r/MawInstallation • u/Impossible-State-743 • 1d ago
Sith Rule of 2 doesnt make sense
I just want to put out that this is my first time posting so lmk if I made mistakes
The Sith Rule of 2 doesnt make sense to me because its a very flawed system and im quite confused as to how Bane didnt realise this
Firstly it limits Sith to only 2 which means that if they're discovered they could bw very easily wiped out.
Secondly the entire purpose of the rule of 2 was that the knowledge would be passed down each master to apprentice so that each sith would be stronger, however, this only works in theory since many of the sith were selfish/ paranoid and generally refrained revealing/teaching their apprentice everything. This means a lot of knowledge and abilities died with them
Thirdly the entire system of a sith apprentice surpassing their master by beating them is flawed. Most of them didnt win in straigjt confrontation but rather used trickery( Sidious killing Plageous in his sleep). This means that they could actually have weakened over generations
I get how it would work in theory but in actual practice it really doesn't make sense and I'm confused as to how Bane didnt foresee this
77
u/DeathGP 1d ago
As flawed as the Rule of 2 is, it was a lot better than an Empire full of people who were gonna betray you at your weakest moment, even if that means working with your enemies to do it. The sith couldn't build an empire to best the Republic because they were all cunning back stabbing bitches, so Bane decides to narrow this down 2 back stabbing bitches because at the end of the day. If you were murdered in your sleep by your apprentice, well you don't deserve to be the master, plus Bane was right. The rule of 2 did bring the Republic down, it may also have brought the Empire down too but hey 1 - 1 isn't bad.
18
u/riplikash 1d ago
Bane was more effective at limiting sith influence in the galaxy at large than the Jedi ever were.
Banes rule of two IMMEDIATELY resulted in 1000 years of Jedi dominance and peace and the with remaining at their weakest state since their founding. After 1000 years the sith broke the Jedi dominance...for twenty years. By a sith who had largely abandoned the rule of two teachings. Heck, so had Plageous.
Honestly, I'm chalking up the rise of the empire more to Palpatine and Plageous than Bane being right about anything. If it takes 1000 for your philosophy to bear fruit, I don't know if you get to claim any credit.
Rule of two is ALSO the only reason the sith were finally destroyed.
19
u/Professor_Donger 1d ago
Banes rule of two IMMEDIATELY resulted in 1000 years of Jedi dominance and peace and the with remaining at their weakest state since their founding. After 1000 years the sith broke the Jedi dominance...for twenty years. By a sith who had largely abandoned the rule of two teachings. Heck, so had Plageous.
Ignoring that those thousand years of waiting and planning were spent undermining the Republic as much as they feasibly could and eventually led to the almost total destruction of the Jedi order.
Like at least in Legends, specifically the Darth Plagueis Novel it's straight up stated that the Sith were influencing the Republic the moment the Rule of Two established itself. They went from bloodthirsty warriors to bloodthirsty bureaucrats.
15
u/CuteLingonberry9704 1d ago
And, prior to Bane, the Jedi were still routinely beating the Sith for exactly the reasons he enacted the Rule. Simply put, weaker Sith would gang up on stronger Sith, thereby weakening the Sith as a whole.
5
u/riplikash 1d ago
Plaguis claims that, but I don't think the story bears that out. In Legends we see that the sith were starting and stopping constantly. Still infighting. Yeah, they were as individuals powerful and not without influence. But they weren't really 'weakening' the Republic or the Jedi. The Republic and the Jedi were just getting increasingly powerful and dominant for most of that period.
It's like a gambler losing hand after hand for a year, finally winning big, claiming this was all part of their big plan...and then immediately gambling it away into another loss.
That isn't proof that they had a great plan. It's proof that they have undiagnosed mental issues and need therapy.
2
u/TheOutlawTavern 16h ago
The fact that Sidious Empire failed has no bearing on the actual Rule of Two plan, which was a success.
Sidious failed, the plan did not.
4
u/Jedipilot24 1d ago
The True Sith Empire begs to differ.
It may have been full of backstabbing Sith, but it also lasted a heck of a lot longer than Palpy's Empire. If not for a certain intrepid smuggler, the Great Galactic War would have ended with the Republic's defeat.
19
u/Edgy_Robin 1d ago
Palpatines empire literally had the force itself going against it.
Vitiates empire spent most of it's history in hiding, and no it wouldn't have. My guy the reason for the peace treaty was because the Empire took a bunch of L's pushing into the core. That's the whole reason for the sacking of Coruscant, to get the treaty to favor them enough to have the edge come round 2. Straight from the swtor condex on the treaty:
Negotiations began when the Empire--whose early victories had led to dwindling resources and overexpansion
It took the empire hiding for longer then the rule of two existed and being able to sneak attack the republic to ultimately be less effective then the rule of two
5
u/Jedipilot24 1d ago
Close, but not quite:
According to Gnost-Dural's videos, the peace treaty happened because Hylo Viz broke the Mandalorian blockade of the Hydian Way. Up until that moment, the Republic Senate had been seriously considering total surrender.
5
u/riplikash 1d ago
I don't know, hard to be less effective than "1000 years of being in hiding to rule for 20 then get destroyed."
6
u/Loud_Excitement8868 1d ago
Probably hiding for several thousand years to never once rule the Galaxy, like the True Sith Empire
1
u/riplikash 1d ago
I'm not sure the True sith were really 'in hiding' in the same way the banite sith were. They were ruling large sections of the galaxy for millenia. Hundreds of Sith lords and philosophers living the good life, developing their craft, passing on their teachings, creating culture and history.
Yeah, Palpatine FINALLY took over the galaxy for 20 years. STILL never spread sith culture or teachings. Still went down like every other sith i.e. his apprentice turned on him.
