PT The rule of two was a bad idea

Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by Sitara, Dec 22, 2012.

Moderators: Bazinga'd
  1. Darth Chiznuk PT Trivia Master / Game Host

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2012
    star 5
    Also, Anakin from pretty much the moment he turns is planning to overthrow Palpatine. It is very much established in the films.
  2. son_of_skywalker03 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 7, 2003
    star 4
    Don't we see the plotting by Sith in all but 2 of the films? How can it be considered conjecture that there would be infighting if there were more than 2? I'm astounded by that assertion.
  3. Darth Chiznuk PT Trivia Master / Game Host

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2012
    star 5
    Yep. Dooku in AOTC is plotting against Sidious by trying to enlist Obi-Wan. Then you have Anakin in ROTS, Darth Vader in ESB with Luke, and both Palpatine and Vader in ROTJ. That leaves only TPM and ANH without a conniving Sith apprentice or master.
  4. Sitara Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2001
    star 3
    Vader and Anakin are the same person....so it's not like there were different Sith in every movie plotting the downfall of their own kind.

    Not only that, Tyranus/Dooku and Vader/Anakin are fallen Jedi. They were Jedi first, and then betrayed and killed their own kind. Treachery is in their nature, and was there even before they became Sith, not because they were Sith.

    Darth Maul was a Sith from the beginning, and he never showed any signs of betrayal or treachery.
  5. Ferus Olin Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 2, 2012
    star 1
    not before pretty much destroying the entire Jedi Order
  6. CT-867-5309 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 5, 2011
    star 5
    Dooku had been Tyrannus for about 10 years before he launched his attack on the Republic.

    Anakin was steeped in the dark side when he attacked Mace (though he wasn't the one to kill him) and was Darth Vader, a Sith, during his attack on the Temple.

    He hardly spoke and was killed off in the first movie.

    According to Lucas, the Sith betray each other, so if Maul had survived he would probably be looking to take out his master eventually.

    Again, both the Rule of Two and Sith infighting comes straight from Lucas, not the EU.

    I understand if you don't like it, I don't like all Sith fitting one template myself.
  7. DarthRelaxus Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 23, 2007
    star 5
    Maul only had two lines in the film.
  8. son_of_skywalker03 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 7, 2003
    star 4
    And Palpatine was right there with them plotting against each of his own apprentices. He wasn't a fallen Jedi. So what's the excuse there? We see all of two Sith that were never a Jedi in the movies, and exactly half of them were always plotting against the other Sith.
    Last edited by son_of_skywalker03, Dec 25, 2012
  9. Sitara Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2001
    star 3
    Because Palpatine may be manipulative by his very nature? Maybe that's why he was able to manipulate and fool and the entire galaxy? If all Sith were as manipulative why was there a Republic to begin with?

    Also, had there not been a rule of two, Sidious wouldn't have needed to be manipulative and instead both Tyranus AND Vader could have been Sith Lords, instead of having been manipulated to fight each other to the death by Sidious.
  10. Roberto Calrissian Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 26, 2012
    star 4
    Same reason there were few Grand Admirals in the Empire and a few of Emperors hands. Those who have power or want power will always want more it's a drug. They'll betray any one to get total control.
  11. CT-867-5309 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 5, 2011
    star 5
    Because they weren't as good at it? Because they didn't have the resources for something that grand?

    Manipulative is not the same as treacherous, btw. Manipulation takes more skill than simple backstabbing.

    Yeah, but that's not what Sidious wanted. Why would Sidious want two apprentices? So they can gang up on him? We know Vader was ready to overthrow Palpatine about 30 minutes after turning. Dooku did make an offer to Kenobi to join him to destroy the Sith, though it may have been a ruse.

    Greed, jealousy, betrayal...they're all part of the dark side.
    Last edited by CT-867-5309, Dec 25, 2012
  12. Sitara Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2001
    star 3
    Anakain and Dooku are EX JEDI who already betrayed the Jedi Order. It makes sense they would want to betray the Sith as well.

    The only real Sith apprentice, Maul, showed no ounce of betrayal in him, just like a true Jedi like Kenobi would never betray the Jedi.
  13. DarthRelaxus Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 23, 2007
    star 5
    The dark side represents the evil side of human nature; greed, jealousy, revenge, etc. Just because Maul wasn't shown plotting against Sidious in the movie doesn't mean he wasn't, or wouldn't have.
  14. son_of_skywalker03 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 7, 2003
    star 4
    He was also only in the 1 movie while speaking 2 measley lines. The other Sith lord was shown to be quite willing to plot on his apprentices. Yet, you say that could simply be in his nature. You know what else is in his nature? Using the dark side, and being quite evil.
  15. CT-867-5309 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 5, 2011
    star 5
    I like how this has nothing to do with what I said.

    Though I disagree with your assertion that Anakin and Dooku aren't representative of "real Sith", that wasn't part of my post at all. I wasn't making a statement about the validity of Vader and Dooku as examples of Sith treachery, I was simply stating fact and asking the following questions:

    Why would Sidious want both Dooku and Anakin? Like you said, they're both traitors. Why would he want two traitors to keep an eye on? This is one of the reasons for having the Rule of Two, it's beneficial.

