Lit Why do Sith Masters encourage their apprentices to kill them?

^ Backtracking. Denying direct quotes from the film 15 times over doesn't make you right. It just makes you persistent.

 

Do you know what backtracking means?

And I explained in detail why the quotes aren't indicative of your "points", and the false implications you inferred from them several times already.

 

There were no implications, just clearly stated facts from actual SW films. Not the made up "quotes" from a book you questionably claim to have read.

You argued a point about the PT Sith not following the rule of two, and Sidious not allowing Vader to usurp him or even risk it, then backtracked saying you think Vader would have done exactly that...fulfilling the rule of two. That's backtracking.

So which is it? Try to be direct here and not give one your run-around backtrack answers please.

 

Refer to previous posts of mine and others where the relation of your ROTS movie posts to your point and what you assumed from them were explained to be erroneous. I have no interest explaining it yet again.

I never said anything of the sort. I just stated that Palpatine/Plageuis didn't follow it willingly, and if it came about it was pure coincidence.
Palpatine had dozens of apprentices for the vast majority of his rule.

Yes, Sidious would never allow it, or significantly risk it. (Of course "risk" is a loaded word that means little unless quantified. For example you could argue Palpatine risked falling from postural hypotension and breaking his neck every time he got out of bed, but the sort of risk you implied --> Palpatine willingly allowing Vader to gain the position to have a good chance of usurping him would never happen. You stated that Palpatine not only welcomed it, but wouldn't mind dying if it furthered the sith cause. <-- that's your primary erroneous statement that you keep following on with.

I didn’t backtrack at all. Not sure how you came to that conclusion haha. The human mind boggles me sometimes.

I’m not sure if you just didn’t read or understand my points or what is happening, but I would advise you to read them again lol

*sigh* refer to any of my posts, or this one, I’ve explained it so many times, if you don’t get it by now then I really can’t help you lol
As I said in this post, the main falsity you keep claiming and that I'm trying to explain to you is:

"You stated that Palpatine not only welcomed it, but wouldn't mind dying if it furthered the sith cause. <-- that's your primary erroneous statement that you keep following on with."

 

Stop baiting one another, please.

 

I can't believe it's 12 pages already

They grow up so fast

 

Treachery is the way of the Sith...lol

 

Sorry bud but I don't remember saying that...would you mind mind providing the quote? You managed to quote a lot of my other statements.

The point that you seem to be making here is correct. Getting out of bed has nothing to do with the rule of two, your really getting off topic here. Palpatine only had 4 apprentices if you count Luke, so dozens is a massive lie. By merely taking Vader as his apprentice Palpatine gave Vader the position to usurp him. Did you watch ROTJ? Vader snuck up behind him and threw him in a hole. Vader was at Palpatine's right had during his entire rule of the Empire and I'm sure had many opportunities to betray him as such. By being the Sith Master Palpatine was welcoming such a challenge.

The Rule of Two.

 

We also get to see the flaw of the Rule of Two. A Sith reverting back to the good side, while killing his master, and leaving only half trained candidates,behind to fill the void.

 

Palpatine only had 4 apprentices? really? I'll give you that the term "apprentice" can vary but at the very loosest looking at all the inquisitors and dark jedi and what not that he used . . .

The Palptine/Vader ending in ROTJ is not really the rule of two. Just somewhat similar. The rule of 2 was well and truely gone after ROTS.

If you really want i'll dig back for your quotes in the morning when I'm soberer

EDIT: here I found a few for you

The main point seem to fail to understand is that Sidious had no interest in ever giving up his power. Nor did Plageuis. "the sith cause" never really crossed their mind after a certain point. It was all about their own personal power And there is no way in hell Sidious would let Vader kill him even if it did further the sith cause.

 

Dark Jedi, Hands, and other Imperial dark siders don't count as Sith apprentices imo

 

Indeed not, and Bane explicitly states as such in Path of Destruction.

 

Why would a Sith let someone kill him? Is that what you think the Rule of Two is? Do you think that every Sith Lord before Palpatine laid down so their apprentice could kill them? No FatSmel you continue to misunderstand the key point of the Rule of Two, struggle, strife and competition. The apprentice must PROVE they are the Sith Master by defeating or outsmarting their master and killing him/her.

The Plaguies novel is all about him and Sidious taking over the galaxy in the Grand Plan that been laid down for the Sith over centuries.

Also the term "apprentice" does not vary at all. Palpatine only trained 3 Sith apprentices gave them the Darth title and considered them potential heirs to the Sith throne.

 

In The Force Unleashed Sidious sits defeated with Starkiller's blade at his throat and says:

"You were destined to destroy me. Do it."

He had just been defeated in single combat for the first time, but instead of by a Jedi (when Mace Windu defeats him he begs for his life because he would never allow the Jedi to prevail, he knows his death would mean then end of the Sith) it is by a fellow dark-sider. He see's how young and powerful Starkiller is and knows that he will rule as an even more powerful and brutal Sith Lord than himself, in that situation he had been defeated and was ready to die for the continuation of the Sith.

The same order that he gives Anakin when he is in the same position against Dooku, knowing that a new more powerful apprentice would help strengthen the Sith.

so..

 

When you're asked to stop squabbling, you stop.

 

I never said they aren't following the Rule of 2, to a certain extent. I don't understand how you don't see this.

Refer to my recent posts where I explained my point in detail

 

This thread has clearly run its course.