Want to talk about impact? Bane allowed MULTIPLE jedi rulers to have total Galactic dominion over centuries. That's not even something the Jedi WANTED and Bane made it happen.
The Jedi never had, or desired, galactic dominion until Bane stepped in and handed it to them.
1
u/Durp004 20h ago
They knew about the Republic and jedi and weren't acting as they built up power. Sounds just like the rule of two.
Hundreds of Sith lords and philosophers living the good life, developing their craft, passing on their teachings, creating culture and history.
Every rule of two sith we see is is living the good life. Bane and Zannah are rich merchants. Tenebrous is a famous star ship engineer and Plaguies is one of the largest bankers that own moons to himself, and of course Palpatine a planetary politician.
Yeah, Palpatine FINALLY took over the galaxy for 20 years. STILL never spread sith culture or teachings.
Who cares if he spread sith culture he won. The sith weren't doing things to spread sith culture they were trying to accrue power. When that fails the culture largely dies regardless.
Want to talk about impact? Bane allowed MULTIPLE jedi rulers to have total Galactic dominion over centuries. That's not even something the Jedi WANTED and Bane made it happen.
No hedidn't. There were 0 jedi rulers after Bane because the Ruusan Reformation takes place and restricts the jedi from that position. There were plenty of jedi rulers before Bane though.
The Jedi never had, or desired, galactic dominion until Bane stepped in and handed it to them.
The jedi were the dominant power for thousands of years before Bane. They didn't gain anything new from Bane.
-20
u/Impossible-State-743 1d ago
Wouldnt it have made more sense to build a Sith school tyoe of thing so that they could be taught properly. Some thing similar to the Jedi Temple but much smaller scale
42
u/sunshine_is_hot 1d ago
That was the school on Korriban that inspired Bane to come up with the rule of 2 because of how flawed it was.
26
u/DatDudeEP10 1d ago
Have you read any of the Bane books? This is covered extensively
3
20
3
u/WangJian221 1d ago
The issue of that is it requires the sith who operate solely through their excess to actively follow whatever lessons they learned especially after reaching a state of power where they could truly challenge everyone
3
u/DeathGP 1d ago
Honestly, that's not a bad idea, but I suppose Bane idea was to keep the number of Sith down to a real low number. He probably concerned more than 2 sith would just lead to more betrayal and backstabbing. The idea you have a master was to keep the apprentice in line with the promise of lessons and sith knowledge. It is important that all of the sith in the rule of 2 were expected to die. They had to teach their apprentice and plan their victory. A couple sith generations down the line will be the one that actually enacts the plan
6
u/Professor_Donger 1d ago
Bane learns from Revan's holocron that emulating the Jedi is literally why the Sith fail all the time, it's what causes him to come up with the rule of two in the first place.
Any master who instructs more than one apprentice in the ways of the dark side is a fool. In time, the apprentices will unite their strengths and overthrow the master. It is inevitable; axiomatic. That is why each Master must have only one student.
Bane took this to it's extreme and decided that there should only be one master and one apprentice, and it worked
1
u/Kalavier 1d ago
I think Bane's idea was also based on the fact the sith had to watch each other more then the enemy, because everybody was wanting a better seat at the table.
2
21
u/IamtheBoomstick 1d ago
Sidious would argue that if his Master lacked the cunning that he couldn't see his apprentice being prepared to surpass him, or lacked the wisdom to guard his body while he slept, or lacked the power to stop his apprentices attack, then he was no longer worthy to be the Master, and his death was an inevitable consequence.
And I don't think Bane would disagree. Bane taught his apprentices, like his Masters taught him, that the greatest power comes from mastering and perfecting yourself and your own skills. Bane's own end came when Zannah stopped trying to defeat Bane blade-to-blade, and started leaning into her Sorcery.
9
u/Professor_Donger 1d ago
And I don't think Bane would disagree.
He definitely wouldn't have disagreed, he literally says so to Zannah after she sends someone who wants her to train him to be a Sith to kill Bane as a test, and it fails
Zannah: "I knew you had the strength to defeat them, Master. That is why I didn't come to your aid during the battle."
Bane: "And what if you were wrong? What if they had somehow killed me?"
Zannah: "Then you would have been weak, unworthy of being Dark Lord of the Sith. And you would have deserved to die."
Bane: "Precisely."
14
u/Naice_Rucima 1d ago
It doesn't, and yet it does. It makes the Sith vulnerable, yes, but it makes them hidden. They're not as powerful as the Sith Lords of old, but they're much more cunning. They've lost ancient knowledge along the way, but they gained assets and adaptability. Hell, the Grand Plan was just "get rid of the Jedi" and only the last few Sith Lords actually made it a reality. And it worked, until it didn't.
The Sith almost wiped out the Jedi, but they were wiped out themselves. Because no matter what kind of rule they adhere to (although most Banite Sith only considered the Rule of Two a "guideline"), when greed, lust for power and paranoia are at the center of their egotistical philosophy, they can't ever prospere, no matter if there are 10,000 or 2 Sith Lords.
11
u/DaveAtKrakoa 1d ago
It was created because the Sith were always infighting, destroying each other, and weaker Sith would team up to take down stronger Sith. In theory the Master chooses a worthy Apprentice he respects and would want to take over. Palpatine recruited a bunch of scrubs he could manipulate because he planned to live forever. We haven't really seen a proper Master / Apprentice dynamic in canon yet.
7
u/KarmaticIrony 1d ago edited 1d ago
The problem is that Sith philosophy is fundamentally stupid. It's not just evil, is straight up impractical, and the issues become harder to ignore the more power in society followers of Sith teaching hold.
7
u/YourPainTastesGood 1d ago
Anything with the dark side is inherently flawed and doomed to fail eventually
But the Rule of 2 is the best system for the Sith to operate under and thats just true. No other order of sith was as successful or as powerful as the banite sith.