    I'd also like to point out that Anakin and Dooku didn't betray the Jedi until they became Sith.

    Also, saying Dooku and Anakin "don't count" isn't an argument against Sith being treacherous, you're just throwing out those two examples.

    We still have treacherous Palpatine watching as Anakin kills Dooku and trying to troll Luke into killing Vader. Saying betrayal "is just in Palpatine's nature" is a convenient excuse that can be used for anything. You could say that about Jedi. "They're not compassionate, that's just in Qui-Gon/Obi-Wan/Yoda's nature".

    The only example you have left is Maul, who was young and hardly speaks before he dies.

    Your arguments are just terrible, really. I think it would be better if you just said "I don't like the Rule of Two" and called it a day.
    Last edited by CT-867-5309, Dec 25, 2012
  16. Master_EdgeCrusher Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 21, 2005
    star 3

    The Rule of 2 was before Bane's existence. In order for one to understand, you would need to go back as far as Nadd or Sadow, Kuun, and other such Dark Lords. The Brotherhood of the Sith were nothing but a bunch of mindless robots. No one was greater than another and for that matter, no one outranked the other. The whole purpose is to have one who embodies the strength and the other to thrive and want it. It causes the Lord to embrace more Force Techniques to live longer knowing that one day the Apprentice would finally turn on him / her.
  17. TheRevanchist Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 13, 2012
    star 2
    That is partially incorrect. The Rule of two was created by Darth Bane because he saw that The Sith always compete to kill each other, and in many cases many Sith becomes together to defeat a more powerful Sith Lord which in fact weakens the order. Was that a good idea? To be fair, I don't know and I really don't think that the Rule of Two accomplished anything more than the 'many Sith' or The Rule of One.

    The Brotherhood of Darkness, I agree with you, they were pretty idiots. Though that in start helped them to win some battles, the sharing of power in the end turned against them and it took a sabotage from only a Sith Lord to their total destruction.

    Going even further in time, there were almost always a Master and one or more apprentices who ruled the Sith. But that doesn't mean that there weren't other Sith Lords, some of them even having the Darth Title. In fact it was a hierarchical dictature and the strongest rules.

    Turning back in the movie, in OP the rule of two wasn't mentioned. In fact I think that The Sith word wasn't mentioned too, and even in EU Palps and Vader were only 2 fallen Jedi. But then they should have somehow described why there were only 2 dark force users and Lucas created the Rule of Two. A simple idea to be fair, bad people always try to have a lot of power and don't want to share that power. Though from the movies, it seems that the Rule of Two was a strict rule, from EU there is another interpretation that in fact the Rule of Two had more to do with the title Dark Lord of The Sith (or DARTH) more than with anything else. Maul, Ventress, Starkiller and Emeperor's Hand were some powerful force sensitives who in fact weren't Sith (strange about Maul, cause the novel when this is revealed was a novel that was highly influenced from Lucas himself).
  18. -NaTaLie- Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2001
    star 4
    The word "Sith" was there in the very first drafts of Star Wars. Vader was the Dark Lord of the Sith right from the start. The Sith weren't mentioned in the dialogue - likely because it wasn't important to the story - but it was definitely part of the canon. And Vader is the only fallen Jedi, the Emperor is not.
  19. TheRevanchist Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 13, 2012
    star 2
    In the Thrawn trilogy (by probably the majority of fan is considered the best part of EU) Luke mentions something that Vader and Emperor were fallen Jedi. Probably Luke only thought it. Also, I don't think that the Sith were part of the canon on EU, if something is cut then it is not part of the canon.
  20. -NaTaLie- Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2001
    star 4
    I'm talking about the movie canon. The Sith weren't invented for the prequels or EU. Palpatine's name isn't mentioned in ROTJ either but it had existed since before ANH.
  21. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Or you imagined it.
    ILNP likes this.
  22. TheRevanchist Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 13, 2012
    star 2
    Nope. Luke was a little stupid. He said to Han that C'Baoth could be more dangerous than Palps.
  23. Iron_lord Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
    Luke didn't know that much about Palpatine's "power level" at that point.

    Leia says suspiciously of C'baoth in HoTE that "The person who called to you could just as easily be a Dark Jedi like Vader, with this C'baoth rumor dangled in front of us to lure you in. Don't forget that Yoda wasn't counting them - both Vader and the Emperor were still alive when he said you were the last Jedi."

    with the implication that "Dark Jedi" covers both Vader and the Emperor.

    It's Lando, not Han, that compares C'baoth to the Emperor in TLC:

    "The way Luke & Mara talk about him, C'baoth's at least as dangerous as the Emperor was. Maybe more so."
  24. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Do "Dark Jedi" and "fallen Jedi" necessarily mean the same thing? I seem to recall that in the Thrawn Trilogy days "Dark Jedi" was pretty much synonymous with "Sith".
    Last edited by Arawn_Fenn, Dec 29, 2012
  25. Iron_lord Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
    In Heir to the Empire, the Bphasshi are prejudiced against Jedi because "some of theirs went bad during the Clone Wars" - and these are also called Dark Jedi.

    So the term was sometimes applied to fallen Jedi.
Moderators: Bazinga'd