Dooku left the Jedi Order AFTER TPM

Sorry, Vader and the Emperor together discussing turning Luke to the dark side and joining them still makes no sense. If your version of the rule of two were real, they would never speak to each other of turning another Jedi to the dark side. It would all be done in secret.

 

I cannot believe some of the crap I am reading on this thread. As far as the movies are concerned, holocrons do NOT exist! We know that Dooku or Sidious ordered the clone army, using the name of an already dead Jedi named Sifo Dias. The Kaminoans didn't know he was dead, they didn't even know who he was. We do know that Dooku/Tyranus hired Jango as the template.
Dooku left the Jedi Order after TPM, for reasons unknown. We know that he lost his faith in the Republic and that he is a disillusioned Jedi Knight. He probably did no become a Sith as soon as he left the Jedi Order. He probably thought he was doing the right thing by forming the CIS by getting rid of the rotten Repubic. Palpatine/Sidious saw this as a threat to his plan to take over the galaxy, so he somehow turned Dooku to the Dark Side. Sidious doesn't care about Dooku, he is using him as his tool in his quest for domination of the galaxy. Dooku probably thought he could destroy the Dark Side from within, but became corrupted and did whatever his Master said.

 

The reason they could have actually spoke together of turning Luke to the dark side, and yet both being aware of the "rule of two", could be what Vader suggested in ESB to the Emperor, though he had a hidden agenda.

"If he could be turned, he would make a powerful ally"

Now how could Vader think he could even suggest to the Emperor, an ally that is a Force-user that you want to turn to the dark side, and not know he is going to think, "This guy is almost basically telling me to my face that he wants to recruit Luke, and this sets up a potential overthrow of me, doesn't he know I have not forgot the "rule of two"??!! [face_shocked]

I personally believe that Luke could have become an "ally" to Palpy and Vader(The Sith) without becoming a Sith himself, if they were not both out to overthrow each other. That is all Luke would have been. They could turn him tot he dark side, and he would not necessarily have been considered a Sith, but rather an "agent of evil" that they could manipulated to become a traitor within the ranks of the Rebellion. An ally is an associate to the main person or group, but not an actual member.

But this is all mute, because we know what the real deal was!


Darth Sin!

 

On Supershadow.com Shuttle says Darth Rage was Siduous 2end apprentice but died 2 years after TPM in a duel with Plo Koon.This info is supposedly from Lucas himself but I hav'ent decided if I buy any of SS claims yet.If this is true however Siduous posed as Sifo Dyas not Dooku,why?The order was placed 10 years before AOTC which would mean Dooku had'ent turned Evil yet and was probably rallying support for the Separtist movement.

 

Don't buy into Supershadow.

Sin: If that were the case, that validates "Dark Jedi". We would've saw them before now.

Both Sith know that they cannot hide deception from the other. Palpatine agreed to turn Luke, because he's not greedy. He isn't damaged goods. Vader is the one going against Palpatine's wishes by bringing in Luke, instead of killing him. Palpatine realizes this and decides that if Vader wants to do this, he will too.

If Vader didn't want to overthrow Palpatine, he wouldn't have told Luke this. That they can kill him and rule together. When there were just two, both men knew where they stood with the other. Neither had the desire to take the other out. Now there's another potential Apprentice. And both men want Luke for himself. Every Sith Lord is motivated by greed and power. Vader failed to turn Luke on his own. Palpatine realizes that they must both work to turn Luke. The end result will lead to a fight between Luke and Vader. Whoever survives that duel, will become his Apprentice. The end result is 2 Sith Lords. Vader isn't good at being sutble. Palpatine is. He gets both Skywalkers to fight each other and will win either way. One lives, one dies. Rule of 2. It's the same way he probably got Dooku and Anakin to fight each other, in episode three.

Rob: Since you don't endorse Holocrons, that's fine. But, Dooku was always arrogant and curious about all aspects of the Force. Dooku would've only ordered the Clones, if he bought into Sidious' "New Order". It'd be redundent to have a Droid Army and a Clone Army.

 

Darth Sin:

You are coming up with a silly scenario (making Luke evil but not a Sith apprentice)to justify the coexistence of Vader's line and the "rule of two". Here's a simpler explanation:

There was no "rule of two" when ESB and ROTJ were filmed. Vader and the Emperor were discussing turning Luke into a THIRD Sith. They were being deceptive as they were discussing this, but if the "rule of two" exists, then their attempt at deception makes no logical sense.