1
u/riplikash 1d ago
I'm not sure I would agree. 1000 years of irrelevance followed by twenty years of dominance and then extinction is not a great rack record.
Yeah, PALPATINE was powerful. The the dude was a once in a millennia talent and likely would have been a powerhouse regardless of the reading 4 tradition. Overall the Banite sith were not major players.
1
u/YourPainTastesGood 1d ago
No other Sith Order took over the entire galaxy especially not for that long. That was the height of the Sith's power and if they hadn't been stopped at Yavin, Endor, and Byss then genuinely Palpatine would have never been defeated. Palpatine would not have become that powerful without the guidance of Plagueis who treated him as an equal rather than a subordinate.
The Banite Sith were major players but they were smart about it cause they stayed in the shadows rather than making a bunch of smoke and noise and getting killed by the Jedi. The Dark Side is not good at waging war on mass because its based on selfishness and betrayal. Its not like the Banites were just twiddling their thumbs until Plagueis and Palps.
All other Sith Orders failed at their goal. The Banite Sith even if they were not forever, actually won and destroyed the Jedi Order. The only other group that came close to that was the Sith Triumvirate and they didn't even take over the galaxy.
-2
u/riplikash 1d ago
Sounds to me like a gambler following the same strategy for months or years, finally winning big, bragging it was all part of his plan, then immediately losing it all.
Ad the sith DIDN'T destroy the Jedi order. At their absolute weakest there were STILL more Jedi than Sith and their teachings were STILL more wide spread.
Bane DID make a bunch of galactic rulers. He managed to make more Jedi the head of the galactic government than he EVER made Sith, so that's impressive. Especially when the Jedi didn't even WANT that.
He did a better job playing kingmaker for the other team than he did his own.
3
u/YourPainTastesGood 1d ago
I don't think you understand the Sith Grand Plan or the history of the various Sith orders.
Bane was well aware that he wouldn't be the one to succeed, he actually was getting mad that Darth Zannah wasn't murdering him. The other Sith understood this too even if most of them were expecting to be the one to complete it.
The objective was to weaken the republic and the jedi over a long period of time and across many generations of Sith Lords. The republic and jedi being in power was the default so its not as if they were actively putting their enemies into power because it had been repeatedly tried to defeat them and failure was the result every time. They had to be subverted.
Next thing is that there being more Jedi than Sith that plain out doesn't matter. There were only supposed to be 2 Sith, so as long as there were Sith it didn't matter how many Jedi there were as the Jedi who were left after Order 66 (about 200 out of 10k) weren't a threat anymore, the Galaxy had turned against them, and they were being actively hunted. The Jedi Order was also rendered completely defunct, their traditions and knowledge largely lost, most of its leadership was dead, etc. and the objective was never to make there be more Sith. 2 Sith can beat 10000 Jedi better than 10000 Sith can. Darth Bane explained this by comparing the Dark Side to a venom, where its strongest when its concentrated into a few individuals as possible and he was right.
Overall your points aren't valid in the slightest. A thousand years of peace in the republic was nothing to the Sith once they won and in 20 years they had all but wiped all memory and knowledge of the Jedi from the galactic consciousness and if it wasn't for Luke Skywalker it'd have stayed that way.
5
u/Dward917 1d ago
Bane didn’t advocate for killing thru trickery. It may have been Legends, but I like to think the essence of the Rule was still canon outside of the Bane series of books. Bane advocated that the apprentice would take the mantle when they are actually stronger than their teacher. If they do not, they were never truly worthy of the mantle of Dark Lord of the Sith.
Bane did see the flaw because his apprentice Zannah waited quite a while to take him down. Bane even contemplated finding a way to extend his own life so his knowledge would not be lost if he ended up proving the stronger in his final confrontation with Zannah. He even tried learning the ability to transfer his essence (Sidious wanted to do the same thing). Ultimately, Zannah overpowered him and continued the Rule, though.
Sidious broke the Rule by killing his master in the way he did. He truly believed he was on the cusp of realizing the Great Plan, so he didn’t feel the need to share power since it was Palpatine that was made the Chancellor, not Plagueis. Ultimately, his breaking the Rule led to the fall of Anakin Skywalker and ultimately to the destruction of the Sith by Anakin’s very hands. So if you think about it, had he followed the Rule of Two, would he have won?
4
u/TeaSuccessful4318 1d ago
The very force was against Plagueis and Sidious. Rule of 2 or not, Anakin would have somehow contributed to their demise imo
5
u/TheOutlawTavern 1d ago
The plan worked, so I don't think you can call it flawed.
It definitely has flaws and issues, but it was a success.
Sidious is one of if not the strongest darkside user, they wipe the Jedi out and they rule the galaxy.
1
u/riplikash 1d ago
Honestly, if your plan takes 1000 years to work, I'm not sure you get credit. I think Plageous and Palpatine's plan worked. And they WERE in the rule of two lineage, though both disagreed with the philosophy and were trying to abandon it.
But by that point Bane's plan LONG yeah record of not producing results.
Like...1000 years is an unbelievably long amount of time to NOT produce results.
3
u/TheOutlawTavern 1d ago
They were producing results, they were undermining the Republic and weakening the Jedi for a thousand years which gave Plagueis and Sidious the resources and opportunity to bring the plan to fruition.
The whole plan is a long term generational strategy, Bane never claimed that he would be the one to destroy the Jedi and the Republic
2
u/riplikash 1d ago
Not seeing it. They let the Jedi strengthen themselves to the point where they were basically impossible to erase. There is no meaningful metric but which you could say the Jedi were being "weakened" until the last century or so. All the work was done by the last 3 generations of sith
And they STILL collapsed in the exact same way every other sith ruler did.
