Jump to content

Does anyone else thing the Rule of Two is kind of stupid? (spoilers)


dark_wolf

Recommended Posts

WARNING: SPOILERS FOR THE DARTH BANE TRILOGY.

 

 

 

 

 

I mean don't get me wrong, Darth Bane fracking awesome and his plan did work, but it just seems so risky. There's only two sith at a time. I can think of a couple instances where Bane and Zannah both almost got themselves killed and thus ended the Sith Order. The trip to Tython, what if the hyperspace lanes had collapsed on them or the Jedi did succeed in killing them there? They could have both died in the Stone Prison as well. Or what if somewhere along the line the Master and Apprentice kill each other during their battle for succession? What if there is just some random accident that kills them both. Two people doesn't leave a lot room for error or bad luck. Anyone else agree?

Edited by dark_wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WARNING: SPOILERS FOR THE DARTH BANE TRILOGY.

 

I mean don't get me wrong, Darth Bane fracking awesome and his plan did work, but it just seems so risky. There's only two sith at a time. I can think of a couple instances where Bane and Zannah both almost got themselves killed and thus ended the Sith Order. The trip to Tython, what if the hyperspace lanes had collapsed on them or the Jedi did succeed in killing them there? They could have both died in the Stone Prison as well. Or what if somewhere along the line the Master and Apprentice kill each other during their battle for succession? What if there is just some random accident that kills them both. Two people doesn't leave a lot room for error or bad luck. Anyone else agree?

 

It's less risky, or at least no more risky than having an army of followers which could potentially turn on you at any moment. Maybe it wouldn't work as a universal rule and I doubt Bane meant it to be, but sometimes circumstances call for a more subtle approach than just trying to overpower the Republic.

 

Besides, the Sith are pretty darn exclusive. Ideally the point is that a handpicked apprentice to the Dark Lord of the Sith will have shown himself capable of handling unforeseen "accidents".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's stupid, it's both idiotically Darwinian and Saturday Morning Cartoon Evil stupid, at the same time! It simply sets themselves up for failure, constantly. There's no way that the Sith are actually a threat the moment Bane enacts this idiocy.

 

It's why I can't play Darkside, it's too silly and dumb to be allowed to propagate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WARNING: SPOILERS FOR THE DARTH BANE TRILOGY.

There's only two sith at a time. I can think of a couple instances where Bane and Zannah both almost got themselves killed and thus ended the Sith Order. The trip to Tython, what if the hyperspace lanes had collapsed on them or the Jedi did succeed in killing them there? They could have both died in the Stone Prison as well. Or what if somewhere along the line the Master and Apprentice kill each other during their battle for succession? What if there is just some random accident that kills them both. Two people doesn't leave a lot room for error or bad luck.

 

Yes, this is the problem, the rule of two focuses the power of the darkside, but it also vastly increases the danger. If it was a small group, then it would work better, especially if they where spread out in twos or threes.

 

Mind you, the sith seem to have some sort of safety mechanism in place, after Darth Vader and the Emperor die, there should be no sith. Even when the Emperor returns, Luke kills all his apprentices until he becomes the Emperor's apprentice, before Leia saves him and they get rid of the Emperor again. Yet, years later the Sith return, and corrupt Jacen Solo, so they must have some sort of back-up system.

Edited by AlexDougherty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still it is stupid I mean no way 2 sith can take over a wholoe army of Jedi. maybe the 2 sith are poerfull but they are only 2 I bet there are 10 other Jedi just as powerfull living at the same time. The sith turn on eachother thats how it is and have been going on even under the Rule of Two so there aint any stop to that part. Bane thinks himself ise cuz the rule o 2 sounds wise if you hear it but if you think of it it sound so stupid a monkey could end it if somthing goes wrong and it sounds so easy to eliminate. They could only defeat the republic by infeltrating them from the inside wow what a great move nothing to do with the rule of 2 but that was a smart move. if there was more sith they would probebly hold that rule for even longer ofc someone will try kill the emperor to take his place but if the emperor is so powerfull then he will survive the attack like Darth Sidious. The onky time I saw his reall power was in episode III when he overpowerd 4 jedi but the lst one standing was to strong for him alone only the other was so weak they shouldent be Jedi at all. and then he hade a bit of luck against Yoda it looked like:D.

