Okay, I've loved the whole saga my entire life, and a question popped into my head...hopefully there can be some good discussions out of it.

We all know the whole "Rule Of Two" among the Sith -- one is the master, one is the apprentice. There also seems to be the Betrayal of Opportunity among the Sith as well....where one kills the other, whether it be out of necessity or power grab or whatever....

Which leads me to this question -- at the of Revenge Of The Sith, why didn't Palpatine kill Vader? Why the need to keep Vader alive? He went through all of the trouble of "reassembling" him into the mechanical Vader that we all know and love. Vader obviously can't summon Sith Lightning due to robotic limbs. By all accounts, Vader was a scarred and broken man. Why the need? (Other than, obviously -- "because it wouldn't be a PREQUEL!")

After playing Dark Side since the game release, I've seen a pattern of Dark Side behavior, and that question came up in my mind. I was just curious, it seems like a contradiction in Sith behavior to me.

can doesnt mean will.

Just because the Sith culture allows murder as a means of progression and culling off the weak doesn't mean they go around looking for every opportunity to off their own. They are still a Lawful society they have a common goal and they do work together, the motives may be purely selfish but group work is often the best way to get what you want. think about raiding for loot rather than to hang out with friends.

you see sith killing each other in books/movies/game because it makes great drama. like jedi's blowing up death stars. doesn't mean its actually a normal day to day occurrence for the majority.

Anarkin had potential for being the most powerful jedi of all time. plus with his many flaws he was extremely easy for palpatine to manipulate and position. he would of made a very useful right hand (and did) Sith will kill a competitor for safety or a weakling for pleasure but not a valuable useful resource.

That is true. It's assumed that Order 66 wiped out the entire Jedi Order, so Palpatine probably thought there were no other Jedi to corrupt. That's a possibility.

No. Some Jedi survived after. Even masters. Vader and Marek killed just about all of them, however. The problem is that Vader, even crippled, was still fare more powerful than any Jedi in the current age. There was simply no one better to replace him with.

No. Some Jedi survived after. Even masters. Vader and Marek killed just about all of them, however. The problem is that Vader, even crippled, was still fare more powerful than any Jedi in the current age. There was simply no one better to replace him with.

Precisely, and to add to that, perhaps Sidious didn't want an apprentice that could truly challenge his power, this being Shrimpious after all.

The whole "Rule of Two" Concept is meant for the Sith master to find someone who they thought would eventually overcome him. While it's true, a master will extend his life by picking a feeble creature as an apprentice, it does not benefit the Sith as a whole.

By Recruiting someone who inevitably you think will best you, and then the process repeating ensures that the Sith leadership becomes stronger and stronger.

That's how it's supposed to work at least - the Sith ways tend to be rather...dynamic.