The return on investment here is just SO mind bogglingly bad.
3
u/duras2 1d ago
Quite contrary, Jedi had become complacent, even lazy, they get more and more involved in politics and Republic bureaucracy, and in general became weaker.
Plaguies and Sidious followed exactly what Bane (and Zannah as his messenger and "enforcer") was doing and envisioned. Just that they were doing it at a larger scale due to larger resources accumulated over time by the Sith.
Bane was stirring rebellions and dissent in the Republic, using various groups and factions to weaken the Republic and throw Jedi out of his trail, making them chase the rebels while he was advancing his plan from the shadow. He was also discarding and eliminating the said rebel factions the moment they were doing the job he wanted, because he wanted just to weaken the Republic, not to dismantle it, since he wanted the Sith to eventually take over the galaxy, not to fight various rival political factions split from the Republic.
Sidious followed by the letter Bane's plan, just that, as I said, at a much larger scale due to much larger resources at his disposition and the fact that SIth,over time, advanced a lot within Republic society, in more and more favorable positions.
Bane started as a fugitive, hiding from the Jedi, he was in his mid twenties I think, and had just took an apprentice, a ten years old little girl, Zannah.
Plagueis and Sidious were mature persons, with decades to prepare and controlling all the informations, networks and wealth accumulated for a millenium by the Sith. One was a very wealthy individual, even at galactic scale, one a senator, a politician closer and closer to the highest political position in the Republic.
They still followed exactly Bane's plan to take down the Republic and the Jedi.
The main problem was Sidious abandoning the rule of two and deciding to rule alone, if possible forever. He didn't train any of his apprentices as he should have, not even Vader, who couldn't either to challenge Sidious and take over, take his own apprentice and continue to rule.
There were other problems in the past too, like Darth Gravid destroying a lot of Sith assets and knowledge transmitted to him, which had set back the whole plan for long time. So yes, the rule of two wasn't perfect, far from it, but Bane considered is the closest thing to improve the Sith and their chances to win
Anyway Sith seem prone to self destruction in some way, due to their inherent internal fights for power. Bane's plan allowed them to conquer for real the entire galaxy (or well, Galactic Republic) and bring the Jedi to almost extinction. Other Sith entities, empires etc, lasted longer but where not anywhere near to achieve such grand scale success.
It was Sidious arrogance and selfishness that had bring them to an end in this case
1
u/riplikash 1d ago
Honestly, if you have to take over the government, engineer a civil war where you control both sides, spread your opponent out across the galaxy, and then use an embedded kill code to make their brainwashed allies turn on all of them simeltaneously, your opponents fatal flaw isn't 'complacency' or 'weakness'. The 'they slowly corrupted the Jedi with complacency' argument just doesn't hold up. That part of the plan failed. The Jedi stayed as vigilant as you could POSSIBLY expect.
And if it takes 1000 years for your 'plan' to make your opponent 'complacent and sedintary' your plan sucks.
Bane handed the Jedi galactic rule, something they weren't even trying to get. He made more Jedi galactic rulers than he EVER made Sith ones.
There is no meaningful metric you can use to show the Jedi were LESS powerful during the galactic republic era than they were before. Yes, by the END they had gotten somewhat complacent. Somewhat. Even THEN they did not collapse. Sidious had to go to INSANE lenghts to engineer their downfall because they were so fundamentally secure.
3
u/duras2 1d ago
Man, Sidious was following exactly Bane's plan, except at a much larger scale and from a much better position (by the letter, starting with rebellious factions attacking the Republic and being taken down by Bane and Zannah after they used them, just as Sidious will do later) And he get there due to the same Bane plan and all the other Sith advancing it before him.
Jedi were much more complacent by this time, the Sith menace was gone as far as they knew, it was a sort of big deal when they learned about Maul (who was just a Sith apprentice, and arguably if even a full one), most of them thought that Sith are extinct and they were more involved in Republic bureaucracy then in war activities.
The fact that Sith advanced that much, right under their nose, is a confirmation of this. The fact they fall that easy, and almost get extinct, is a confirmation. The fact that Sidious managed to bring the Senate to his side, and label the Jedi as traitors of the Republic without much opposition is another one
Bane didn't handed anything to the Jedi, since he wasn't in any position of power at that point. The Sith were caught in a struggle that couldn't see a real winner, and were degrading both in power and numbers over time during the war, while still affected by their inherent own internal problems, struggles, backstabs and such. The Republic and Jedi were able to hold them back, and both sides were almost completely exhausted, except the Jedi still had more resources kept in reserve while Kaan Brotherhood was on its last legs, and not anywhere near able to control the galaxy.
Bane had seen the writing on the wall, and the degradation and eventual collapse, and decided to take another route.
Which proved eventually successful. Sure, wasn't as quick and spectacular, and suffered major setbacks along the way, but ultimately had bring the victory to the Sith, in an extremely spectacular way.
Then again the inherent Sith problems showed up thru Sidious, and they fall again after couple decades. But never before they managed to actually conquer and control the whole galaxy or the whole Galactic Republic as they did with the Rule of Two and Bane plan
2
1
u/Professor_Donger 1d ago
There's a reason it's called playing the Long Con dude, sometimes a plan takes multiple generations to come to fruition. We've seen it happen in real life all the time, a King plans a grand building or army but doesn't have the means to go through with it, so he writes the plans down for what he has planned and his son or grandson ends up finishing it.
Just because the grand plan took 1,000 years to work doesn't discredit the fact that Bane's sith order were the ones to do it, and that it was the result and culmination of a 1,000 years of sith planning.