Yoda uttered a cryptic line in TPM that made a lot of people wonder, "What does he mean by that?"

The EU attempted to explain it by creating the "Rule of Two". However, they didn't realize that many lines from the OT movies created a DIRECT CONFLICT with the Rule of Two.

Therefore we must reject the Rule of Two as a valid explanation of Yoda's TPM line. My explanation, that Yoda was referring to the general nature of the Sith, makes a lot more sense.

 

The truth is, is that we are going to have to accept that the "rule of two" was most likely not a concrete concept that Lucas had come up with during the time of the OT.

Just as likewise, he probably did have the Sith order completely thought of as well at that time. I think if Lucas had had the Sith order firmly established at that time, plus the "rule of two", then we would not have to, like myself try make this work based on what we had in the OT and now what we have learned in the PT.

By the way, if they had caused Luke to turn to the dark side, and Palpy nor Vader were eliminated, Luke would no longer have been a Jedi,(even Dark Jedi) nor would he have been a Sith.

At that point, he would have been a former Jedi hopeful turned to the dark side.

He would have been then a Dark side Force-user, nothing else.

Darth Sin!

 

"He would have been then a Dark side Force-user, nothing else."

Doubtful. I don't think the Emperor underestimated the connection between father and son for a second. If Luke would have turned to the Dark Side, that would have been the end of the Emperor, or Vader.

The whole thing just doesn't gell, Sin.


Lucas did not have the whole story thought out in the past. Many elements. But nothing near the intricacy of the present screenplay. Back then, Jedi's even used crystals. They had different names, etc... Mace Windu occupied the position that Qui GOn occupies. The rule of two is a misinterpretation and a complication.

At the Time of ROTJ, there was only one Jedi left (with the possibility of Leia, but I highly doubt she would have turned - she seemed to prefer death to the Empire).

Hence, if luke turned, and went to Vader, the two (under the Rule of Two) would have had to kill the Emperor. However, if the Emperor killed Vader, Luke may have attempted to kill the Emperor. In defending himself, the Emperor may have annihilated Luke. LEaveing no other JEdi in the universe to take on as an apprentice.

I just don't believe in the rule of two's concrete meaning. Sorry.

 

Maybe Dooku just left after Qui-Gon died, and just hung out hiding for a while, then Sidious searched him out.

Honestly, does it really affect anyone's perception of the films?

 

It affects the timetable. Dooku would've had to been able to get into the Jedi Archives without being questioned.

The eu did not come up with the rule of two, George Lucas did. Lucas has always said that what's on screen and what's written are two different things. When it came time to do the book, he met with Terry Brooks and explained everything to him. Including the rule of 2. He himself has referenced it in interviews. When he wrote ESB and ROTJ, he most likely didn't have anything concrete. But it's apparent in the dialouge for both films that it's there in some form. Based on the actions of both Sith Lords, in regards to turning Luke.

When Vader and Palpatine talk about joining us, he refers to the Sith. Not the two of them, but the Sith Order.

 

I have a question.... If Vader was planning to rid himself of Palpatine through Luke as he says in ESB... why does he stop Luke from killing him in ROTJ?

That scene never quite made sense to me....

 

Quite an interesting point there. Well maybe he didnt let him cause Luke was still in the good side, then when they finally turn him towards the darkside maybe he'll tell Luke to help him take out Palpatine.

 

Its because in ROTJ Vader is serving his master faithfully, until the crucial moment when he sees Palpy deep-frying Luke. He has put aside his plan to overthrow the Emperor and is focusing on turning Luke to the dark side.

 

That and probably because, as someone else speculated, he wasn't convinced that Luke was fully turned. He probably wanted him fully turned before they fought Palpatine. Probably a combination of both.

 

When he wrote ESB and ROTJ, he most likely didn't have anything concrete. But it's apparent in the dialouge for both films that it's there in some form. Based on the actions of both Sith Lords, in regards to turning Luke.

No, I'm sorry, it's not. The principle that the Sith always destroy each other until there are only two is apparent. But the film directly contradicts the idea that there is a rule that says the Sith have to limit themselves to two.

 

I agree with markdil

The ?Rule of Two? is not written in stone, it is more a way of thinking. The thinking behind it is that eventually, if there are more than two Sith, they will destroy themselves from the inside in their quests to be at the top of the power chain. To keep the Sith from wasting time/resources, Darth Bane (if you accept EU), made this ?rule? and decided to only ever train one apprentice at a time. If he trained several, they?d begin killing themselves over power struggles, and all their efforts to destroy the Jedi would be for naught, because they?d be too busy destroying themselves.

