The rule of two?

When did GL actually develope the "rule of two" idea for the Sith? In ESB Vader and Palp don't seem to care about it. But in ROTJ Palp talks about replacing Vader.

 

Palpatine may have been so ambitious that he thought he could circumvent the Rule of 2.

 

I'm not sure when the "rule of two" was developed, either by GL or one of the EU authors (apporved by GL/Lucasfilm), but he does acknowledge it's validity in TPM regarding Darth Sideous/Maul.

I think in ESB, both Vader and Palpatine are looking at Luke Skywalker as both "a new enemy" and potential "asset." Vader suggests rather then kill Luke (his son) that he be given the task of turning Luke to the dark side...gaining his own apprentice to kill Palpatine and "rule the galaxy, as father and son"

Meanwhile, Palpatine is trying to trade in the older Skywalker model (like a car) for a newer, faster apprentice. In ROTJ, do you get the feeling Palpatine didn't care who won the duel...because they'd kill the other, and he's be in control either way?

 

Maybe Palpatine really didn't care about Sith traditions. Its highly probable he used the Sith Order as a stepping stone.

If he wants to have two powerful evildoers working for him, then he should have that.

 

I don't think Palpy was so fond of Vaders life...

 

Here's something from GL himself.

"One of the themes throughout the films is that the Sith Lords, when they started out thousands of years ago, embraced the Dark Side. They were greedy and self-centered and they all wanted to take over, so they killed each other. Eventually there was only one left, and that one took on an apprentice. And for thousands of years, the master would teach the apprentice, the master would die, the apprentice would then teach another apprentice, the master, and so on. But there could never be any more than two of them, because if there were, they would try to get rid of the leader, which is exactly what Vader was trying to do, and that's exactly what the Emperor was trying to do. The Emperor was trying to get rid of Vader, and Vader was trying to get rid of the Emperor. And that is the antithesis of a symbiotic relationship, in which if you do that, you become cancer, and you eventually kill the host, and everything dies."
--George Lucas

 

as always, our leader knows the answer to everything...

 

"as always, our leader knows the answer to everything..."

Well, what can I say? I know my stuff.

 

So one could say, that in ESB Vader and Palp are actually challenging each other?

 

Yes. Even Lucas says as much.

 

"But there could never be any more than two of them, because if there were, they would try to get rid of the leader, which is exactly what Vader was trying to do, and that's exactly what the Emperor was trying to do. The Emperor was trying to get rid of Vader, and Vader was trying to get rid of the Emperor."

How could the Emperor be trying to get rid of the leader if he already was so?

 

Like someone else said, Palpatine was trying to trade in his old beat up Skywalker for the newer model.

 

the boss and the slave, to do his bidding.

 

OK, but here's my problem with ROTJ, relating to the Emperor's and Vader's motivations during the final lightsabre duel.

The Emperor is challenging Luke to take his lightsabre and strike him down. Why? The Emperor states that Luke should give in to his hate, but was the Emperor really prepared to die? Or was the Emperor expecting Vader to protect him as Vader did?

If the Emperor was truly prepared to die, is this something similar to Obi-Wan dying in ANH (the Emperor would become even more powerful by dying)? If the Emperor was expecting Vader to protect him, why did Vader do so? In ESB, Vader is recruiting Luke to join him and take on the Emperor to rule the galaxy as father and son. If Vader truly did want to rule the galaxy with Luke, why didn't he just let Luke kill the Emperor?

These actions all seem do contradict each other. How did the Emperor know Vader would protect him? Was he truly prepared to die? If the Emperor died and Luke went to the dark side, would the Emperor be "more powerful" as a force ghost to Vader and Luke? Why did Vader protect the Emperor if he wanted Luke to join him? This action seems to go against the "rule of two" since Luke seemingly would have killed the Emperor.

Also, Luke states he will soon be dead along with the Emperor. Was Luke expecting Vader to survive if both Luke and the Emperor were dead?

Thoughts or comments? This ending is somewhat confusing and seems to contradict the "rule of two." If someone else can better explain the Emperor's and Vader's motivations with regard to their actions I'd appreciate it.

Thanks!

 

>If the Emperor was truly prepared to die, is this something similar to Obi-Wan dying in ANH (the Emperor would become even more powerful by dying)? If the Emperor was expecting Vader to protect him, why did Vader do so? In ESB, Vader is recruiting Luke to join him and take on the Emperor to rule the galaxy as father and son. If Vader truly did want to rule the galaxy with Luke, why didn't he just let Luke kill the Emperor?