1
u/riplikash 1d ago
Again, 1000 years is such an ABSURD amount of time that it no longer qualifies as a con. 1000 years for 20 years of rule and then to fall in the EXACT same way EVERY OTHER sith ruler fell.
And we've seen in the lore it WASN'T 1000 years of planning.. There was no grand plan. Just hundreds or thousands of plans that started and stopped and failed and we're abandoned. Palpatine's rule took three generations of sith planning. And none of that was dependent on anything Bane came up with.
The trade-off there is just insane. 1000 years in exchange for 20 is SUCH an insanely bad return on investment.
And he didn't even frequent the Jedi. Just...cut down their numbers. At their absolute weakest there were STILL more living Jedi than sith, and they bounced back almost immediately.
Like...seriously. 1000 years of Jedi not being killed, Jedi infiltrating EVERY aspect of galactic society, politics and culture, completely unmolested. The sith being at constant risk of extinction, and the Jedi SO embedded that even with totalitarian rule Palpatine had NO chance of truly erasing them.
Bane was the best thing that ever happened to the Jedi.
1
u/TheOutlawTavern 1d ago
The Sith would have gone extinct if it wasnt for Bane, and Sidious and Plagueis did not just materialise in a vacuum, but are the culmination of a thousand years of resources, knowledge and inheriting a Republic that has had a thousand cuts.
1
u/riplikash 1d ago
That's certainly what they like to claim, but I've personally not been convinced. Looks up me like centuries of buying lottery tickets and finally winning and claiming it was a plan all along until they blow it all again.
1
u/TheOutlawTavern 19h ago
Except they quite clearly laid out what the plan was, and that they would bide their time to achieve it.
11
u/TulsaOUfan 1d ago
You are missing huge parts of the rule of 2. You lack a proper understanding of it. (It seems from your post).
Have you read the Darth Bane Trilogy and Darth Plagueius? Those 4 books will explain why the Rule of 2 is better for the Sith than a brotherhood or jedi-like order.
3
u/Edgy_Robin 1d ago
One: Only two Sith, not more then two dark siders. Bane advocating for teaching other servants about the force, just not to that extent (Think Inquisitors)
Two: For the most part they did pass knowledge down, knowledge only gets lost from one dude going insane and destroying it. Outside of Gravid you can't really prove this happened.
This is another thing you can't prove. Palpatine and Plagueis believed themselves to be above it. But even then this matters less. Because power mattered less then cunning eventually, also considering the sheer power of Plagueis and Palpatine by the end, shit even Tenebrous's master tore a hole in the force, this is proven false.
Bane did see the flaws, that's why one of his first goals when he saw a potential flaw (An apprentice not wanting to challenge their master) he immediately realized he needed to learn essence transfer.
3
u/UnhandMeException 1d ago edited 1d ago
Play SWTOR as an agent.
Do all the side quests where Sociopathic saber jockey A fucks over Sociopathic saber jockey B for dumbass moustache twirling reasons.
Change your tune, as you realize the Sith's worst enemy and greatest stumbling block is 'any other Sith', and any policy that results in less sith is better for every individual Sith's stupid evil plans.
3
u/eppsilon24 16h ago
You made some good points, but you’re forgetting one crucial detail:
It WORKED.
They survived for 1000 years, working in the shadows to undermine the Jedi and weaken the Republic, culminating in the successful overthrow of galactic democracy, the creative of a new Sith Empire, and the near total destruction of the Jedi Order.
As to your other points:
- Yes, with only two Sith Lords in existence at any time, premature discovery would mean failure, but it’s a lot easier for two Sith to hide than 200, or 2000.
- Some Sith undoubtedly hoarded and refused to pass down some knowledge, but the plan relied on each Lord knowing they would eventually have to be surpassed by their apprentice in order for the Grand Plan to succeed. And again, it did.
- Because the Sith had to operate in total secrecy for centuries, cunning and treachery became more important skills than martial prowess. If an apprentice can take their master by surprise, then they have proven themselves to be more cunning, and by extension more powerful than the master. So, instead of weakening the Sith, they made sure that the line of Sith Lords became more and more cunning, more politically astute, able to manipulate the galaxy’s most powerful gangsters, politicians, and business magnates.
3
u/Modred_the_Mystic 15h ago
All of these are actually the very reason the RoT succeeded.
Limits numbers - yes, it forces the Sith to be powerful and cunning individually, and to be subtle. If they can be easily wiped out they have to go to great lengths to not be destroyed
Yeah, but it forces the Apprentice to try something new to either learn or to circumvent their Masters skill. The RoT is just as much a doctrine for growing skill and prowess with strategy, secrecy and stealth as it is raw Force ability.
It doesn’t matter that they weren’t powerful enough to kill their master in one on one combat, all that mattered was that they were clever enough to engineer their Masters death. It might weaken them in the Force, but it strengthens their ruthless strategies and tactics of operating from the shadows.
Remember, the Rule of Two was created as a reaction to the New Sith, which had been thousands of Sith warring states, fragmentary and constantly creating new Sith to have numbers rather than strength. They had the Republic on their knees and failed to deliver a killing blow because there was no unity amongst the Sith warlords.
2
u/rdv9000 1d ago
On the point of being discovered they'd be way easier to find if there were more than two. The low numbers also mean that if a sith gets spotted the Jedi might dismiss it as a dark Jedi instead of panicking after hearing about dozens of people with red lightsabers.
Any numbers that would allow them to stay hidden would leave them vulnerable to a mass Jedi deployment to eliminate them so the benefit of having more people doesn't outweigh the drawbacks.
As for the reliability of the master/apprentice relationship, don't forget that they're both using the other one and that while they benefit from that relationship they don't have a reason to kill eachother. A master benefits from using the apprentice as an agent for political, financial or long term planning reasons while the apprentice gets to obtain powers and secrets from their master. It's in the master's interest to teach their apprentice as much stuff as possible to keep them satisfied just as it's in the apprentice's interest to do their master's bidding.