 

But the way Darth Vader talks about him sounds like he always wanted to kill him but he knows that the Emperor was to strong for him. How easy is it to follow someone that is weaker to the emperor when one know not everyone will be wanting to follow and help kill to get a new emperor out of fear or pure logic that this will only weaken the empire. the onlhy reson to follow the weaker is cuz he belives it can be done and then it would be easier to kill the new emperor.

 

I think the system with 1 emperor and a concil model was brilliant only that the emperor never showed himself. that was a bad move all this power and he dont use it itill he get weaker by that his empire somehow is fallng appart by both the sith killing eatch other and they republic demolating his forces. If he was to step up and punish someone a sith for trying to kill another when the republic waring at the same time or a faild officer then the Empire would overpower the republic. Manh concil members have been planing the emperors death and the emperoe knows about it and yet he comes in the last moment and kill them. nd getting new member with nothing more to say and back to the dark. *** give him his insructions his plans on what to do to rule to the concil so that they can pass it over :/

 

Rule of one was close they did have a concil a leader but the concil was to big. How it should be done is

1 emperor

maybe 8 Concil Members to vote if a drow the emperor gets the last say. ofc the emperor have to like both options and then maybe pic the one from the sides with the best arguments.

make it seven concil members + the emperors. Emperoers vote means 2p and the rest 1p for the concil members.

Only they can be darths the rest is Lords! no 100 darths running around

then there are apprentices and acolytes. the Lord or Darth/Concil member or Emperor get to chose there apprentices. but only the Darths or Emperor Himself cam promote em to Lords and then the Emperor can promote the new Darths.

 

Lords can hold the tiles of Generals or Commanders in wars and battles.

Apprentices dont have That much power but they only obey there master and his supiriors Concil and Emperor.

Acolyes is nothing they are just like usual soldiers in a risky training Die or Survive and become the apprentice.

Then there are the army and here ranks Moffs or Grand Moffs have as much power as a Lord cuz they aint many and have gone alote longer way to prove themselfs wothy while its so much easyer for the sith to porve himslef by using the force.

So Sith = stronger. Moffs = great leaders deservs some respect and power!

 

So

1. Emperor

2. Concil Members (Most powerfull sith)

3. Lords (Sith who have proven themselfs) and Moffs/Grand Moff (usuall military who have proven themselfs)

4. The rest of the army with there own ranks whatever + the apprentice get some power over the lower ranks ;)

5. People, Acolytes who is last in line! :p

 

Thats a brilliant Systme if you ask me but thats only me ;) The Emperor was POWERFUL and SMART but at hte same time so STUPID that even his POWER couldent save his DOWNFALL!

The emperor in my little empire should be showing himself more and direct his men not sit in the darkness and planing things for himself there are no use to you alone if they dont get out to the real world! daaa!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of problems with the above post:

 

 

  • Having an entire government composed of Sith lords and the like instantly removes any chance of a peaceful taking over of the galaxy. The rest of the galaxy does not want that kind of government and is going to fight against it, and even if they do manage to subjugate the people, the people will continue to rebel and the empire will eventually crumble.
     
    The Rule of Two is better in this respect because you can infiltrate a government and take it over from the inside, minimum resources, maximum results. The people are less likely to rebel because not only do they not know you are Sith, but you've earned their respect as a leader.
     
     
  • Having more than two sith lords is far more dangerous than having only two. For example, what happens when the Emperor dies? The 8 Dark Council members all attempt to fill the power vacuum and the empire erupts into a civil war with each member throwing their powerbase against the other. And before that backstabbing is a constant presence, with lesser Sith vying for power and undermining their own empire for personal goals. We see evidence of this in SWTOR.
     
    And finally the Rule of Two ensures that the Sith will always remain strong and never be diluted, really it works far better with the Sith Code which encourages accumulating power. For how can you gain total power if you share it between other Sith? So Bane was effectively just fixing a contradiction.

 

Oh and concerning what the OP says. If I were Bane I'd probably reply that those unable to confront and overcome the danger are weak and don't deserve the title of Sith. In that way the Rule of Two roots out the weak and incompetent, if both Sith were to die the Sith would eventually return again. But hey, it never actually happened did it so its not such a big danger after all. The reason why the Rule failed was because Vader abandoned it, really Sidious should have realised his apprentice was weak and broken and destroyed him - then found a new one. That is what Bane would have done.

