy to work for an extended period of time, anyway. The Empire lost, in large part, due to Sith in-fighting and their inability to work together. It's hard to fight a war when you also fear a power-play against your so-called "allies." In the end, their own values, their own beliefs, cause their defeat. In the case of the Rule of Two, you just don't have enough Sith to sustain the beliefs. Without the Rule of Two, you simply can't trust the Sith.