It doesn?t mean there can?t be more than two Sith, it just means that, given time, they will begin to get greedy and fight for power amongst themselves, killing each other.

Eventually, two will be left. If there is an obviously stronger Sith, the other will accept the lower position of power to continue to learn and to preserve his/her life (for the time being). If the two remaining are evenly matched/stubborn, they will fight until one is dead. The remaining Sith will immediately search for an apprentice to help him/her do his/her work and gain more power.

What does this mean? It means that the Sith are under no obligation to only have two of them alive at any one time. It also means that, although Vader/Emperor intended to turn Luke and have three Sith coexisting, eventually Luke or Vader would have gotten tired of sharing the power and either killed the other apprentice, or joined together to kill the Emperor, by default raising their own status/power in the process.

This is exactly what happened in TESB when Vader offered his pitch to Luke. He wasn?t doing it out of any sense of preserving the rule of two, he was propositioning Luke because Vader wanted to be top Sith, and needed Luke?s help to achieve that end.

 

If they weren't under obiligation, we would've saw a boat load of Sith in the films. It is important to their survival that there are only two Sith Lords at a time. We see that bringing Luke into the equation is damaging, as both Sith Lords are plotting the down fall of the other. Both men want Luke for their purposes and will go to great lengths to turn him to their side.

Palpatine wouldn't tell Luke to kill Vader, if he didn't want there to be 2. Even though Vader was beaten, he didn't have to kill him. He could've killed anyone in anger. Palpatine didn't want two apprentices. Show me where he does. ESB and ROTJ clearly do not contradict this.

1. Palpatine and Maul are in TPM. Two and no more.

2. Palps and Dooku in AOTC. Two and no more.

3. Palps, Dooku and Anakin in episode 3. Dooku dies and Anakin becomes Vader. Two and no more.

4. Palps and Vader in ANH and ESB. When learning of Luke, both want him. Vader tells Luke that he can destroy Palpatine. Palpatine dies, there are only 2.

5. Palps, Vader and Luke in ROTJ. The two fight and the end result would be that one must die. Luke doesn't kill Vader. Thus there are two, until Vader becomes Anakin and kills Palpatine. No more Sith.

 

For the Love of the Sith. Whats so hard to understand that Lucas came up with the rule of 2. Like Sinister has said he has mentioned it many times. Lucas huimself has said that there can be only 2. If Lucas himself is not canon let's just all move to the EU boards because then everything is EU. If you don't believe Lucas about the rule of 2 "no more no less". Then how can you possibly believe the movies which he wrote.

 

Feel free to post a quote from Lucas that provides evidence that he came up with the rule of two. It would certainly help your argument.

I believe Lucas came up with the idea that the Sith always destroy themselves until there are only two, but the idea of an ancient Sith master creating a rule that all future Sith must follow? That just REEKS of the EU. I highly doubt Lucas would approve of that. Of course, I could be wrong. If Lucas DID create this half-baked idea, he clearly did not realize the conflicts it created with ESB and ROTJ.

If Lucas DID create it, my argument would be that it's still a stupid idea and since there is nothing in the films to back it up, we should disregard it. Not disregard Yoda's line, mind you, but just disregard this idea of the "rule of two" being a Sith Law. I mean... come on... a Sith Law? Haven't my jokes about the Sith Holy Handbook gotten through? This is silly!

By the way, great post, Man_with_no_name. You posted truth very clearly and succinctly.

 

If you don't believe Lucas about the rule of 2 "no more no less". Then how can you possibly believe the movies which he wrote.

Haha, here's your answer: I don't believe any of it! It's fiction!! I just choose to disregard the parts that don't make sense, especially when they come from sources other than the original creator.

 

If you don't believe Lucas about the rule of 2 "no more no less". Then how can you possibly believe the movies which he wrote.

Yes, GL wrote the dialogue Yoda says: "Always two there are ... no more, no less."

However, don't take it too literally. What it means is that, given time, if you have more than two Sith, they will compete amongst themselves and always whittle away at each other until only two remain. In those cases where only one survives, he/she will very quickly begin training a new apprentice to help further his/her own ends. They won't hesitate to bring new Sith into the order if they think it may further their own goals, but eventually, it will self-destruct, and they'll be right back down to two.

btw, thanks for the support, markdil.