Edited by Beniboybling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and concerning what the OP says. If I were Bane I'd probably reply that those unable to confront and overcome the danger are weak and don't deserve the title of Sith. In that way the Rule of Two roots out the weak and incompetent, if both Sith were to die the Sith would eventually return again. But hey, it never actually happened did it so its not such a big danger after all. The reason why the Rule failed was because Vader abandoned it, really Sidious should have realised his apprentice was weak and broken and destroyed him - then found a new one. That is what Bane would have done.

Palpatine himself is interesting to discuss in light of the Rule of Two, because it's questionable how strongly he followed it. After all he took Darth Maul as an apprentice before he killed his own master and began his training in the ways of the Sith. Granted, Zannah did something similar to Set Harth, but she never named him a Darth or truly trained him. Also, didn't Sidious kill Plageious in his sleep? I'm not sure if Bane would consider that in the spirit of the Rule of Two. He said the title had to be "wrenched from the all powerful grasp of the Master." Of course you could argue that if Plaeguis was trusting enough to let Sidous kill him in his sleep then he was too weak to lead the Sith, but it's still debatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that the Rule of Two is the best Sith philosophy to date, simply because it obviously worked in the end. When the Sith ruled over entire empires they were constantly in a state of constant borderline civil war, with each trying to gain as much power as possible for themselves instead of working for the empire as a whole. That makes for an incredibly fragile government, that can only survive if the ones in charge make sure to always be the most powerful. And Darth Malgus single-handedly proved that this isn't always the case.

 

With only two Sith, infiltration became an option that ended up giving them control of the very Republic that they constantly failed to destroy. Yes it makes for a very possible extinction of the Sith, but it also means that the two that do remain will be the most powerful the order has to offer (or at least its best survivors). Krayt's rule of one was just stupid and egotistical, putting them out in the open and still only having one (crappy) Sith try to handle an entire group of lesser ones alone. That's why the Sith ghosts laughed in his face.

 

The Sith in general are doomed to fail because of their "top-dog" ethics, making complete unison among them impossible and making every alliance a weak one. While each Sith may be strong, either their lack of numbers or their constant backstabbing will always be the death of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palpatine himself is interesting to discuss in light of the Rule of Two, because it's questionable how strongly he followed it. After all he took Darth Maul as an apprentice before he killed his own master and began his training in the ways of the Sith. Granted, Zannah did something similar to Set Harth, but she never named him a Darth or truly trained him. Also, didn't Sidious kill Plageious in his sleep? I'm not sure if Bane would consider that in the spirit of the Rule of Two. He said the title had to be "wrenched from the all powerful grasp of the Master." Of course you could argue that if Plaeguis was trusting enough to let Sidous kill him in his sleep then he was too weak to lead the Sith, but it's still debatable.

 

also, Plageious killed his master two in an underhanded way (cave in), not to mention that he was grooming another apprentice to replace Plageious. it's mentioned in that book that not many after Bane and Zannah strictly followed the rule of 2. i agree that Bane would have wiped the floor with Sidious and probably Vader, but Bane's solution came from l\Lord Kaan's "brotherhood" idea. it was (rule of 2) wise at the time, but didn't fully pan out in the end (Vader killing Sidious, then basically being killed in the process).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But hey, it never actually happened did it so its not such a big danger after all. The reason why the Rule failed was because Vader abandoned it, really Sidious should have realised his apprentice was weak and broken and destroyed him - then found a new one. That is what Bane would have done.

I dont think vader was any of those things to be honest even in his suit. Weak because he turn to the light side in the end? i see it the oposite only make it even more stronger. I can not imagine Palpatine ever doing the same, him being so consumed by evil and the darkside. But Vader was the chosen one though a blatant exception.

The whole sith ideology is retarded though and doomed to fail. A ideology that promotes darwinism, and selfisness, its very interesting but not very logical and prone to backfire sooner or later. A thing that constantly destroys seeking to build something into perfection is a contradictory ilusion. They can gain power, but they are doomed to lose it someday. The problem is the damage that causes in the meanwhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that the Banite line did what no other Sith Empire could, I would have to say no. The Rule of Two was an excellent solution to the infighting of the Sith.