My best guess: neither Vader nor the Emperor expected Luke to be turned just by striking the Emperor down. The Emperor only said that to goad him, so that when Luke tried to kill him, he would be made to feel as if he'd already lost (Palpatine is constantly saying things like that- "with each passing moment you make yourself more my servant") The Emperor stated earlier that both he and Vader would have have to work together to turn Luke. If the Emperor were killed and Vader were left alone, he would be unable to do it. So, it was in both of their best interests that Vader defend the Emperor for the time being.

Other guesses:

1) If Vader hadn't drawn his saber, the Emperor might have been able to somehow defend himself with the force. We don't entirely know what he's capable of doing; he might not have really been in any danger at all.

2) The Emperor is counting on his control over Vader that he will defend him even as he's being replaced. Vader is however only defending him until Luke is closer to the dark side.

3) Some combination of the above.

I wouldn't count on force ghosts figuring into it, but who knows...

 

I think everyone is looking way too into it.

It is just a way to develop characters without overdoing it. GL didn't want to have to worry about making a lot of evil siths. He threw the '2 rule' into the mix to avoid having too many bad guys. Not to mention that it made Vader bad to the bone and strog enough to destroy the Jedi. It reinforces the awsome power of the Vader we all know and love.

But a question...

If Darth Maul was doing the bad boy double blade thing on Naboo...where was Darth Tyranus (Spell?).

 

"Tyrannus" didn't exist yet. Dooku was a respected Jedi until Qui-gon's death. It was after this that he was recruited by Sidious.

 

The "rule of two" is nothing more than an expansion on American Pie 2's", "rule of threes".

To explain, if a dude says he has slept with three chicks, he has really only slept with one. If a chick says she has has slept with one guy, it's really more like three. This rule was deftly explained by Jedi-Pie knights Obi-Wan Stifler and Darth Jessica.

The "rule of two", simply states that if a Jedi states that there can only be two Sith at a time, then there's probably only one. If a Sith says he's the only one, then there's probably another one floating about.

Personally I've always liked the "rule of McLeod", "There can be only one!"

...it's just a joke. Although I'm sure that most of you already grasped that. DIE JEDI SCUM!

 

I suspect at the time of TPM that Dooku was being seduced by Sidious' to his way of thinking.

 

I think people are looking too far into this. The "rule of two" was established by Darth Bane over one-thousand years before the events of the Star Wars saga.

Rules can be broken or changed by whoever is in charge. Palpatine is the one in charge.

How is this different than if the US government suddenly decided that because of increasing population of the United States, there will now be three Senators from each state instead of two? The "rule of two" for Senators has been around for a long time. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this was adapted in the early 1810s/20s) This does not mean that it can never be changed.

And with Palpatine/Sidious, he can change anything about the Sith Order at will. For the US government it would take years of debating and arguing and voting to change the rule of two, but for the Sith rule of two, the only person Palpatine would have to argue with is himself and his apprentice, and the apprentice "must obey his master," as Vader says in Return of the Jedi.

 

I only realized fairly recently (in one of those DOH! moments) that Vader was not protecting the Emperor from Luke at all, he was protecting Luke *from having struck down* the Emperor. In ESB we see Vader's obsession with Luke, a kind of twisted-Sith "we can rule the galaxy together" father-love. By the time of ROTJ we see hints that Vader is not altogether gung-ho about turning Luke: the Emperor's "I wonder if your feelings are clear on this matter?" and Luke's "I sense the conflict in you." It's been clearly set up that Palps always has plans within plans within plans, so I think we can assume that he was never in danger from Luke, although I posit that he was telling the truth when he claimed that he was unarmed (evil likes to twist truth to its own ends). Palps and Vader are not only scheming against each other, both of them know it - the "pregnant pause" in ESB after Vader proposes to turn Luke shows that Palps is absorbing this new turn of events (realizing that Vader wants to overthrow him with the help of Luke) and using it to his own ends (upgrade to the newer model). All this happens within the space of a few heartbeats (or respirator ventings). It's one of those "dirty little secrets" that everyone knows but no one will say - not because they don't want the other person to know, because they know that the other already knows - but to keep it from being explicitly declared.

 

The 2-Sith Rule is a crock.

http://www.episode-x.com/editorials/sithhistory.shtml

This editorial explains why...

 

xSithHappensx: Rick McCallum has said that the Rule of Two will be present and followed in Ep. III

 

Nicely written editorial.

It answers an other question too, but you have to read it.

But to stay on topic, IMO I think that the rule of 2 still stands. But because the Sith are always on the look out for more power and thus the apprentice always taking over the Master, it's still possible that for a brief moment the apprentice takes an apprentice of his own to defeat the master. Then you could get 3 sith at the same time......

 

What I said in the editorial is proposed Star Wars history...not Episode III speculation. It doesn't contradict anything RM said. I'm just saying that the rule had to have been broken (or bent) somewhere during the time from when Bane initiated the rule to when Palpatine became a Sith.