Discussion in 'EU Community' started by DarthMarik, Mar 22, 2014.
Darth Gravis turned back to the light side. He gave the Jedi info.
Cushy is talking about the films alone. I don't remember Darth Gravis in the films.
Going by the films alone, it was not said that the "rule" existed only after the alleged point of extinction.
He's not in the books either.
I plead ignorance in the ways of the EU.
Darth Gravid, as far as I know, went mad due to the issue of trying to use both light and dark side,was killed by his own apprentice before he could destroy everything the SIth had worked for - and took the secret of Essence Transfer to his grave with him (Darth Plagueis novel).
I think The Essential Guide to the Force has somebody else as the guy who told the Jedi that the Sith have a Rule of Two. They were initially skeptical that the Sith had returned at all - but when they found out the Sith had - they concluded that the bit of info about their Rule of Two must be true as well.
Thanks for the spelling fix, I just realized my typo now Xp. Anyways... I thought he also had told the Jedi about the Sith... weird. Let me check that.
He most definitely did not, and that's why the Jedi don't know the Sith are in existence in TPM.
This was the guy who the Jedi first heard the words "Always two there are, no more, no less" from:
Leaving aside the EU for a moment, the reason for Yoda's statement is that the Sith have been known for having two members at a time throughout their existence. The one time there was more than two, they wound up turning on each other which the Jedi then used to take them out. And if that's not enough for you, there are only two Sith Lords in each film. Maul has been excommunicated and is probably permanently dead by the time ROTS rolled around.
The EU kind of ****ed up Yoda's quote.
Maybe Yoda's comment didn't specifically mean that there wouldn't be more than two Sith, but instead he was just stating that typically a Sith wouldn't appear out of nowhere without either training someone else or having been trained by a master themselves. Therefore, he presumes that there must be at least one other Sith somewhere they don't know about, possibly more.
Rather than being a pollution of Sith phliosophy, I'd argue that the Rule of Two is the ultimate expression of it.
I've said before, I'll say again: the RoT is possibly the most brilliant -but misunderstood- explorations of "supervillain psychology" I've ever encountered in a work of fiction.
Not really. The backstory that was established at that point was already in line with what Lucas came up with. "Knights Of The Old Republic", "Jedi Vs Sith", the "Darth Bane" series and post ROTJ EU all match up. Not perfectly, but it does. Dark Jedi, or dark side adapts don't mess with things since they're not Sith Lords and thus they're fine. Especially since they've never made it to the live action films.
Indeed, sir. Batman's enemies can barely get along and it was even used in the "Arkham" series. Venom joined the Sinister Six to get Spider-Man, only for him to turn on the others because he wanted sole discretion in killing Spidey. Almost none of the Marvel villains like the Red Skull, especially Magneto. Likewise, the villains like to scare each other by telling stories of the things the Joker has done. Lex Luthor has to control Superman's rogues through force in order to create a Revenge Squad. He even had to keep Cheetah from killing Doctor Light, once his past history of sexual assault came to light.
So having villains, in this case the Sith, not trusting the other completely and will betray each other at the drop of a hat, is reasonable and in line with that concept.
"The Sith look inward, thinking only of themselves."
Throughout their history, Sith Lords seek to be answerable to no one but themselves. The logical conclusion of this is galactic domination. Those who don't think this way become subservient to those who do. Those who do seek sole rulership over every other being in the galaxy therefore see every other being in the galaxy as either a servant to be dominated, a tool to be used and discarded when no longer useful, or a threat to to rulership to be eliminated. Every other being. That includes any and every other Force-user, especially if that Force-user is a Sith.
Taking into account the EU and the "Word of God," any and every time there has been more than two Sith Lords marauding the galaxy, some variation of this inevitably happens:
Correct. Every tale in the EU has the betrayal.
And that particular EU comics picture all in one image totally encapsulates all the ways that Darth Bane was right: the reigning Dark Lord of the Sith, Darth Krayt, abolished Darth Bane's Rule of Two in favor of reviving a entire Sith Order. The one making with the happy face while blasting the **** out of him is his right-hand-man.
What makes it even better is that he was acting on the advice from the spirit of an ancient (i.e., pre-Bane) Sith Lord.
Indeed. Revean and Bane both had the right idea. They just didn't count on the unconditional love the son of a Jedi turned Sith had for his father.
Because Evil Cannot Comprehend Good.
The Rule of Two is the best way the sith could function because the sith would always betray one another it is in there nature. Look at Revan and Malak two of the greatest sith lords of there age and amazing generals of the battle field and what defeated them in the end? Malaks lust for power. The Rule of Two does a good job of limiting the betrayal of course in the end even that can not save the sith who are inherently selfish creatures.
Actually the rule of two worked. The Emperor messed up the rule of two. He wanted to rule forever he never intended to pass the torch. According to the rule of two Sidious should have killed and replaced Vader way before New Hope. Vader at the height of his power never challenged Sidious for supremacy. In Darth Bane's eyes he would have took this as a sign of weakness and deemed Vader too weak to be his apprentice and would have killed Vader before a New Hope ever took place. Vader was powerful but was damaged goods, Sidious understood this but wanted a puppet that was strong enough to kill Jedi but too weak to ever oppose him.
In the clone wars tv series this rule is kinda broken. We have at one point 5 siths ( dooku, sideous, ventress, savage, and maul.)
Moving to EUC - there's not really enough in the films alone for the discussion as it stands right now.
Well Ventress & Savage don't really count, the former because shes technically a fallen Jedi (or Dark Jedi) rather then a true Sith who spent most of her life training by herself instead of a proper Sith master. Savage on the other hand almost qualifies but again, he never got properly trained by a Sith master and all his power comes from the magic Talzin used to enhance his powers.
Maul is a Sith yes as he did get training from Palpatine and was never part of the Jedi or the Light Side, but since Palpatine discarded him by recruiting Dooku after Phantom, he doesn't really belong in the Rule of Two.
LOL at arguing technicalities about the Rule of Two. It's not a legal document, it's a fundamental aspect of Sith mentality.