PT The rule of two was a bad idea

no, no different, only different in your mind. Or are you going to elaborate why they are different when both = death?

and if the Sith are really that worried that the Jedi will beat them then this suggests 2 things

1) it goes against their arrogant nature of being in control and the best

2) if they think they will be defeated by the Jedi wouldn't any logical person think, oh, well i'm on the wrong side here, hmmm, maybe the dark side isn't more powerful then,

 

Hitler didn't believe he was evil.

 

....

ok, the next random trivia point

"we actually have 7 senses, not five"

seriously though, what?

 

Maybe it was poorly stated. What I meant was totalitarian rulers don't perceive themselves as evil or on the wrong side.

 

well I agree there,

but the Sith differ in that they want power, it's all they ever go on about

"not for a sith"

"they will be no match for you"

"i've become more powerful than any Jedi, even you"

"soon i'll have a new apprentice, one far younger and more powerful"

"now you will experiance the full power of the darkside"

they think they are more powerful than the Jedi.

 

Chiznuk: Because one is a certainty and the other is only a possibility. The Sith can't live in fear of buildings exploding everywhere they go but they certainly can and should be wary about their scheming apprentices ganging up and destroying them. With only one apprentice it is a fair fight and whoever comes out on top deserves to be the master.
----------

the building thing was just one scenario out of many, if there are 2 of somthing the more likely it is to become extinct, than if there were thousands

------------

Chiznuk said : The Sith tried a different approach and they won. Again I don't see how the Rule of Two can be called a bad idea when they achieved their goals and the Jedi were wiped out.

---

and the whole point of the prophecy was the chosen one to destroy the sith (or thought to be) which happened, the Jedi got renewed by Luke Skywalker

and 2 hooded sith didn't do this , an army of white soldiers destroyed the Jedi order (most of it)

 

That's dealing with other force users. Predicting future becomes harder this way.

 

The army was created to destroy the Jedi and help the Sith take control of the galaxy. The plan (nearly) worked because it was (for two decades) successful.

 

but the view expressed here is that two sith single (or is that double) handedly destroyed thousands of Jedi, this isn't so, doesn't take a force sensitive to order a billion clones and encode data with an order to kill Jedi,

but we are going around in circles

i think it's stupid andstated my reasons why.

 

The rule of two is a good concept but gives film makers less matterial to work with. Now with that said I dont want to see an army of Jedi or Sith. If their ever was a reason for the rule of two I would like it explained in the new films.

 

well even so,

if you believe that fair enough,

I just call it extreme luck nothing happened to both master and apprentice along the way,

it works for you but not for me I guess.

anyway, good debate

 

Look at what the Sith are likely care to about. They care about strength, power, freedom, success and themselves. They care only about their own survival, not the survival of the Sith Order.

The Rule of Two (supposedly) ensures that each generation of Sith will be stronger than the last (supposedly) by forcing the Master to prove himself in combat.

Power is shared only between two. If there are more, the power must inevitably be shared. They're Sith, they don't want to share.

Freedom. With only two, promotion to ultimate freedom is only one kill away. With an army, you've got a line of superiors with no hope of maintaining the chain of command.

Success. Supposedly the Rule of Two gives individual Sith their best chance at success by staying hidden and manipulating events from the shadows.

Themselves. Of course they can get more of what they want if there's only two of them. Supposedly limiting their numbers to two and staying hidden gives the individual a better chance at survival than they would have otherwise.

For a fictional modus operandi, I think it holds up pretty well and I think it fits the Sith even better.

 

This whole "what-if-they-were-in-a-building" theory is, no offense, completely idiotic. That's like stating why have a king, or a congress? If they were all in a building, then they could easily get blown up at once!

 

no offense taken

but thats not the same thing at all,

there is always a line to succession even if there is 320th in line for the throne

(See English History) Stuarts onwards

plus it wasn't the only example used, but seems the most common to quote.

 

Guys, you are missing the point. Why are you saying the Sith apprentices would gang up and kill their elders?

I specifically stated this whole Sith betraying one another was an EU invention. Why would they be so stupid as to kill each other rather than their enemies? Vader only betrayed the emperor because he became a Jedi again. He actually betrayed the Jedi first in the PT. Basically, there are bad apples on both sides, evil is everywhere and all that.

I wanted the PT to have shown honorable Sith. They want power yes, but they also have honor. They just hate Jedi, while Jedi hate them

Sidious and Anakin would be the true bad apples on either side, and both would betray their orders for absolute power themselves. Then Sidious can make up a rule of two to explain why he only has Vader in the OT. We can chalk it up to paranoia he has.

Also, the Sith were not just successful with the Rule of Two. If you recall Mace Windu in his duel with Sidious, he says "The oppression of the Sith will never return" And soon after Sidious says, "Once more the Sith will rule the galaxy"

I don't know about you, but the above quote heavily imply that the Sith used to rule the galaxy in the past, and were likely brought down by the Jedi. There were probably also quite a few of them, like the Jedi Order in the PT.

So I wish Lucas had gone down that route. It would have been a pain in the butt to make up new Sith names though...

 

I do agree with some of the OP's points and have thought so for years. I think it would have added some much needed drama to the PT to have more than one Sith. Imagine the dynamic between Dooku and Maul, both being apprentices to Sidious. Or Dooku and Skywalker, etc. It certainly would have been interesting.

 

Actually, he was trying to get Luke to join him so they could take out the Emperor together. The Emperor wanted to do the same: use Luke against Vader. The Sith seem to keep each other in check when there're only two of them, but when a potential third is involved, they get distracted by power struggles.

The Sith used to rule the galaxy but lost mostly due to the constant infighting so they had to try something else.

 

It's not pure conjecture, infighting among the Sith comes from Lucas himself, as does the Rule of Two.

It goes along with the Sith from a mythological point of view, they use the dark side and betrayal is an aspect of that.