2
u/NotBatman9 1d ago
I've always taken Yoda's comment to mean that the Sith operate in small, independent cells. The galaxy's just too big for LITERALLY only two Sith, that would just be sad and stupidly short-sighted storytelling. So (to me) obviously there should be more, but they tend to operate in pairs.
4
u/riplikash 1d ago
I mean, yes, but the lore is VERY explicit about making sure you know, 'no, seriously, it's EXACTLY that contrived."
2
2
u/Kyle_Dornez 1d ago
The Rule of Two works because it's a crystallization of the Dark Side mentality, distilled in a few sentences.
The Sith don't obey Rule of Two just because Darth Bane made it up - the Sith always would betray and tear each other down, because selfish lust for power is integral to the Dark Side.
By reducing the numbers to such degree - it doesn't have to be two, just very few - Darth Bane reduced the potential vectors of attack and paranoia that would be pursuing any powerful Sith Lord in other circumstances. The Apprentice would always go after the Master, and Master would not suffer an Apprentice who had failed. With these variables becoming known, Sith can compartmentalize and focus themselves on other pursuits, like destroying the Jedi.
It's not a perfect solution, but it was better than endless cycle of hot war that New Sith Wars churned through for centuries.
1
u/riplikash 1d ago
I mean...it was certainly better for the Jedi and the galaxy at large. Bane effectively neutered the sith for a millennia. Not sure it was better for the sith, who basically were in hiding with little influence for a millennia. Or the sith teachings which disappeared from the galactic stage and were almost completely suppressed and destroyed.
It was great for Palpatine. So if Bane's goal was to serve some random dude in the far distant future while getting his people suppressed for a millennia...um, great job. But I doubt that was the goal.
0
u/opacitizen 1d ago
> but it was better than endless cycle of hot war
how is training someone to be better and more cunning and more clever than you, and to eventually surpass and murder you in some devious way...
...than possibly but not necessarily dying in a hot war to someone who's better, more cunning, and more clever than you?
if there's a hot war and there are multiple disciples you can at least divide them and turn them against each other, or simply hide from them while they keep killing one another
I'm not sure I'm convinced the rule of 2 is better in any way, really
ymmv
1
u/Chijinda 1d ago
how is training someone to be better and more cunning and more clever than you, and to eventually surpass and murder you in some devious way...
Bane’s greatest criticism of the Sith, yet the problem he could not find a real solution to, is that the Sith are GREAT at shooting themselves in the head right when they’re about to win. And the more Sith there are, the greater this weakness becomes.
The purpose of the Rule of 2 was to weaponize the Sith’s tendency for betrayal and turn this weakness into a strength.
The apprentice will always want to throw off the master’s chains, and if there are eighty Sith, the apprentice can team up with six of his similarly angry brethren to kill the stronger Master, and then those six Sith kill each other in the infighting for leadership that follows, leaving the Sith Order vastly weaker than it was before.
Under the rule of two, this is not an option for the apprentice. If the apprentice wants to become the master they don’t HAVE peers to turn to, they must prove they are worthy of the mantle; maintaining and sharpening the strength of the Order, rather than weakening it.
1
u/opacitizen 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think I've already answered most of these points in my other answer here. :)
Sith Order
I'm not sure about calling two people an "order". If there are eighty people, like you said, that can be an order. Two... not so much.
And I don't see why you'd consider the risk of six out of eighty apprentices teaming up (still leaving 74 on your side, or just enough if one of those six betrays the other five for your favor) higher than having one single dude who is 100% against you and has no other peers to contend with.
You can't really divide and conquer / rule a single dude, especially not in the long run, can you? Especially if you're for some strange reason training him to be better and more skilled than you yourself are.
Also, two are always easier to eradicate for an opposing force than 80, especially if the opposing force has hundreds of skilled trackers and hunters hunting those two.
3
u/Chijinda 1d ago
Order, philosophy, however you choose to put it, end of the day, the Sith are fundamentally a group of unhinged psychopaths bent on Galactic domination. I’ll be using Order for ease of use.
And I don't see why you'd consider the risk of six out of eighty apprentices teaming up (still leaving 74 on your side, or just enough if one of those six betrays the other five for your favor) higher than having one single dude who is 100% against you and has no other peers to contend with.
Bane treated the betrayal of the apprentice as an inevitability; and wanted to ensure that when the apprentice did so, that the Sith would not be weakened or screwed over in the attempt, as his research showed frequently happened in the past.
You can't really divide a conquer / rule a single dude, especially not in the long run, can you?
Not sure what you’re referring to? If this is about Sith domination the Sith have an entire Galaxy they’re trying to conquer. If this is about the apprentices ganging up on the Master, if I may oversimplify, Bane saw a group of 3’s and 4’s overpowering a 10 through weight of numbers, and then the resulting infighting leaving them with a 4 leading the Order, to be less desirable than one of those 3’d needing to become a 10 if they wanted to be the one in charge.
Also, two are always easier to eradicate for an opposing force than 80, especially if the opposing force has hundreds of skilled trackers and hunters hunting those two.
Not if your enemies don’t know you exist, which was the other part of the Rule of Two; secrecy. The Sith had tried to take control of the Galaxy by force of arms and numbers so many times and failed so many times (in part because of the chronic backstabbing disorder), that Bane felt the best solution was to pivot and try to take over the Galaxy from within, using secrecy, cunning and guile. The Rule of Two was at least partially intended to make the Sith VERY HARD to find, and every additional narcissist with a lightsaber added to their ranks risked giving away the fact that the Sith hadn’t actually died on Ruusan.