 

i agree that Bane would have wiped the floor with Sidious and probably Vader

 

Read Dark Empire and familiarize yourself with the epitome of the Sith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that the Banite line did what no other Sith Empire could, I would have to say no. The Rule of Two was an excellent solution to the infighting of the Sith. ]

It did do what no other Sith Empire did, but at the same time it's success was very short lived. How long did the Galactic Empire last? 20 years? Not counting the Remnant, I mean the full Empire. In some ways I'd argue that Marka Ragnos was more of a success than Bane. He may not have conquered the Republic, but his empire lasted longer and wasn't wracked by civil war. Oh, and an aside, I love your "An in-depth look" threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It did do what no other Sith Empire did, but at the same time it's success was very short lived. How long did the Galactic Empire last? 20 years? Not counting the Remnant, I mean the full Empire. In some ways I'd argue that Marka Ragnos was more of a success than Bane. He may not have conquered the Republic, but his empire lasted longer and wasn't wracked by civil war. Oh, and an aside, I love your "An in-depth look" threads.

 

Of course the Galactic Empire didn't last as long as any other Empire. But you should look at the circumstances of their existence. The Sith Empires of old lived in the shadows until they emerged to attack the Republic. The ones that did attack lasted for only a few years.

 

The Golden Age of the Sith lasted for over a century before Naga Sadow's war brought it crumbling down. The Empire of Lord Vitiate has survived in the shadows for over a millenia, but its wars with the Republic are slowly destroying it. While Vitiate's Empire has survived the longest (from what I gather), it will suffer the same fate as the rest.

 

We see here that an Empire living in the shadows survives longer than an Empire standing on the galactic stage, which is what Sidious' Empire was. If we measured an Empire based on how long it lasted, rather than its accomplishments, we could rate the Empire of King Adas over the Golden Age of the Sith, despite the Golden Age being superior to Adas' Empire.

 

So taking everything into account, Sidious' Empire (while short-lived) was still superior to its predecessors. It was not lurking in the shadows, battled with the Rebel Alliance (for some 16 years I believe), and destroyed the Jedi Order. Under the circumstances, the Galactic Empire did quite well. Aside from Vitiate's Empire, no other Empire fought a war for so long. Every other Empire's wars were very short (lasting roughly five years, though the first Great Galactic War, pre TOR, lasted almost thirty years. I have no idea how long the Second one will last).

 

But, of course, this is not what the Rule of Two was meant for. It was devised for the Sith to defeat the Jedi and the Republic. It did exactly that. The only flaw I see was that it had no plan after that. I think Bane assumed the epitome of the Sith would rule forever, not thinking that the new Empire would have to contend with The Will of The Force itself.

 

And I'm glad you enjoy my threads. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was neat how in Darth Plageius, they talked about how the Sith had infiltrated the Republic, and how the Republic was using Sith symbols without knowing it.

 

I thought every other thing in the book was stupid, and the way Palpatine killed his master was incredibly lame, though he wasn't asleep for most of it.

 

I feel the same way about the rule of two. Yeah, the script said it worked, so it had to be made to work, but it lacks the sheer coolness of having an army of jedi fight an army of sith. And even though the books and movies say it works, I don't think it would work in real life. Even if the Force was real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of problems with the above post:

 

 

  • Having an entire government composed of Sith lords and the like instantly removes any chance of a peaceful taking over of the galaxy. The rest of the galaxy does not want that kind of government and is going to fight against it, and even if they do manage to subjugate the people, the people will continue to rebel and the empire will eventually crumble.
     
    The Rule of Two is better in this respect because you can infiltrate a government and take it over from the inside, minimum resources, maximum results. The people are less likely to rebel because not only do they not know you are Sith, but you've earned their respect as a leader.
     
     
  • Having more than two sith lords is far more dangerous than having only two. For example, what happens when the Emperor dies? The 8 Dark Council members all attempt to fill the power vacuum and the empire erupts into a civil war with each member throwing their powerbase against the other. And before that backstabbing is a constant presence, with lesser Sith vying for power and undermining their own empire for personal goals. We see evidence of this in SWTOR.
     
    And finally the Rule of Two ensures that the Sith will always remain strong and never be diluted, really it works far better with the Sith Code which encourages accumulating power. For how can you gain total power if you share it between other Sith? So Bane was effectively just fixing a contradiction.

