Having recently finished the Darth bane trilogy, it got me wondering that Palpatine slitting his masters throat in is his sleep is exactly the the the rule of two was made to stop, then by having several Emperors Hands also breaking the two part.

If you read the Darth Plagueis novel, it goes into at least some detail on the history of Banite Sith, and you'll find that the rule of two is, let's just say, bent frequently.

Sith Lords (generally) aren't stupid enough to rely on the trustworthiness of apprentices who 'say' they won't hire on an apprentice of their own to team up against the master. Darth Tenebrous even had a "backup" apprentice, in case Plagueis screwed up.

As for Plagueis's death, though, there's really nothing in the rule of two that says you can't kill your master in his sleep. It might be seen as cowardly, or just as opportunistic, but it does the job.

Having recently finished the Darth bane trilogy, it got me wondering that Palpatine slitting his masters throat in is his sleep is exactly the the the rule of two was made to stop, then by having several Emperors Hands also breaking the two part.

No, actually Palpatine didn't. He had only Vader as a TRUE sith. It was Palp and Vader. The rest were merely dark side users like the Emperor's hands, or Inquisitors or Dark Side Devotees.

So infact he did not break the rule of two.

No, actually Palpatine didn't. He had only Vader as a TRUE sith. It was Palp and Vader. The rest were merely dark side users like the Emperor's hands, or Inquisitors or Dark Side Devotees.

 

So infact he did not break the rule of two.

that was only a secondary point the main idea of the rule of two was that when the apprentice was ready he/she will duel their master to the death so only the strongest shall will become or sty as master, instead of killing plaguis this way he slit his throat in his sleep what was exactly one of the things darth bne wanted to stop

By the near end of the Rule of Two, it had become pretty much redundant. Tenebrous and Plagueis didn't think they needed the Rule anymore and I doubt Sidious much cared for it as he was intent on establishing his own Rule of One.

Rule of one?

By the near end of the Rule of Two, it had become pretty much redundant. Tenebrous and Plagueis didn't think they needed the Rule anymore and I doubt Sidious much cared for it as he was intent on establishing his own Rule of One.

That was Darth Krayt that established the Rule of One. Fairly successful, but he suffered from the same pitfalls as previous Sith Empires.

Palpatine did as Bane would have wanted. He said that the Sith will have to rely on cunning and deceit. Palpatine used those tools to lay Plagueis low. Plagueis was a fool to think that Palpatine would remain his underling.

Bane: The mantle must be earned. You wanted to wait, to take it by default.

Zannah: Your taught me patience, you taught me to bide my time.

Bane: Not in this! Only the strongest has the right to rule the Sith! The title of Dark Lord must be seized, wrenched from the all-powerful grasp of the Master!

Using deception and cunning to take Plagueis down was a direct violation of the Rule of Two.

What Darth Krayt establishing.

Darth Sidious's doctrine was conceived to replace the Rule of Two, a doctrine he considered to have fulfilled its purpose by placing him in power, his Rule of One first proposed in his writing Absolute Power, in which the Sith would be embodied by a sole reigning Dark Lord—Sidious himself—who would live forever as Emperor of the galaxy with no need to train a replacement, only capable executioners of his will talented in the Force as dark side agents. These agents learned a smattering of Palpatine's abilities, and did not even take a fraction of his authority. Although officially, it resembled Darth Bane's Rule of Two in terms of apprentices and the punishment thereof regarding violating that rule, it was in reality completely different, as there was no chance of succession for his Sith apprentices.

And to quote the Book of Anger in Absolute Power:

As Darth Bane instituted the Rule of Two, so I will begin the Rule of One. The Sith will now be sustained by one - one to hold the power and others, talented in the Force, to execute my will as dark side agents.

Palpatine was likely so confident in his own ability that he didn't feel the need to prove himself against his Master, and simply cast him aside when he was no longer needed. This also likely accounts for his attempts to control Vader, how he didn't hesistate to cripple Marek (DS ending) and kill Luke Skywalker.

Whether Bane would have advocated the Rule of One is a different question.

Remember what Bane said to Zannah though:

 

Bane: The mantle must be earned. You wanted to wait, to take it by default.

 

Zannah: Your taught me patience, you taught me to bide my time.

 

Bane: Not in this! Only the strongest has the right to rule the Sith! The title of Dark Lord must be seized, wrenched from the all-powerful grasp of the Master!

 

Using deception and cunning to take Plagueis down was a direct violation of the Rule of Two.

He took advantage of Plagueis' weakness. Maybe he went about it wrong, but we know that he was more powerful than Plagueis was. Call it risk management.

The Rule of Two had already gone out of style by then, too. Plagueis wasn't exactly a proponent of it, at least, the part about him getting killed.

I

As for Plagueis's death, though, there's really nothing in the rule of two that says you can't kill your master in his sleep. It might be seen as cowardly, or just as opportunistic, but it does the job.

was more manly than malak at least palpatine got up close to do it rather than shoot from afar.

As for the hands and such they were never trained much as a result they were not really sith just well trained force sensitives.

was more manly than malak at least palpatine got up close to do it rather than shoot from afar.