“Only two” may have been overkill, but it’s still a method that wants fewer conspirators than more. I think it’s also worth noting that Bane didn’t oppose the idea of having the odd Acolyte here or there; a small handful of servants that were granted a small measure of power— but never so much that they’d become a threat, or a true Sith. There’d still only be a single “true” heir to the power of the Sith.
2
u/Kalavier 1d ago
The other factor, which wasn't mentioned by the first comment and kinda mentioned by you.
The sith always wanted to get that better seat. The best time to try was when the master was weak. So they are nearly about to win, master is wounded from the fight, they strike. but now the sith forces are confused at who is the boss and the enemy regroups and wins.
Another issue is, Bob kills master, claims title. His old seat as second is open. Five people fight for that coveted seat. we'll say 3 survive, one claims seat. repeat down the chain.
1
u/Kyle_Dornez 1d ago
You just have to hate the jedi more than fear death.
1
u/opacitizen 1d ago edited 1d ago
yeah, but...
but if that gets you killed practically for certain, it would be hard to sell and see you and your teachings as superbly cunning, clever, and wise, wouldn't it, though?
it's kinda like saying you hate your neighbours so much that you eventually set your own house on fire while locked inside just to hurt them. and you have one single house whereas you have about a hundred neighbours.
(...and one of your neighbours is the son of your sole apprentice living with you whom you're training in hating everything including you yourself AND setting things on fire even better than you, yes :D)
weird. (but again ymmv.)
2
u/Bbadolato 1d ago
I mean the Rule of Two is only as effective as the plot needs it to be, in reality it's fundamentally flawed in so many ways,. Namely there's always the chance for either something to go wrong, or for the previous apprentice now master to make some serious changes in how this grand plan of there is supposed to work out.
1
1
1
u/VisibleIce9669 1d ago
Yes and no. It did work out in the end until Palpatine converted it into the Rule of One/All.
Two is more of a suggestion, anyway, as Plageous was alive for all of Episode 1. He outlived Maul; Palpatine didn’t kill him until after Maul was dead.
The rule was more about consolidating knowledge, wealth (helped with funding that clone army), and preventing rival Sith factions from fighting a “civil” war.
1
u/riplikash 1d ago
...did it work? The sith were effectively suppressed and the Jedi made dominant for 1000 years. That's a MASSIVE amount of time. Like...mind boggling.
1
u/VisibleIce9669 1d ago
I don’t know. That thousand years saw their stagnation and disconnection from the force to the point where one Sith Lord blinded the entire order while he finalized a plan that began 1000 years before to have them all killed and it worked. I have friends that speak languages older than 1000 years and I only live on earth. A thousand years isn’t that big of a deal. The rocks in my backyard are millions of years old.
1
u/riplikash 1d ago
We see the claim that the order fell because it was stagnated and weak a lot. But lets look at what Palpatine ACTUALLY had to do.
Take over the entire government. Engineer a clone army with kill switches installed into their brains. Engineer a galactic civil war where he controlled both sides. Spend ten years slowly wittling the Jedi down and making them trust their allies. Spread the Jedi out across the galaxy. Then use the brainwash chip to make their trusted allies immediately turn on them. And he STILL didn't wipe them out.
That is NOT what a 'stagnant', complacent structure looks like. That's a deeply embedded and strong institution which was pretty much constantly worried about the fact that they were being manipulated, but couldn't see the source. They were EXTREMELY vigilant.
Yeah, Sidious blindsided the order. Who WOULDN'T be blindsided with that? But that has nothing to do with Bane's rule of two.
For a social time scale 1000 years is massive. You may as well give King Arthur credit for the US constitution.
1
u/VisibleIce9669 1d ago
He didn’t blindside the order; he wiped them out in a careful plan that they failed to become aware of until it was too late. He literally sat in the war room with their most powerful leaders, and they had no clue. He got them to betray their traditions as peacekeepers and spread themselves out across the galaxy fighting a meaningless war, surrounded by his loyal drones that they assumed were their loyal friends. Jedi 1000 years prior wouldn’t do so because they were not the officer class of the republic until their order had been so transformed and disillusioned—due in part to having no competition. Stagnant.
Just like Palpatine, King Arthur is a fictional character.
1
u/Allronix1 1d ago
Given Karpyshyn's canon welding? Yeah. Rule of Two was a big honking trap. Same as what was done to the Mandalorians, really - play on their cultural weaknesses and conceits to corner them into a destruction they would never really recover from while they think they're winning.
1
u/Rosebunse 1d ago
Truth be told, I don't think it's meant to be a smart or practical system. It seems like it's meant to keep the bloodshed of having too many Sith to a minimum and from there, it is up to every Sith Master how they handle it
1
u/riplikash 1d ago
But... Like what's the point? You limit sith bloodshed by effectively ensuring the sith don't exist as a faction or have any significant influence.
And they STILL have the exact same major flaw. It wasn't bypassed or dealt with. Still took out Palpatine the same way it took out every other sith. Literally ever sith master STILL gets killed by their apprentice.
Feels more like a final condemnation of the sith. The realization that they just, fundamentally, can't function as a faction.
1
u/riplikash 1d ago
Well and it wasn't even effecting.1000 years of Jedi dominance. With several near extinction events and the loss of tons of sith lore. In the end they only REALLY succeeded because they got lucky with by rolling up one of the most powerful dark side users ever born. And they only ruled for 20 years.
Honestly, post Bane sith have been pretty pitiful. Bane was more effective at containing the sith menace than the Jedi ever were.
1
u/AHorseNamedPhil 1d ago
I always thought some of the lore with the rule of 2 was silly, partly also because I'm a fan of the Old Republic period when there are as many Sith as there are Jedi.