 

Oh and concerning what the OP says. If I were Bane I'd probably reply that those unable to confront and overcome the danger are weak and don't deserve the title of Sith. In that way the Rule of Two roots out the weak and incompetent, if both Sith were to die the Sith would eventually return again. But hey, it never actually happened did it so its not such a big danger after all. The reason why the Rule failed was because Vader abandoned it, really Sidious should have realised his apprentice was weak and broken and destroyed him - then found a new one. That is what Bane would have done.

 

Well my empire was a bit of a democraty and the Only the 8-9 sith had power over the Moffs the Lords was like the old days Nobels. If the emperor dies thenHe would have chosen his follower or the Lords would have to vote for the new Emperor.

 

And no it wasent the rule of 2 that infeltrated the republic you could have done that with the Sith Empire as we know it in TOR. noone knew who the emperor was. he could just easily infiltrate the Rebublic with no problems.

 

[*]Having an entire government composed of Sith lords and the like instantly removes any chance of a peaceful taking over of the galaxy. The rest of the galaxy does not want that kind of government and is going to fight against it, and even if they do manage to subjugate the people, the people will continue to rebel and the empire will eventually crumble.

 

* Ehm as the sith Code says Peace is a lie!

* Another point they still rebeld against the emperor even with the rule of two.

* More sith Makes a stronger empire if they could keep away from there personal vendetta. Know this to be sith doesent have anything to do with beeing bad and evil and only thinks of backstabing, rulling and killing. Know that they all ones was Jedi and there was no sith. Then the Jedi started fighting eachother for different thoughts then the those tho lost became the Dark Jedi who later became Sith. There was those who was neutral the Gray Jedi and the usual Jedi who is to blind to see the truth.

 

The people of the empire dident think there was anything wrong with the Empire and there was many sith rulling over even to a lvl that a Grand Moff dident have a say to any sith. Even the republic dident have fans inside there rulling explain that. even in real life people will complain about there leader and goverment whoever it may be. He may not have done anything bad at all he just have the full power and peolple desides to rebel. but why!

Cuz they are greedy thats why! they want what they want. btw where did the other sith forceusers go in the rule of 2 did they die/get killed? How did they just disapire?:rak_02:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think vader was any of those things to be honest even in his suit. Weak because he turn to the light side in the end? i see it the oposite only make it even more stronger. I can not imagine Palpatine ever doing the same, him being so consumed by evil and the darkside. But Vader was the chosen one though a blatant exception.

The whole sith ideology is retarded though and doomed to fail. A ideology that promotes darwinism, and selfisness, its very interesting but not very logical and prone to backfire sooner or later. A thing that constantly destroys seeking to build something into perfection is a contradictory ilusion. They can gain power, but they are doomed to lose it someday. The problem is the damage that causes in the meanwhile.

Well from the perspective of say, Bane, weak and broken would be his evaluation. I reckon Bane would have replaced him with a stronger apprentice.

 

I would agree with you that the Sith philosophy is flawed, but it is a surefire way to achieving more and more power and achieving the goal of a Sith - so it that respect it works. I think Sidious and co. were drawing away from the Rule of Two however towards the end, Sidious was pretty much the pinnacle of the dark side and when he destroyed the Jedi the Grand Plan, and therefore the purpose of the Rule of Two, had been fulfilled. Basically Sidious wasn't going anywhere and had no intention of ever being overthrown. Maybe that's why he kept Vader, because Vader was 'weak' (in the sense that his suit had basically capped his power, he could never become stronger than the Emperor) and broken, so Sidious could be Master forever and never fear being overthrown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Of course the Galactic Empire didn't last as long as any other Empire. But you should look at the circumstances of their existence. The Sith Empires of old lived in the shadows until they emerged to attack the Republic. The ones that did attack lasted for only a few years.

 

The Golden Age of the Sith lasted for over a century before Naga Sadow's war brought it crumbling down. The Empire of Lord Vitiate has survived in the shadows for over a millenia, but its wars with the Republic are slowly destroying it. While Vitiate's Empire has survived the longest (from what I gather), it will suffer the same fate as the rest.

