The 'Rule of the Sith'

Having read through the first page and a half of DarthShadowSpawn's post on Yoda being a Sith, I feel duty bound to make this observation. I have made it a seperate as 1) I can't be bothered to read through the rest of that clap-trap 2) I think it important for people to remember this point independently of everything else that is tied into that thread.

We all know what is meant when people use the term 'Rule of the Sith' (or similar): it is in reference to Yoda's statement in TPM at the funeral. It is also mentioned in EU but TPM is the only airing it gets within the saga.

My point (question) is this: At what point does it emerge that it is the exclusive 'Rule of the Sith'?

Yoda never calls it this. It is my belief that he is theorising as to the origins of the mysterious warrior who demonstrated powers of the Sith, Darth Maul, and suggesting that there is likely to be someone else ie. he is commenting on a likely pattern - he doesn't think Maul was working alone. "Always two there are, a master and an apprentice" - this is Yoda making a generalisation in my opinion, not specifically referring to the Sith.

Now because of that line in TPM, and what people have read in the EU, they have jumped to the conclusion that Yoda knows the 'Rule of the Sith'. Based on this they have decided that this is either a continuity error because Yoda is not old enough to have experienced the previous lifetime of the Sith, or that Yoda himself is a Sith, 'because durrr, how else would he know the Rule?'.

And if people want to harp on about logic, then logically, if Yoda is secretly a Sith and knows the rule, WHY THE HELL WOULD HE TELL MACE? Kinda blows his cover a bit, doesn't it - or let me guess, this in itself is part of the master plan?

I would also like to add that it is unlikely that the ghost-figures of the jedi are about redemption. It is a power - how else would Obi-wan become 'more powerful than you could possibly imagine' if he is not redeemed until the end of ROTJ?

I too like to see people thinking a bit left of field when it comes to EPIII and the entire saga, but to argue their theory is right unless it is explicitly disproved in EPIII is stretching the bounds of debate - DarthShadowSPawn. George Lucas has written a saga that is deeper than one dimension, but some people are taking this idea to the nth degree and taking the saga to a complexity that will not be realised when EPIII is released and they are going to end up disappointed and end up bashing GL all over again for his short-sightedness, when it is they that are mistaken.... about a great many things.

 

My point (question) is this: At what point does it emerge that it is the exclusive 'Rule of the Sith'?


In the EU (at least) the Rule of Two Sith Lord is established in "Jedi Versus Sith"

MTFBWY

 

I think the Sith "Rule of Two" isn't really any different from the Jedi rule that a master can't take on a second apprentice. Except the jedi aim to train their apprentices to move on and train apprentices of their own, while the Sith don't want their apprentices to surpass their power, so they constantly hold them back.

 

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
no!
Quite wrong. It is nothing liek the Jedi.
The Jedi have initiates,padawans,jedi,jedi knights,jedi masters they have a council n any other special ranks in between.The Sith have a master and an apprentice THATS IT. and be logical if there are only 2 n the apprentice is supposed to take over when the master is no more y the hell would he hold him back?
He would need the apprentice to be as strong or stronger than he was.

 

I think Yoda's knowledge of the "Only Two At a Time" is another example that Lucas actually does validate the EU. But let's not get into that. Simply, what I'm saying is that the two-at-time rule IS the modern incarnation of the Sith (or more specifically, Dark Jedi). Meaning, it has been around for some time to be considered modern.

Given that, I also think that Yoda knows because the Jedi before him had some encounters with the Sith after they went into their "two at a time" hiding mode. Remember, the High Council in Episode I states that the bout between Qui-Gon and Darth Maul is the first head-to-head direct confrontation between the Jedi and the Sith. The Council also states that the Sith have been exctinct for over a millenia. This means that at one point, over 1,000 years ago, after Darth Bane instituted the two at a time rule, the Jedi had some encounter with them before the Sith apparently went exctinct.

This is what makes the story so cool. So many mysteries!

 

Okay, maybe I didn't interpurt what u guys said right, and is just repeating what you said, but anyway, The Rule of Two isn't just a sith rule, it's a jedi rule too. Yoda would also (with 500+ years of study) most likely know a little bit about the sith, say, even if there wasn't sith holocrons in the jedi temple that he could study, well, I think I made my point.

 

The Rule of Two is simply that there are only two Sith in existence.

The Jedi may have only one padawan to one master, but there are more than two Jedi in existence.

As to the exact two-ness of The Rule of Two, I don't see this as entirely correct, at least, there can potentially be three Sith for a short while.
i.e. There is a Sith Master and Sith apprentice; the Sith apprentice, or the Sith Master, trains another person in the Sith arts either to replace the master or to keep the apprentice from gaining enough skill to overtake the master. In effect, The Rule of Two is on hiatus for a time until either the master or the seconday apprentice is killed as there are 3 Sith, and not two.

Of course, this could be explained away as the apprentice of the apprentice cannot be an official Sith or the secondary apprentice isn't officially a Sith but this seems rather trite. A person trained in the Sith arts is a Sith and the secondary apprentice of the Sith master is still a Sith.


Ciou-See the Sig