PT The flaws of the Sith rule of 2

It never got touched on in old canon and has been pretty much wiped away in the new but Plagueis did touch on another problem with the rule of two faced rather more rarely... Maul was quite content to serve and kill at another's discretion, he was in fact too loyal (in some stories.) Palpatine wanted someone to challenge and push him, what he got was a flunky. A flunky with badass duelling skills no doubt, but still a flunky. Of course, there is an obvious solution to this particular dilemma...

 

Yoda seemed to know about the rule of 2 in TPM. Why then do Dooku and subsequently Vader seem so ignorant of it?
It's one thing to say "if there are ever more than two, one will try to kill one of the others." That's just describing typical
behavior. But when you say that it's institutionalized, that every Sith should know this rule and act accordingly, well it
doesn't exactly work anymore to have two Sith openly talking to each other about corrupting a third. Yet Dooku was willing
to play along with Palpatine's plan to corrupt Anakin, and Anakin/Vader was later willing to suggest doing the same to Luke.
Didn't exactly work out well for either of them, did it?

 

In the movies there isn't really anything concretely saying there can't ever be more than two. In the context in which Yoda is speaking, they are wondering if Darth Maul acted alone, which Yoda knows isn't the case because there's always a master and apprentice. I always interpreted the remark as an observational one, rather than saying that the Sith themselves had a rule that states there could never ever be more than two force users trained in Sith techniques alive at the same time. I realize the EU stuff did make it an explicit rule, but I think it's ambiguous in the films. What is clear in the films is that they don't in practice exceed two for any length of time because of their backstabbing nature.

 

The Rule of Two is a brilliant self realization of the limitations of the Dark Side.

The Sith, realizing that the negative aspect of the Dark Side is it's corruptive influence that makes those under it's influence want more power to the point that everyone destroys themselves.

The Rule of Two not only learns from this problem, but, uses it to it's advantage.

First of all, I think what people here are missing is that the Master doesn't want his apprentice to fail. The rule of two is a sick twist on the Father/Son relationship, or Parent/Child relationship. The Master in the Sith Order wants his apprentice to surpass him, the Master knows that this will ensure that the longevity of the Sith Order passed both of them. This is just like a Parent/Child relationship where a Parent's proudest moment is when they realize their child has surpassed them and will do better than they did.

The sick twist is that the Master is constantly looking for the perfect apprentice, the most powerful apprentice, that will carry on the Sith legacy, thus this means that many time apprentices are tossed to the side or used as pawns.

This leap frogging effect is what keeps the Sith going into the culmination of what we see in the 6 Star Wars movies. The knowledge and power that is continuously leap frogged with every Master and Apprentice is what leads to Palpatine and his power.

Even Palpatine believed in this leap frogging, and believed in ensuring the Sith Legacy survived beyond himself. That was the whole point of wanting Anakin as an Apprentice. However, Palpatine isn't just going to roll over and die and just let Vader have his spot.

Palpatine says it right to Yoda, "Darth Vader will become more powerful than either one of us.". This shows and tells us that Palpatine isn't delusional in thinking that he will live forever, and is proud of his child, that he knows will surpass him one day.

The Rule of Two takes some buying into by the Sith, that they are part of something bigger than the individual. Palpatine buys into this as well. However, the sick twist is that when Palpatine realizes there is a better choice (than Vader) out there, that being Luke, Palpatine is willing to kill his current child in order to get the more powerful one, all in order to ensure the survival of the Sith Legacy as a whole.

So the Rule of Two is an interesting philosophy within the Sith Order, as it does have a certain level of realization that the Sith in some way sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the order.

 

I think it's a stupid rule, as is a single Jedi master training a single student for that matter.

First off, the rule has no purpose IMO. I mean, I understand that it exists canonically, but the justification for its existence is illogical, and the only reason I think it exists is to justify why Vader and Palpatine are the only two in the OT.

Because first of all, it doesn't stop infighting. The apprentice is still going to seek to overthrow the master out of greed. And secondly, as beings of greed of anger, the rule is going to be broken. Vader tries to recruit Luke to overthrow Palpatine. Palpatine tries to get Luke to turn and kill Vader (though as a kid watching the OT before the PT ever came out, I never was under the impression that Palpatine wanted Vader dead, that being replaced as Palpatine's favorite =/= wanting Luke to finish him).

So it's not like the rule is followed. And with merely two Sith, there's greater chance of extinction. What happens if the apprentice attacks the master and both are mortally wounded for instance? Or what if a ship carrying both is destroyed? etc.

Also, what if the apprentice is for instance fearful that his master is planning to replace him or sees an opportunity to "kill him in his sleep?" With the sum total of Sith knowledge being held by a singular master, should the apprentice act prematurely and murder the master before he learns everything, he has robbed himself of knowledge. And the master has no incentive to teach his apprentice everything, because then the master becomes expendable.

There's too many scenarios that show such a rule as being illogical. If the Sith end up fighting each other, then that is just an error in philosophy. If the Sith wiped each other out until only Bane was left, perhaps he should have trained multiple apprentices with the rule that murdering a fellow Sith was punishable by death. Or he should have instilled a greater sense of loyalty such that the strongest climb the ranks while weaker Sith serve (but are not killed). Such that the weakest Sith do grunt work, the strongest have more time to devote to pursuit of knowledge and developing plans, with middle ranks.