 

As for the hands and such they were never trained much as a result they were not really sith just well trained force sensitives.

malak was before the rule of two though

malak was before the rule of two though

my point was simply that palpatines actions were sith like than malak, he was afraid to do the work up close.

I thought i remember reading somewhere to say that cunning and treachery was its own strength and if the master couldn't defend against the apprentices schemes and even going so far as to kill them in their sleep was another way to prove that the apprentice was stronger and therefore palpatines master was weaker than good old palpy.

This.

In Malak's case, he definitely was weaker and cowardly, and his brilliant "Imma kill everyone in one shot" plan backfired pretty quickly.

Generally speaking, though, cunning and treachery----or more broadly manipulation with and without the Force, was considered a strength for Sith, before and after the Rule of Two.

"A Sith is not a Bantha, all endurance and no brains".

Plagueis, for all his brilliance, still let himself believe that Sidious would not backstab him.

Those who count on Sidious's loyalty are shooting themselves in the foot.

I think Bane intended that the confrontation between master and apprentice was meant to be face to face, power to power and save the scheming and backstabbing for other things. If the master has to spend the better part of his or her life wary of a cowardly sneak attack or some form of sabotage they cannot spend time growing stronger themselves, leading to weaker Sith cowering in a hole somewhere.

Of course, the whole rule of two is stupidity of the highest order, but I'm not going to delve into that.

Its to my belief and Opinion ,

That Sidious was not that much more powerful than Plagueis and if he decided to fight as Bane ment those who followed his Rule of Two says too , it is likely even with undoubtedly Sidious winning that the fight would have left Sidious Scared or injured to the point the Jedi would become interested in how and why he got that way .

Not to mention the fight itself might have been such a display of power the Veil would have been broken and Yoda at the very least would be aware of the fight and been able to see who was involved .

So Cowardly , maybe not . Maybe it was just to keep things hidden as always .

(To the post about Malak and Revan)

Darth Revan did not practice the Rule of Two really as it was invented by Bane off the Idea he seen Revan and Malak .

Darth Revan only believed that Malak was the only one worthy to be his apprentice and that he only needed 1 .

It is likely if Meetra would have turned to the Darkside she would have been his second Apprentice or even his only .

Malak lost to Revan already and that's why he only seen a point of weakness in Revan having his attention averted towards the Jedi coming to kill him or capture him .

Afterwards Malak grew a ego in which was later squashed when his Master once again beat him .

 

As for Plagueis's death, though, there's really nothing in the rule of two that says you can't kill your master in his sleep. It might be seen as cowardly, or just as opportunistic, but it does the job.

The point of fighting his master in combat is to prove that he is stronger,otherwise the whole idea goes to hell.Killing him in his sleep doesn't prove he is stronger,as an apprentice should be when he kills his master.

I think Bane intended that the confrontation between master and apprentice was meant to be face to face, power to power and save the scheming and backstabbing for other things. If the master has to spend the better part of his or her life wary of a cowardly sneak attack or some form of sabotage they cannot spend time growing stronger themselves, leading to weaker Sith cowering in a hole somewhere.

 

Of course, the whole rule of two is stupidity of the highest order, but I'm not going to delve into that.

Then Bane was a simple minded brute who wouldn't last long in a galaxy with people that were too smart for him to simply over power.

Then Bane was a simple minded brute who wouldn't last long in a galaxy with people that were too smart for him to simply over power.

Clearly you haven't read the Bane Trilogy, because this is at the heart of the Rule of Two. Only when the apprentice grows more powerful than the master can he overthrow him in single combat, to ensure that each generation is stronger than the next. Bane instituted the Rule so that the weak would not overthrow the strong through superior numbers or backstabbing. So no, he was not a brute, he realised the essential flaw in the Sith Order, and fixed it.

It was a jab at his assertion that Bane wouldn't expect treachery and cunning in the Apprentice taking on the Master.

On the subject of Sidious though, he WAS the culmination of the Rule of Two. He destroyed the Jedi Order and established a galactic Sith empire. The entire Rule of Two was leading up to him coming to power, once he was in, he could basically do whatever the hell he wanted.

It was a jab at his assertion that Bane wouldn't expect treachery and cunning in the Apprentice taking on the Master.

 

On the subject of Sidious though, he WAS the culmination of the Rule of Two. He destroyed the Jedi Order and established a galactic Sith empire. The entire Rule of Two was leading up to him coming to power, once he was in, he could basically do whatever the hell he wanted.

Bane: The mantle must be earned. You wanted to wait, to take it by default.

Zannah: Your taught me patience, you taught me to bide my time.

Bane: Not in this! Only the strongest has the right to rule the Sith! The title of Dark Lord must be seized, wrenched from the all-powerful grasp of the Master!

Using treachery and cunning violates the notion that the mantle of Dark Lord must be taken by force. Sidious did not take the mantle from Plagueis by force. And to your second point Bane would retort that if he was truly the pinnacle of the Rule of Two he would be able to prove it by destroying his master in combat.