 

We see here that an Empire living in the shadows survives longer than an Empire standing on the galactic stage, which is what Sidious' Empire was. If we measured an Empire based on how long it lasted, rather than its accomplishments, we could rate the Empire of King Adas over the Golden Age of the Sith, despite the Golden Age being superior to Adas' Empire.

 

So taking everything into account, Sidious' Empire (while short-lived) was still superior to its predecessors. It was not lurking in the shadows, battled with the Rebel Alliance (for some 16 years I believe), and destroyed the Jedi Order. Under the circumstances, the Galactic Empire did quite well. Aside from Vitiate's Empire, no other Empire fought a war for so long. Every other Empire's wars were very short (lasting roughly five years, though the first Great Galactic War, pre TOR, lasted almost thirty years. I have no idea how long the Second one will last).

 

But, of course, this is not what the Rule of Two was meant for. It was devised for the Sith to defeat the Jedi and the Republic. It did exactly that. The only flaw I see was that it had no plan after that. I think Bane assumed the epitome of the Sith would rule forever, not thinking that the new Empire would have to contend with The Will of The Force itself.

 

And I'm glad you enjoy my threads. :)

 

 

If you mean The empire in SWTOR only lasted few years in war and then you are wrong they survived a war against the republic and both sides was forced to have peace. and they managed to survive in the real world outside the shadows for 200 years if I'm correct? It was the Emperors Greedy way of trying to destroy his own empire together with the Republic just to become more powerfull and live alot longer than he already have.

 

Another thing that destroyed the empire was there inner conflicts and power plays. If the Emperor have steped up atleast there and killed the reasons of the conflicts the Empire would think twice befor stating a inner conflict again.

 

They did probebly have the strongest being in the History of the galaxy and the striongestthat have ever lived as there leader. The way he got weaker befor the fight makes no sense as they discribe it in the game *** do the action from stoping few bombs for exploding weaken him? :/ If the Empereor had come into the open more often the Sith Empire would defenetly rule the Galactic Republic and do far more let them rebel in the end the rebels will lose as they arent as strong and well armed as the republic was.

 

So I belive a little change should have been made and it would be perfect ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did probebly have the strongest being in the History of the galaxy and the striongestthat have ever lived as there leader. The way he got weaker befor the fight makes no sense as they discribe it in the game *** do the action from stoping few bombs for exploding weaken him? :/

This is silly, basically your saying that in your head the Emperor is the most powerful being in the galaxy, but all other material suggests that he is not. There is no contradiction here, just a misunderstanding on your part. :rolleyes:

 

But I agree that the Sith Empire's fanatic loyalty to the Emperor, and fear of him, kept them in check. However even so the Sith Empire failed to conquer the Republic, thanks to infighting and powerplays and Sith undermining the military. The Emperor took direct control of his Empire during the Great Galactic War and only receded from the light after the signing of the Treaty of Coruscant. Yet even then the Sith Empire failed to defeat the Republic after 28 years of fighting. Sidious achieved control in a matter of days. And even when the Emperor was in direct control, the Empire was still rife with powerplays and on several occasions the Dark Council attempted to topple the Emperor. And we also have to remember that the Sith Code encourages this sort of behavior, so no matter how tight the Emperor's iron grip is, the Sith will continue to undermine and infight with each other.

 

And concerning the 'fall' of the Galactic Empire. It wasn't really down to the deficiencies of the Rule of Two, but thanks to several tactical backfires - e.g. Sidious effectively accidentally created the Rebellion - but that had little to do with him being Sith. The other reason was that the Force was against him i.e. the Prophecy of the Chosen One.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is silly, basically your saying that in your head the Emperor is the most powerful being in the galaxy, but all other material suggests that he is not. There is no contradiction here, just a misunderstanding on your part. :rolleyes:

 