 

The proof from Lucas himself.

Here it is.

This is proof of the rule of two. Lucas created it to cover his bases with ESB and ROTJ. Why only Vader and Palpatine were in the films. Why we only have Maul and Tyranus in the PT.

 

Thanks for the link, darth-sinister.
Yes, I know GL came up with the idea that the Sith will destroy themselves from the inside, if there are too many of them. I'm not disputing that.

I'm just saying, the "Rule of Two" is not something written in the Sith by-laws. It's not part of an agreement that every new apprentice needs to sign when they join the Dark Side.

If two Sith want to "break" the "Rule" for short-term goals, they can try to do that. In the long-term, back-stabbing amongst them will occur. But, for the short-term, it could be possible to have several co-exist.

For example, if Luke had a change of heart and turned to the Dark Side before he and Vader dueled on the Death Star, neither the Emperor nor Vader were under any obligation to immediately kill themselves. They would have added Luke to their power base, and secretly tried to coerce Luke to help them wipe out the other. Over time, Luke would have sided with someone, and we'd be back down to two Sith.

Consider TESB. When dueling in the carbon-freeze chamber, Vader's original intent was not to turn Luke himself, but to freeze him and take him to the Emperor. Why would that be his first goal, if he knew the Emperor would immediately kill Vader once he had Luke? Because the Emperor wouldn't immediately kill Vader ... Vader had too much knowledge, power, and experience, and was still useful. Luke was young and fresh, but still untrained. Only when Vader stopped being useful to him, or became a threat to his power would the Emperor coerce Luke to kill Vader (as we saw in ROTJ, when Vader's feelings began to resurface and his loyalty became questionable).

When the Emperor and Vader talked via hologram, they may have each been thinking that they could use Luke against the other, but it was a long-term goal, not short-term. In the short-term, the 3 of them would be kept busy with the Rebellion, and Luke's new training. In the long-term, Luke would have been used to increase Vader's or the Emperor's power.

 

Don't forget this element: The jedi have a series of trials to go from being a Padwan Learner to a Knight, right?

To become a Sith also needs a trial. It needs a sacrilege in the force... a sort of "abominational act." You become an abomination and then you are qualified to be a Sith! Vader accomplished this by (I imagine) turning on his old comrades and killing them - turning against his loved ones = an abomination.

For Luke, turning would have occurred through killing his own father - who he seriously believed in and loved. This is what you see on the bridge of the death star.

I agree with Mardkill and Man_with_No_Name. Even IF LUCAS said the usual rule is the rule of 2...I think that wouldn't prevent GL from allowing some bending of the rules...


Sure, in peace time, when the Sith aren't making a bid for power....the RUle of Two matters. Time goes on, one sith dies, etc....

However, in times of crisis, I think the Emperor is constantly looking for new trainess, apprentices, etc. He always needs a "helper." And in times of War, "helpers" die quickly! To replace them quickly, you need a good supply of trainees, willing Sith, etc...

When the War abates and things return to stasis, the SIth will become power hungry and vie for the top spot, and return to two.

 

LOL, that quote you posted completely supports my argument and totally conflicts with yours.

Let's examine the quote, shall we?

"One of the themes throughout the films is that the Sith Lords, when they started out thousands of years ago, embraced the Dark Side. They were greedy and self-centered and they all wanted to take over, so they killed each other. Eventually there was only one left, and that one took on an apprentice. And for thousands of years, the master would teach the apprentice, the master would die, the apprentice would then teach another apprentice, the master, and so on. "

Hmmmm.... where is the part about Darth Bane? Where is the part about the rule? George himself states here that the Sith all killed each other off until there was only ONE. Then, this one trained an apprentice and when the master died, the apprentice would pass it on to another apprentice. No rule, that's just how it happened. GL is giving us a history lesson here. Let's see what else he has to say:

"But there could never be any more than two of them, because if there were, they would try to get rid of the leader, which is exactly what Vader was trying to do, and that's exactly what the Emperor was trying to do. "

This is the really crucial part! He says "there could never be any more than two of them"... and why is that? Because it is against the rules??? NO! He tells us... "because if there were, they would try to get rid of the leader...". So it all goes back to the fact that there is no rule of two. There is always two Sith because that is their nature, but there is no rule. George has spoken. Quid pro quo. This debate is over.