Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

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

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > STAR WARS Discussion
Does anyone else thing the Rule of Two is kind of stupid? (spoilers)

scurrymacleod's Avatar


scurrymacleod
02.16.2013 , 09:57 PM | #11
Quote: Originally Posted by dark_wolf View Post
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).

Spartanik's Avatar


Spartanik
02.16.2013 , 10:47 PM | #12
Quote:
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.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Also
Quote:
HK47: Statement: You are like a delightful random cruelty generator, master, poisoning all you touch with your presence. You are a testament to all organic meatbags everywhere.

Aurbere's Avatar


Aurbere
02.16.2013 , 11:18 PM | #13
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.

Quote: Originally Posted by scurrymacleod View Post
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.
Added Chapter 29 to The Shadows Fall
"Your only hope to survive is to give in to the rage boiling within you, to acknowledge the Dark Side you deny, and tap into it!"--Darth Tyranus

dark_wolf's Avatar


dark_wolf
02.16.2013 , 11:27 PM | #14
Quote: Originally Posted by Aurbere View Post
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.

Aurbere's Avatar


Aurbere
02.17.2013 , 12:02 AM | #15
Quote: Originally Posted by dark_wolf View Post
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.
Added Chapter 29 to The Shadows Fall
"Your only hope to survive is to give in to the rage boiling within you, to acknowledge the Dark Side you deny, and tap into it!"--Darth Tyranus

Zardac_the_Great's Avatar


Zardac_the_Great
02.17.2013 , 12:54 AM | #16
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.

Master-A's Avatar


Master-A
02.17.2013 , 04:59 AM | #17
Quote: Originally Posted by Beniboybling View Post
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?
The Progenitor

Beniboybling's Avatar


Beniboybling
02.17.2013 , 05:07 AM | #18
Quote: Originally Posted by Spartanik View Post
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.

Master-A's Avatar


Master-A
02.17.2013 , 05:17 AM | #19
Spoiler


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
The Progenitor

Beniboybling's Avatar


Beniboybling
02.17.2013 , 05:45 AM | #20
Quote: Originally Posted by Master-A View Post
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.

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.