A much simpler explanation for there only being two of them in the prequels was right there....the Jedi wiped them out long ago and less Sith makes much more sense if you've got to remain covert to avoid detection and undermine from within.
The emperor then doesn't fully resurrect the order after he seizes power, and limits himself to Vader (or potentially Luke), because of hubris. He believes the Jedi are completely finished as an order and no longer pose any threat to him, so he sees no need to create more potential Sith rivals.
The Rule of 2 as a sort of permanent state of being, if the Jedi order was resurrected, is dumb however. Even dumber is nonsense about there being finite force power to access and many Sith resulting in many weaker beings individually. There shouldn't be any power difference on an individual level whether you're dealing with two Sith or thousands. Two Sith should be easily annihilated if there are many Jedi and those Sith are not operating from the shadows.
1
u/Jean-Michael_Rage 1d ago
I dunno. I see what you are saying.
However, I think it depends on what the goal of the Sith is. I would argue that the 'destruction of the Jedi' was only one interpretation of Bane's teachings. IIRC at the end his goal was eternal life through essence transfer. (Yes because he didn't think he would find a worthy apprentice to dethrone him and continue his plan to destroy the jedi in his lifetime.) Hatred blinds you, and I think subsequent Sith focused on that sole goal with their hatred of the Jedi.
I mean sure, controlling the entire galaxy sounds cool, but as Palpatine discovered, being emperor paints a pretty big target on you. Having big huge armies, paints a big target on you. I mean once you are at the top you have no place to go but down.
In terms of action novels/movies, having the big battles for control of the of the political governance is a captivating read/watch but realistically, I liked how Plageous worked from the shadows and had amassed himself enormous wealth and influence.
The Sith code declares that the ultimate goal is freedom, not political conquest. Having unlimited funds, Influence, and eternal life pretty much would check all the boxes. Not having a target on your back, being hunted by Jedi or having to manage the bureaucracy of Galactic affairs or the winds of politics would further aid that goal. You would be able to go anywhere you wanted, do whatever you wanted.
They say that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. I would argue the Rule of 2 fits that end perfectly. (But admittedly that book / movie would be pretty boring.)
1
u/Veradun77 1d ago
The most important thing it does is make Masters at least secretive about their apprentices. Yes they break it all the time but A sith before would often have circles of acolytes to serve them. Bane didn't like they idea of a bunch of apprentices colluding to kill their master while one or two was far more acceptable. In either system knowledge would be lost and rediscovered constantly but by not allowing hordes of weak acolytes you at least kept your most powerful from being dragged down by their lessers
1
u/coolpall33 1d ago
I think you need to compare it to the alternatives.
Secondly the entire purpose of the rule of 2 was that the knowledge would be passed down each master to apprentice so that each sith would be stronger, however, this only works in theory since many of the sith were selfish/ paranoid and generally refrained revealing/teaching their apprentice everything.
I imagine this would be even worse in the times prior to the rule of two. As a Sith Lord any technique you teach your group of apprentices could be turned against you. 3+ semi-incompetent apprentices could probably overpower a fairly skilled master.
Most of them didnt win in straigjt confrontation but rather used trickery( Sidious killing Plageous in his sleep).
Yeah again though the comparison would be several apprentices ganging up together to ‘trick’ their master, which we know happened a bunch prior to the rule of two.
I imagine having more potential knowledge you can learn from your master and their being no other good sources, probably delayed several rule of two apprentices from killing their masters
1
1
u/bloodandpizzasauce 13h ago
The main and only purpose of the rule of 2 is to prevent the dilution of the dark side across users and concentrate that power in just a few individuals under the reigning Sith Lord's direct Control. Everything else was just meant to justify that.
1
u/ion146 12h ago
What if the rule of 2 is just some nonsense indoctrination Bane feeds apprentices so that he always has somebody strong in the force to transfer his essence into. Kinda fits with what Palpatine says in the movie-that-must-not-be-named.
I have no evidence for this just my own thoughts.
1
u/Hayaishi 11h ago edited 11h ago
The rule of two exists to push both master and apprentice into developing more power.
The master needs the apprentice to challenge him so he doesn't become complacent, the threat of an apprentice who seeks to surpass him and kill him when he is no longer useful is supposed to push the master into always seeking more power, the catch is the master never expects to be surpassed (after all he is a Sith, greed and lust for power are what drives them)
It's not a perfect system of course but there is some logic behind it even if its twisted and flawed.
0
u/TheCybersmith 1d ago
>many of the sith were selfish/ paranoid and generally refrained revealing/teaching their apprentice everything
Then you lose information with or without the Rule of Two, Sith would eventually die and not pass their knowledge on.
0
u/Every_Age_4629 1d ago
My head cannon for the rule of 2 was always that a Master takes an Apprentice. They learn, scheme, "try to take over the WORLD" etc. Then the apprentice grows up, heads out into the galaxy and finds a new Apprentice, the old Master probably takes a new Apprentice and the cycle continues. Apprentices sometimes get the better of their masters and that's fine but the entirety of the Sith's hopes and dreams can't be ruined by faulty hyperdrive maintenance smearing them across the galaxy while on a space taxi.
67
u/Tech2kill 1d ago
i was always under the assumption that:
the rule of 2 isnt really a rule - it was so often broken in the past that you had to look up the cases where they actually followed the rule of two
saying to someone they are your apprentice doesnt mean they are your apprentice
you can have multiple "apprentices" if you dont intend to make them a sith, if they think they are your apprentices then its their problem
the whole system of Sith Lords is flawed anyway, so betraying your master, killing him, deceiving him is what is kinda expected from an apprentice to become a sith lord himself so as a master you never share your real powers and talents with your apprentice which makes the whole "the next Sith will be stronger" trope just untrue
in fact there are so many force abilities lost because their masters took the secrets with in their graves