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

Was ordered to get rid of Ventress because she'd been too powerful, not foingrbidden from hav any enforcer at all. Got rid of Ventress, found a replacement. Doesn't violate any order Sidious gave.

 

Of course. As you said he'd done something similar and gone as far as actually breaking the Rule, but used an excuse to appease his master. Being who he is he'd never allow the possibility of the same thing happening to him. However with Ventress, Dooku did indeed make the attempt to kill her when ordered. And Savage followed soon after.

 

Whether or not Ventress or Savage would be considered a violation of the Rule of Two on Dooku's part, as Maul was on the part of Sidious, and Galen was on the part of Vader.

 

I don't think it matters if they do or not, however if they didn't then I don't see a reason to say they did lol.

 

A person who blind themselves doesn't want to see how the sith being a bad concept, equals their stupid tactics, behavior and execution of ideals.

You can try to make up some hoop jumping "logic" behind sith behavior, but you can't get around the fact that the sith do what they do because they are stupid, badly conceptualized antagonists.

 

Again lol I have no idea what that has to do with the current conversation. No one save you has been talking about whether or not they're good antagonists, i'm certainly not, so i'm not sure why you're looking at my posts as if they're aimed at proving they are.

 

Not the original Sith though. Sure Palpatine is as flat as can be, but Vader definitely made up for it with his personality. Only when every Sith master started behaving like Palpatine and had exactly the same motivations it became problematic simply because the super megalomaniac bad guy is a tired trope and these characters often don't act intelligently.

When the Sith are done well with, they can be very interesting antagonists. See Darth Traya for example. She is a very well rounded and threatening antagonist yet she didn't care for galactic domination. Like my avatar shows I am also partial to Lord Odion who also had a very unique motivation and mindset.

I personally am a fan of the Sith and their code but I wished more would be done with them. Individuality is one of their core principals yet often they are reduced to the basic evil megalomaniac template.

 

Depends on the megalomania of the master, I guess. A clever pupil would always try to hide how powerful he really is so that the master doesn't get nervous.

 

I'd think that from the start any Sith would understand there's a possibility their apprentice could kill them and make preparations to deal with it.

 

I think the reason Palpatine encouraged Anakin and Luke to kill him is because they would never serve Palpatine without the intent of doing so.

 

not all seceret apprenctices are under prepared..

 

In case you didn't you didn't know, Krayt didn't stay dead...

 

Indeed. Luckily Ventress didn't die.


Anyways The Rule of Two is a joke that is conveinient because there are only two Sith seen at a time in films. In a practical aspect it is very limiting rule and a joke that most smart Sith choose not to follow when it suits them.

 

But it would have happened with RoT too. Most apprentices would use such an opportunity to kill their master.

 

This sounds like another rule or shackle to me. It doesn't take into account that some draw satisfaction from being subservient.

I mean, sure, if your goal is galactic domination (or ends to an means, whatever), then of course endless servitude won't get you very far. But there were some Sith Lords who didn't give a crap about galactic domination. Lady Traya willingly gave her life just so that her Padawan could rise above her, serving the player character of KotoR II 'til the end in a way.

 

I mostly agree with you.

But seriously, what if you simply enjoy serving your master? It could happen. Maul seemed to genuinely like Palpatine and admired him. What if what you really want is to your master to love you? In that case killing him would be counterproductive, while serving him would be very productive towards your goal. Your masters and your own goals would be aligned.

Maybe it seems I'm inventing corner cases, but these are the Sith. You can never know with them.

 

In any other master-servant relationship that makes sense, but it would undermine the entire philosophy of the Sith. With an apprentice who loved him and desired to serve him the Master would grow comfortable and complacent, and would be ripe to be defeated by another dark sider or even the Jedi. With the Sith strength lies in the preparedness and constant struggle. This one of the reasons for Palpatines downfall, after ruling the galaxy for 2 decades with a pathetic, broken apprentice he no longer had the hunger and struggle that a Sith Master should. I think he saw this in himself and thus why he tried to replace Vader with a more powerful apprentice multiple times.