Lit Bane, Plagueis, Sidious, and the Rule of Two

Highly doubt it, and at the end of the day, he didn't, so there's no distinction. The only reason we believe otherwise is due to him being a Sith Lord and us seeing the purpose of the Rule of Two, wherein 1,000 years of Sith Lords worked to destroyed the Jedi and the Republic. If you read Darth Plagueis, the names of Darth Sidious and Plagueis were never going to be used in public, which was the entire reason for the appearance of Palpatine and Hego Damask to exist. Also, there's no diff. in goals. Even after the Empire's created Palpatine still follows the Rule of Two.

As I noted earlier, they disregard some teachings, not all of it, just as various other Sith Lords have done over the years.

 

...I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, as you're echoing my arguments. But my main argument remains, the Rule of Two was far less relevant to the birth of the Empire than the classic art of war or Palpatine's personal talents as a schemer.

 

I don't agree with you at all.

Both directly depend and developed due to the Rule of Two. Saying Palpatine would have accomplished what he did without it is un-provable and has no real basis since he accomplished what he did with it. The traits Palpatine shows are all those that are praised and highlighted within the Rule of Two.

 

That doesn't mean the Rule of Two is responsible for those traits, nor for their success, especially when the person disregards those philosophies, as highlighted by the writers themselves.

 

It's responsible for cultivating them, which makes it responsible for their success, as there wouldn't have been any success without the Rule of Two. As people have been noting to you, Palpatine discarded some philosophies of the Rule of Two and followed others. Plain and Simple. This has been highlighted by numerous writers.

 

Again, you're reciting my arguments, almost word for word this time. Are we actually disagreeing with eachother in general?

Also, Darth Plagueis disregarded those teachings before encountering Palpatine, who then proceeded to show the same disdain. One could argue that the GOALS never changed, and that Darth Sidious was indeed the culmination of Darth Bane's ideals. I'm just stating, that in the end, it became less about Darth Bane's ideal of the Sith and more about Palpatine's personal ideals of a Galactic Empire.

 

If you think what i'm saying is the same as what you're saying because of a few similar words you're very confused.

He discarded some teachings, not all. Don't know how many times I have to point this out.

Bolded is completely true.

Depends on what you mean by the end. If you mean Dark Empire, then yes. If you mean, ROTS then no.

None of which lessens the importance of the Rule of Two, Palpatine being a Sith, or means that he would've accomplished what he did on his own.

 

No, I'm pretty sure we're arguing over whether his robes are light black or dark gray. A Sith is a Sith, and a Sith is just a Darksider with a degree. I'm simply trying to emphasize that many of Darth Bane's theories simply didn't make it all the way to the climax, the Sith had to evolve, and the order succeeded mainly on the political acumen of Palpatine himself, not merely Sith sorcery or lightsaber acrobatics. That's it. Everything else is frosting.

I just want to give credit to Palpatine's personal innovations, and not pretend it was all mapped out a thousand years in advance to the letter.

 

And i'm arguing that yes pretty much every philosophy Bane came up with not only made it through to the Galactic Empire, but is embodied by Palpatine and the way he operates. Saying the Order succeeded mainly in Palpatine's political skills, ignores a thousand years of Sith work before him. Saying a Sith is a Sith is also false, as the Sith from say the Brotherhood of Darkness are different from the One Sith, who are in turn different from Banite Sith. What separates them is different beliefs and ways of operating. Finally, Palpatine only succeeded because of being a Sith.

 

I rest my case.

 

Glad you finally understand.

 

Glad you finally understand.

 

A Sith is a Sith, and a Sith is just a Darksider with a degree

Saying a Sith is a Sith is also false,

Didn't realize these two sentences now meant the same thing, but ok.

 

You're taking yourself out of context, which I find a little disturbing.

Saying a Sith is a Sith is also false, as the Sith from say the Brotherhood of Darkness are different from the One Sith, who are in turn different from Banite Sith. What separates them is different beliefs and ways of operating.

 

Not really. Just didn't feel like quoting the entire thing, as the entire quote still doesn't mean what you're saying, which is that a Sith is a Sith, as if all Sith are the same due to having the Sith moniker. I'm saying the exact opposite, that though they share the Sith moniker, they are indeed all different. The sentence begins by saying yours is wrong, yet somehow you seem to have come to the conclusion that it was agreeing with yours, lol makes no sense.

 

I've been trying to argue the entire time that Darth Sidious differs from Darth Bane in terms of practice and ideals. Then you state that those things do distinguish Sith orders from eachother. Which is what I've been saying nearly two pages now, on two different boards, with the same two people. For the last time, being a Sith has nothing to do with being any good at your job or being any strong in the Force than any rogue Jedi master with a chip on his shoulders. Sith lose almost constantly. If it takes 30 Sith to set up 1 successful Sidious, and it takes 0 Sith to set up an Exar Kun or a Revan or a Krayt, then the Rule of Two must not have had any real bearing on the final outcome, especially when both Plagueis and Sidious disregarded it almost immediately.

Palpatine succeeded regardless of anything Darth Bane laid out a thousand years earlier, but it doesn't make him less of a Sith, it just means he's a different sort of Sith, a revolutionary type of Sith who did far more for the Sith than Darth Bane ever did by hiding away and collecting old artifacts which would eventually be destroyed long before the Empire.

