Only 2 Sith?? HOW!!

Someone explain this to me so I can understand?ok lets say I have a Sith Master named Darth Zinlow and Im his apprentice and my name is Darth Cross. Now looking at how their can only be 2 sith at a time as said by the Sith guide lines, does this mean we could NEVER come in contact with another Sith? Or a Sith Lord and his Apprentice? If we have followers are they called Sith, or are they just followers? Also what if we wanted to have Sith Knights? Do they have another name or title? If their could only be 2 Sith then could their be Sith Knights? How can it be if there are only 2 sith together that they grow and prosper? I don?t understand this because if their can only be 2 sith then that means they couldn?t have followers or others to teach the art to, and if that is the way of thinking lets not even look at the Sidous/Palpentine thing how could 2 sith defeat hundreds of Jedi? I have given this HEAVY thought and just keep coming up with the ?This can?t happen? idea. This just doesn?t work someone explain this to me PLEASE!!

 

Master and Apprentice. Only two. However, at some point, one has to go. Each may secretly, or openly, seek another as a replacement. Then let the games begin.

 

But if thats the case no matter how close they get they could never meet again who can that be?

 

This rule came after the Sith wars. Sith just kicked the crap out of each other. Their followers would be called "villains".

All you need is love!

What you just said made no sense. There are ONLY 2 sith at once. In AOTC its Sidious and Tyrannus. There are not going to be another pair of Sith on the other side of the galaxy.

 

This is one of those things we must take at face value. We cannot dig deeper than we can go.
The Sith are so power hungary that they will destroy anything in thier path. Including thier own masters (We will rule the galaxy as father and son......The Emperor has forseen it.) They would destroy each other if the order was not in itself ordered. Which in fact, was what happened.....
This rule came after the Sith wars. Sith just kicked the crap out of each other.

Besides, I do not think that the Sith teachings are open to many. I doubt others could figure out how to be a Sith, without being taught. I think that it is passed down from generation to generation. As is obvious.

etancross, I think you may have thought TOO deeply about a subject that is simple. Some things just have to be taken as fact, without much deep thought. They have not the need for it.

IMHO.

 

lets put it this way, Darth Zinlow is Darth Cross' master.

Darth Cross builds up his power and kills his master. Now he is the master.

He then goes out and finds an apprentice to train in the ways of the sith. It might be a Jedi, like Dooku.

You have to be specially trained in the ways of the sith to become a sith. That is why there are only two - the master and the apprentice.

 

According to EU sources, there once were a large group of Jedi who were unhappy with the pacifist ways of the Order. They all desired more power than the Jedi Code could give them.

So they developed a new belief system, based on aggression and ambition. But when you have a huge number of people who are all ambitious and all desire power, they are going to fight for dominance. So if one particular Sith Lord seemed to be gaining more power than any others, the rest would team up long enough to kill that Lord, but then would resume fighting amongst themselves, because they all wanted to be the one with the most power.

The number of Lords grew smaller, because they were all killing each other off. At some point, a Sith Lord decided that there could never be a group of Sith, because they would always distrust and betray each other. So he created the rule of two. There would be one, and only one, master, who already knew the ways and beliefs. He would take a single apprentice, who he would teach as much as he knew, so as to pass on all of the Sith teachings.

When the apprentice believed that he had learned all he could from the master, he would kill him, assume the role of Master, and take an apprentice of his own. Therefore, the most Sith warriors there would be at one time would be 2.


As for Sith and Sith followers, I don't have any EU sources for my theories, so this is all from my own ideas and assumptions from what I have read.

I think there are definitely people who believe in the Sith teaching who aren't warriors like Maul, Dooku, and Vader. I assume that the name Dark Lord of the Sith is what denotes that a person is more than just a Sith follower, they aren't just passive believers.

I assume those who believe in the teachings but cannot actually control the Force are simply called Sith followers. I don't think they have a specific title like Christians is the name for those who believe in Christianity. I don't think the name is used in the same way people talk about being Catholic and such. I think Sith is a shorter way of saying Dark Lord of the Sith.

The rule of two only applies to the Dark Lords, because the simple followers aren't looking to challange either of the Lords for dominance. They don't study the lightsaber combat and the use of the Force, only the beliefs that the Sith follow.

 

The 2 present sith must be able to sense others. Plus there isn't any jedi being trained who could be turned in the OT except for Luke.