The Jedi had a problem too in that there was one master per student. I work in a trade as an apprentice and all I can say is that if I were to serve my apprenticeship under a single person, I would be extremely hindered in my trade. Because not all journeymen that teach me possess the same skills. Some can do some things better than others, and some are hands down better than others. But by working with various people, I get exposed to a lot of different ways of thinking. I get exposed to new problems and learn how to solve them by seeing how a journeyman solves them and works through it. A lot of it is training by observation.

With the Jedi, if Anakin gets assigned to Obi-Wan at the age of 9 and stays his apprentice for 10 years, that's a flaw IMO. Way more so than if he served a year with Obi-Wan, a year with Mace, a year with Ki-Adi, a year with Jocasta, and year with Luminara, etc. To get exposure to the wisdom of many different individuals. Not just Obi-Wan, who learned from Qui-Gon, who learned from Dooku, etc. If Obi-Wan isn't the best master, or if he is stuck too narrowly in his ways, it is going to limit Anakin's view since all he knows of being a Jedi is what he has observed and been taught while serving with his master.

But at least the Jedi can still learn from each other as peers. With the Sith, there is a knowledge bottleneck. There is only one path to knowledge and that is through a singular master who has no incentive to train his apprentice fully, so that he always has that carrot to dangle in front of his apprentice's face and keep him in a position of servitude. Meanwhile, if an apprentice gets fed up and murders his master out of greed, then knowledge is lost.

 

The Rule of 2 was how the Sith survived for as long as they did. They had their empire before Bane came along and turned it into what it was but that is not longer canon (the history, not Bane). It has flaws, sure, but in order to do what Palpatine did and when he did was the result of thousands of years of planning and scheming between only 2 Sith at a time. The dark side lusts after power so with any more than one to crave it and learn all its knowledge, all the planning... it would've collapsed.

 

According to Lucas' notes, the Sith arose 2,000 years prior to the films. And given they were "extinct for a millennium," it means that they would have "ruled the galaxy" sometime between 2,000-1,000 years prior to TPM. The Sith stayed hidden for the following 1,000 years, before reemerging under Palpatine's Empire, which lasted a mere 23 years.

TCW established (when Lucas was still very much involved in it) that "long have Sith Empires (plural) been built upon the backs of slaves." Meaning that either their origin had been retconned, or they had risen and fallen multiple times in that 1,000 year period from 2,000-1,000 years prior to TPM.

Either way, we have nothing to compare Palpatine's Empire to, since currently there is no canonical depiction of the ancient Sith. At best we have canon confirmation that there had been multiple Empires, that the Sith had once ruled the Galaxy, and that the Sith destroyed themselves until Darth Bane was all that was left. Lucas' comments and notes are liable to be retconned, but even if you treat them as canon, it is unclear how long the Sith ruled before succumbing to infighting. They might have ruled for 2 years, or they may have ruled for hundreds of years.

Palpatine ruled for 23, and his failure marked the extinction of the Sith (not the near extinction as was the case before).

I don't think the Rule of Two meant a whole lot in the long run. The Sith had already risen and fallen several times without it, and each time they survived. Under Palpatine, he rose and fell, but with his fall, the Sith went extinct.

 

The Sith are a very toxic culture that runs on passion, not logic. It is so toxic that they have to limit their numbers to minimize infighting which there was still a lot of. Think of the all the infighting if there were more than two of them. Even then the Sith are so corrupt they don't follow their own rules. When there was more than 2 Sith, it didn't stay that way for long, it seems anytime there was 3, 2 would gang up on the third and kill him, knocking the order back down to 2. It reminds me of a subplot from Dune where Fey, the heir apparent tries to kill his uncle, the baron to take his position early. The assassination attempt fails and Fey is punished by his uncle not because he tried to kill him but because he had failed to kill him.

 

Dooku started out as an associate to Sidious and Maul, much like Ventress would do so later on. He had believed that Palpatine was going to do the same thing with Anakin, but he was wrong.

"Palpatine has told Dooku. 'I have somebody who I think will be a great Sith Lord and I think we can get him to join us. But we need to test him. So we're going to setup a situation where you fight him. If he gets the best of you, then I'll stop the fight and he'll have passed the test. If you get the best of him, then we'll let him go, and we'll let him stew for a few more years until he's ready.' But behind it, obviously, is Palpatine's real intention: If Anakin is good enough, Anakin can kill Dooku and become Palpatine's new apprentice. But he didn't tell Dooku that."

--George Lucas, The Making Of ROTS; Page 41.

Vader had proposed the same thing with Luke to Sidious and he agreed, but both felt that Luke could be better used as an Apprentice to the other.

I'm not 100% entirely certain, but this is supposed to be a parallel to the Samurai. I think most Samurai only ever had one student at a time. At least, in terms of direct student and not a grouped army.

But anyway, it isn't like the Jedi don't work together on missions. In which case, the Padawan of one Master could also learn from the Master of another. In TCW, we see this with Ahsoka who was not only Anakin's Padawan, but she still listened to Obi-wan, Aayla Secura and Plo Koon, when they had knowledge to dispense. So while Anakin was her Master, he wasn't her only sphere of influence.