I am saying, Darth Sidious orschestrated the downfall of Chancellor Valorum, the Clone Wars, the creation of a personal army and the Galactic Empire, wiped out the Jedi, secretly ruled the Galaxy for nearly 40 years. Not Darth Bane, but Sidious. Give credit where credit is due, is all I ask.

 

(Ignore double post)

 

GreatBeyonder Now you're taking what I said out of context. I'm talking about Sith Orders and the differences between them, not individual Sith between one Order. Are Bane and Sidious different? Yes, as they're two different characters. All characters are different. That's common sense. The basic beliefs Sidious espouses however are the same as Bane's and the other members of the Rule of Two. That's what binds them, and Zannah, and Cognus, and so on, including all the other members of the Order of the Sith Lords, their beliefs and teachings.

I disagree, as neither Kun or Revan were successful. Also what do you mean by set up? If you mean held power, then Kun, Revan, and Krayt all had entire armies backing them.

Keep pointing out that they didn't discard the Rule of Two. They cast aside some of its regulations, and they kept some of its regulations.

No he didn't. Palpatine succeeded specifically because of what Bane did, and because of what every other member of the Order did.

Sidious did it with the help of 1,000 years of Sith before him. I'm giving credit exactly where it belongs. I'd say you give Sidious too much credit and especially ignore the contributions of Tyranus, who the Clone Wars never could've happened without.

 

I've made all my arguments as clear and concise as I'm able, so I really have nothing more to add, besides just reminding you that this viewpoint is the same viewpoint shared by the writers of the Darth Bane and Darth Plagueis books. Your arguing with me will not change their own views, and the facts stated plainly in their books. Just reread those books, and you'll see what I mean.

 

Except that Drew Karpyshyn didn't express such a belief, nor did James Luceno.

Though funnily enough, Sith and Dark Jedi being different, and Palpatine only having 1 Sith Apprentice, and multiple Darksiders under him that didn't break the Rule of Two (Which you've agreed with so strongly) was stated by Karpyshyn. Really funny that.

But as i've already said, believe whatever you want.

 

Behold!

http://star-wars.suvudu.com/2011/11...-author-star-wars-the-old-republic-revan.html


What would Darth Bane think of Darth Sidious and his stewardship of the Sith Order?

My completely unofficial opinion is that he’d be disappointed in Sidious. I got the feeling the Emperor wasn’t really interested in finding someone strong enough to take his place; he was more interested in ruling forever. He also violated the Rule of Two several times – he had Darth Maul working for him while Dooku was his apprentice, and when Vader was his apprentice his focus was on using Vader to recruit Luke. Add in some of the extended universe information and you find out that Sidious had all sorts of people he was grooming and training in the dark side – he twisted the Rule of Two into something Bane wouldn’t even recognize. If you ask Bane, he’d probably say that’s why the Emperor lost.

http://star-wars.suvudu.com/2012/01/interview-with-james-luceno-author-star-wars-darth-plagueis.html

Do you think the Rule of Two was a good idea, or do you think that Bane made a mistake?

I like the idea of it. I think it’s an intriguing idea that probably worked for the first couple of generations of Sith Lords to follow Bane. But as Plagueis himself says in the book, it was destined to be overturned at some point because of the kind of power that was generated by the Dark Side. There was going to come a time when a Sith Lord wouldn’t want to step aside ever, or would hide knowledge from an apprentice. It worked for a while, and perhaps there was some point where it should have transitioned into something different. I enjoy toying with that whole notion.

 

I got the feeling the Emperor wasn’t really interested in finding someone strong enough to take his place

Take it as you will, but ROTS and the Darth Vader novel don't really agree with him. I will say however that the next part:


he was more interested in ruling forever.

DE does agree with, and even I agree with at that point, simply that Palpatine's end goal changed over the years. Which is fine and i've never argued against.


He had Darth Maul working for him while Dooku was his Apprentice

No he didn't, as Darth Plagueis showed us. Dooku didn't become Palpatine's Apprentice until after Maul was already dead, so this is simply wrong. Karpyshyn probably thought and truly believed that at the time, but subsequent materials have shown that to be false.


when Vader was his apprentice his focus was on using Vader to recruit Luke

As Dark Lord The Rise of Darth Vader showed us, along with ROTS, he originally only wanted Vader as an Apprentice. 20 odd years later however he no longer did and sought to replace him. That's not really breaking the Rule of Two however, as he still only had 1 Sith Apprentice. In fact, he looked for Luke specifically because he no longer thought Vader could replace him.

Add in some of the extended universe information and you find out that Sidious had all sorts of people he was grooming and training in the dark side

Nothing to say on that, save that Karpyshyn's the same man who wrote Rule of Two and Dynasty of Evil, in which it's stated that Sith from Bane's Order are allowed to have Dark acolytes and Dark Jedi working under them as long as they're not true Sith. Contradicting himself there.


In general though, this paragraph here doesn't say what you're saying it does, in that Palpatine alone is responsible for conquering the Republic and toppling the Jedi, or that Dark Jedi and Sith aren't different. You mostly seem to be using it to attempt to prove that Bane and Sidious were different, which you know i've admitted, as everyone has their differences. Said differences however don't then mean that Sidious didn't follow various aspects of the Rule of Two. Would Bane have approved of Sidious? Possibly, possibly not. I don't think he would've approved or disapproved 100% either way.

To reiterate though, you're free to believe whatever you want.

 

I'm so confused.

 

LOL as you should be.

Argument was just mostly about Palpatine, his accomplishments, the part him being a Sith played in it all, etc.

 

What he said.