COMMUNITY

Just what the thread says. I've recently finished reading the rule of two hardcover, and have put a little thought into what I've learned. And my thoughts keep leading back to this: The rule of two used by the Sith as defined by Bioware would not be effective in any way. The principal conceit of the rule (As defined by Bioware), is that in order for one Sith Lord to become a master of their order, they have to personally execute the master who trained them. The reason I keep going back to "as defined by Bioware" is that Bioware was the game company that originally added the premise to lore that the Apprentice is required to kill the master. No where else was it stated beforehand that Sith Lords promoted through murder. This was a concept that was specifically created for the game Knights of the Old Republic as a plot point that justified Malak attempting to kill Revan in order to claim his title. At the time, it was a really interesting concept, but to me, the idea just doesn't age well. And yet it now dominates Sith Lore. My question is: why?

The original concept of the rule of two as defined by Lucas was that the Sith were originally the counterpoint to the Jedi, but they destroyed themselves through in-fighting. Darth Bane came along and decided that the only way the Sith could survive each other was by keeping their numbers paired down to two. One Master, One apprentice, and no others to share the power with. ((That's from the Phantom menace Hardcover.)) Now two Dark Lords working alongside each other to eventually destroy the Republic, this I can believe. It takes a certain level of trust, and competence to work from the shadows, right? Nowhere does it mention that these shadowy Sith Masters were traditionally whittled down by their apprentices. How exactly would that be an effective means of continuing their line? The continual distrust of the master, and fear of failure on behalf of the Apprentice would certainly guarantee a highly stressful working enviornment fraught with tension. It makes it difficult to believe that there was a centralized plan on behalf of the Sith to one day retake the Galaxy if the leaders were constantly being taken out by their students.

The only time the films ever make reference to a Master dying at the hands of the Apprentice was Palpatine's off the cuff mention of killing Plagueis in his sleep, and Vader's occasionally expressed plan to overthrow Palpatine with one of his family members. Otherwise that's pretty much it. It was never stated that Vader was supposed to kill Sideous. And if Vader had done this, how precisely would control of the Empire have been passed down to him? He would have been executed as a Traitor, not promoted to Emperor. So how could the Sith order survive for centuries without real trust? Does anyone really think a religious Knighthood based exclusively on Darwinian paranoia could last as long as it did if the patricidal concept was strictly enforced at all times?

About to get hammered with posts...have fun defending.

No, they aren't. It was the novelized version of The Phantom Menace that added the Rule of Two by name and the OT originally introduced it (without mentioning it) in ESB and again in RotJ. Hell if you want I'll even scan the exact page of my The Darkside Sourcebook where the Rule of Two is mentioned, but Bioware is not the original architect of the practice.

I said the rule of two "as defined by Bioware." I didn't say Bioware created the rule of two, only that they added the concept of "killing Exclusively* to promote." None of the movies ever mention this idea.

*Edited for clarity. 12/19/09

No they didn't, the sources I gave are the originators of that concept.

Do it. It wasn't mentioned in Kevin Andersons Jedi trilogy, The Sith War comic, or the EU in general until a few years ago.

Yer, lol.

There are only ever two, a master and an apprentice. For said apprentice to succeed his master, logic entails that he must kill his Master, and take on another to keep the rule of two in tact.

And actually, rule of two in terms of killing master/apprentice or keeping it in tact was held true in RoTJ.

And I quote from Sidious. [May be inaccurate, memory is a bit fuzzy.]

"Kill your father and take your place by my side."

Why not just say...

"zomg we shud have triumvirate."

In other words, the idea of one master, one apprentice in terms of ideology was around in the 70's.

It was the same trick he did in ROTS. Convert the good guy into a bad guy by making him into a murderer. Ruthless? Sure. Standard Practice? Maybe if you're already running the show like Palpatine was in both films. How does that help them survive for centuries though? I'm talking in the time before the sith had control of the Republic, and later the Empire. When they were underground. ROTJ was an 'eighties film, by the way.

I'm not agreeing with the rule of two, simply agreeing that Bioware did not father the ideology of killing your master to become his successor.

Edit: His purpose for conversion was also relevant to said murderer becoming a potential apprentice. Just like Starkiller.

I do agree with you in that regard, Bioware did not create the concept of The sith killing one another opportunistically. However, Bioware was the company that implicitly stated that killing your master Was the core rule. They were the ones who said that the sith were supposed to be doing this. And I just don't see how that works. I mean obviously it does lead to Palpatine eventually taking over the Republic. But it couldn't have been conducted this way at all times, could it? Eventually they would have had to reach a point on the road to conquest where they would have had to actually trust each other, right? How effective could their campaign be if they were dropping each other every chance they got?