Im preety sure he was. otherwise how did he manage to turn Revan and defeat a group of the most powerfull Jedi and turn them too. Even without training his streangth and power without sith training managed to srip his own real father from his rank and power at young age too. and that after gathering followers. Who have been described as more powerfull and who would fear him if he wasent they even say he is the most powerfull in the JK story I dont remember exactly what was sayed but it defenetly sounded like that expecially when it comes too them saying "Imagen what he could becom if he destroyed the galaxy" something like that. :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im preety sure he was. otherwise how did he manage to turn Revan and defeat a group of the most powerfull Jedi and turn them too. Even without training his streangth and power without sith training managed to srip his own real father from his rank and power at young age too. and that after gathering followers. Who have been described as more powerfull and who would fear him if he wasent they even say he is the most powerfull in the JK story I dont remember exactly what was sayed but it defenetly sounded like that expecially when it comes too them saying "Imagen what he could becom if he destroyed the galaxy" something like that. :eek:
Revan was already dark side when he faced the Emperor so little 'turning' was necessary. And later when Revan returned with Meetra and Scourge the Emperor was almost defeated, and may have died if Scourge hadn't changed sides. The Jedi who faced the Emperor were far from 'the most powerful' either - none were on the council, two were peacekeepers and not fighters, only one of them was a master, and another had had his connection to the Force diminished. Really nothing special.

 

And in the JK story the Knight says 'you will never possess that kind of power' indicating that the Emperor was deluded in thinking he could consume the entire galaxy. However I'm not saying the Emperor was weak. He was clearly the most powerful Sith of his time but not the most powerful Force user, and not the most powerful Sith whoever existed in the past and future, nor immune to defeat at the hands of a single Jedi.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revan was already dark side when he faced the Emperor so little 'turning' was necessary. And later when Revan returned with Meetra and Scourge the Emperor was almost defeated, and may have died if Scourge hadn't changed sides. The Jedi who faced the Emperor were far from 'the most powerful' either - none were on the council, two were peacekeepers and not fighters, only one of them was a master, and another had had his connection to the Force diminished. Really nothing special.

 

And in the JK story the Knight says 'you will never possess that kind of power' indicating that the Emperor was deluded in thinking he could consume the entire galaxy. However I'm not saying the Emperor was weak. He was clearly the most powerful Sith of his time but not the most powerful Force user, and not the most powerful Sith whoever existed in the past and future, nor immune to defeat at the hands of a single Jedi.

 

 

The Emperor was weakend ain the end but he could still fight. and then the Jedi dident have to be in concil or Masters to be one of the most powerful Jedi it was clearly that the Jedi you played was one and they did clearly say that they was gathering a crew of the strongest jedi to face the emperor. The emperor took his power from hundreds of other sith and became the most powerfull or you think any sith could defeat 100 sith at the same time cuz thats what it was like to fight the emperor + the streangth in that planet. he consumed it all. And if you did listen to the dialogs when the JK talks to Scourge he did say Revan would have faild. He had seen it in a vision. So no he wasent even close to defeat. He was Imortall befor he was weakend and he dident die then he was only even more weakend. So in the end he meet one of them ost powerful Jedi the order could offer and the emperor himself was weakdo to some action that was weard to me but thats the way it was. If he had have been not weakend they might as well storm DK with 100+ Jedi to be sure to defeat the emperor but ofc the empire wasent as stupid as the republic and leave there capital undefended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the introduction of the Rule of Two,the sith become something of an illuminati conspiracy.Secret society composed of two members,manipulating galactic events untill they destroy the jedi and create a new galactic order.

I think the question whether or not the Rule of Two is ''kind of stupid'' is irrelevant. It is the natural evolution of the sith order .Kaan's sith would have lost the war against the Army of Light anyway.What Bane did is perfectly natural and you can find strong arguments for it in the context of Bane's era.

 

Personally i like the Sith more ,when they were a nation and a race as it is in Marka Ragnos Empire and a rulling class theocracy in the successor empire we have in this game.Not a secret cult.

* * *

I think the Sith Empire we have in this game could have had a somewhat a successful future,if the circumstances were not against it.More specificaly this sith empire HAS to lose,because there is already established lore going 3700 years ahead.

If the Star Wars franchise started with the old sith empire,and not with the movies,and the galactic history after the Second Great Galactic War was blank spot , i can't see any reason this empire being destroyed completely and vanish.

Edited by Kaedusz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if you did listen to the dialogs when the JK talks to Scourge he did say Revan would have faild. He had seen it in a vision.

This is obviously mentioned in the book and central to scourge betrayal. however I recall Revan saying to him that visions arent set in stone that the future is always in motion.

They could well defeat the emperor as well given the chance Meetra was about to face the emperor who was cought by suprise at that time when she was stabed.

scourge just didnt wanted to take the risk, like all sith they are afraid in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...