 

eeottwshan beat hundreds of jedi's is because the dark side is stronger. Also, as you can see in the movies, the sith have lots of stormtroopers and in the new ones they have droids. All they have to do to get people to make them

 

Both Sith Lords throughout the saga are at high positions of power where they have entire armies at their command. The Jedi only have themsevles.

 

...and now the Clone Troopers.

It will get really interesting...

 

I look at the rule of two as a guideline. There is no way it could be an absolute. The rule basically says that, for there to be balance in the Sith order, there have to be two. If one of those gets killed, another is sought out. If another appears that shows enough promise to be a new Sith, one of the existing ones has to go.

The point that Lahne_Pryok makes is a valid one. The Sith don?t have the discipline to survive with a council like the Jedi. If there are more than one Master and one Apprentice, infighting will start to occur. Darth Bane realized this when some of the other Sith tried to overthrow him. He arranged for their destruction so that he was the only remaining Sith and then arranged for a new apprentice. To avoid future problems, he created this ?rule of two.?

Consider Dooku?s and Vader?s examples: they both plan to get an apprentice of their own (three Sith) and then overthrow the Emperor (two again). Consider Maul?s example: when he is killed (one Sith) Sideous goes out and looks for a new apprentice (two again).

Yes, there can be three. Yes, there can be one. Yes, there can be none. There could even be four or more. Each of these are unstable states, though. It will always go back to two.

As to your question about followers, consider Mara Jade?s example. She is force-sensitive, yet she served the Emperor, not as an apprentice, but as an assassin. Other force-sensitive and non-force-sensitive beings could be followers of the Sith Master, but only two select beings receive the title of Darth and are in the Sith order.

 

So I guess I have to tell my little bro that his dream of a huge Jedi/Sith army battle will never happen
:'(

O well

 

The whole idea of Dark Jedi is just stupid.

 

Amen to that. Why not just call 'em what they are-Sith Lords. It sounds more evil anyway.

 

>>I think there are definitely people who believe in the Sith teaching who aren't warriors like Maul, Dooku, and Vader.<<

Yes, these people would most likely fall under the hated category of Dark Jedi, which includes Sith Acolytes, Sorcerors, and sometimes Cultists (I say sometimes, because he don't have to be Force-sensitive to be a Sith cultist, like Granta Omega). As an EU example, Jerec was a Dark Jedi, yet, had there not already been two Sith, he would've been a Sith Lord, so he's called a Sith Acolyte.

>>Yes, there can be three. Yes, there can be one. Yes, there can be none. There could even be four or more.<<

Sorry, but that's incorrect. According to Bane's official Sith rules, there can only be two Sith at a time. Had Vader succeeded in turning Luke, Luke would have been a(here's that blasted term again) Dark Jedi until he had helped Vader kill Palpatine, at which point he would have become the new Sith apprentice.

Now, so as not to stray off-topic, I think lumberjedi summed it up nicely:

>>There are ONLY 2 sith at once. In AOTC its Sidious and Tyrannus. There are not going to be another pair of Sith on the other side of the galaxy.<<

 

There was one Sith at the end of TPM

There were no Sith at the end of ROTJ

It's a rule, not a law of physics.

 

Being Sith is like a bloodline...once you're tought in the Ancient ways of the Sith, you become Sith. It's indeed (merely) named after the people the banned group of (dark) Jedi ruled over, millennia ago. And indeed, it is Darth Bane who created the '1 master, 1 apprentice' system -as can be seen in 'Jedi vs Sith'. ->spoiler-alert-> In that comic all Jedi and Sith are wiped out -for as far as we know, all important are anyway- and Bane takes on one apprentice. Prolly because he thought it was a nifty idea. And let's face it, there's only 1 Jedi and 1 Padawan too, more is unusual. Not impossible though...it's merely ineffective to train more that one apprentice at a given time. It's got nothing to do with apprentices taking over power from their former masters, that's just a nice motive for in books. In ancient times there were many Sith Lords, and one of them came to be the Dark Lord of the Sith if the current leader died. Later on there's not enough Sith to go around to have a system, and indeed not all apprentices vie for power with their masters. Look at Maul, he never would've.

HF

 

>>There was one Sith at the end of TPM

There were no Sith at the end of ROTJ

It's a rule, not a law of physics.<<

True. So, it is Yoda who is at fault with that "no more, no less" talk. There obviously can be less, as there are less, but there can not be more.