the Sith Rule of Two Is Stupid

[Set Harth]

I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and yell "lalalala, the Jedi are stupid, Lucas is stupid, I'm smart because I know the ending!"

Fixed.

hundreds of SENATORS are now under the influence of a Sith Lord called Darth Sidious

Hundreds of real-life Senators/Representatives are under the influence of various persons/entities... all of whom are apparently the US President in disguise. By your logic, that is. No one other than the President has the power to influence them.

Palpatine's manipulations couldn't have been more obvious during the trilogy.

Being a power-hungry politician does not mean that one is necessarily in league with the enemy.

 

[Mysterion]

Okay. Been away from SW for awhile, so this might be a dumb question, but bear with me for a moment.

All Sith are alinged with the Dark Side of the Force, right? But, is everyone who uses the Dark Side a Sith?

 

[6079SmithW]

At any rate, back to the original topic, I get that the Sith were supposed to use cunning rather than brute force to eventually seize power, but a two-person cult is inherently fragile and due to the way treachery is a core part of Sith philosophy, it would be wildly unstable.

Think about this example from the PT: Palpatine killed Darth Plagueis IN HIS SLEEP! He didn't prove himself stronger or anything, he just took a cowardly, dishonorable way out because he has no principles other than power.

Palpatine was not cowardly and did prove himself stronger: His master showed weakness by letting his guard down in sleep.
Even Jedi keep a part of their mind awake while sleeping to alert them to danger.
Plaguise was showing weakness by not being aware, therefore he was weak and no longer worthy of lordship.

As for dishonor, to quote Darth Bane, the Rule of Two founder, "Honor is for fools." The Rule of Two follows the logic, "If I am able to kill my master (in any way at any time), then my master is weak and unfit for lordship."

Now let me ask you: how do you form a teacher/student relationship when both sides by their nature play by no rules other than a selfish desire for power? There's no trust or loyalty established, and you don't even have to announce your intentions when it's time to challenge!

Trust and loyalty are Jedi traits. The apprentice serves only one purpose in the mind of the master, to carry on his legacy. Likewise, the master serves only one purpose to the apprentice, to be a source of knowledge from which to learn from and gain personal power.

Once the apprentice has learned all they can, the master is discarded as he is no longer useful and an obstacle to personal power.


You don't have to announce your intentions because a true sith master is always on guard, expecting the betrayal. Once they let their guard down, they prove themselves unworthy of the title.

What if you're practicing lightsaber techniques, and your Sith master says "OK, fight's over, good job," so you lower your lightsaber and he uses that opportunity to cut you down where you stand?

They would not do that. A master wants the apprentice to succeed in order to carry on his legacy. Even if they did do that, it would prove that the apprentice was unworthy because they let their guard down and were unaware, as I have said before.

Keeping your guard up 24/7 is a core principal to the Rule of Two. Its what makes the rule functional.

See what I mean? And yet Dooku in ROTS and Palpy in ROTJ are both SHOCKED when they're betrayed! Why? Both should've been like, "oh well, that's the way our stupid order works."
See why I say no group could work like this? The Sith are morons.

Darth Bane was many things but he was never proud nor did he let hubris hinder him. Pride, arrogance, and hubris were major sins in Bane's view and Palpy embraced these attributes.

One could say that the reason Palpy's reign only lasted 40 years after 1000 years of planning is because he abandoned these principles and got full of himself, thereby tainting the Rule of Two.

You should read the Darth Bane trilogy it explains this stuff better then I can.

 

[6079SmithW]

Okay. Been away from SW for awhile, so this might be a dumb question, but bear with me for a moment.

All Sith are alinged with the Dark Side of the Force, right? But, is everyone who uses the Dark Side a Sith?

No. After the Rule of Two is established, only the master and apprentice are considered real Sith, but there are many other lesser darkside organizations who keep to themselves. I think a key component to being considered a Sith is a desire to conquer the Republic and destroy the Jedi.

 

[sonak]

At any rate, back to the original topic, I get that the Sith were supposed to use cunning rather than brute force to eventually seize power, but a two-person cult is inherently fragile and due to the way treachery is a core part of Sith philosophy, it would be wildly unstable.

Think about this example from the PT: Palpatine killed Darth Plagueis IN HIS SLEEP! He didn't prove himself stronger or anything, he just took a cowardly, dishonorable way out because he has no principles other than power.

Palpatine was not cowardly and did prove himself stronger: His master showed weakness by letting his guard down in sleep.
Even Jedi keep a part of their mind awake while sleeping to alert them to danger.
Plaguise was showing weakness by not being aware, therefore he was weak and no longer worthy of lordship.

As for dishonor, to quote Darth Bane, the Rule of Two founder, "Honor is for fools." The Rule of Two follows the logic, "If I am able to kill my master (in any way at any time), then my master is weak and unfit for lordship."

Now let me ask you: how do you form a teacher/student relationship when both sides by their nature play by no rules other than a selfish desire for power? There's no trust or loyalty established, and you don't even have to announce your intentions when it's time to challenge!

Trust and loyalty are Jedi traits. The apprentice serves only one purpose in the mind of the master, to carry on his legacy. Likewise, the master serves only one purpose to the apprentice, to be a source of knowledge from which to learn from and gain personal power.

Once the apprentice has learned all they can, the master is discarded as he is no longer useful and an obstacle to personal power.


You don't have to announce your intentions because a true sith master is always on guard, expecting the betrayal. Once they let their guard down, they prove themselves unworthy of the title.

What if you're practicing lightsaber techniques, and your Sith master says "OK, fight's over, good job," so you lower your lightsaber and he uses that opportunity to cut you down where you stand?

They would not do that. A master wants the apprentice to succeed in order to carry on his legacy. Even if they did do that, it would prove that the apprentice was unworthy because they let their guard down and were unaware, as I have said before.

Keeping your guard up 24/7 is a core principal to the Rule of Two. Its what makes the rule functional.

See what I mean? And yet Dooku in ROTS and Palpy in ROTJ are both SHOCKED when they're betrayed! Why? Both should've been like, "oh well, that's the way our stupid order works."
See why I say no group could work like this? The Sith are morons.

Darth Bane was many things but he was never proud nor did he let hubris hinder him. Pride, arrogance, and hubris were major sins in Bane's view and Palpy embraced these attributes.

One could say that the reason Palpy's reign only lasted 40 years after 1000 years of planning is because he abandoned these principles and got full of himself, thereby tainting the Rule of Two.

You should read the Darth Bane trilogy it explains this stuff better then I can.

I have read the trilogy and found it to be enjoyable, but the sith "philosophy" is still b.s. and here's why:


1. the view that if you win or succeed you're obviously stronger is nonsense, in that it excludes all kinds of other factors, such as luck, or even external factors having nothing to do with the winner's skill.

For example, in sports it's common for a team that is not necessarily BETTER than another team to win due to poor officiating, the lucky bounce of a ball, playing conditions that day(for American Football), etc.

If you wanted to analyze "why did team X win?" and someone said "because they're the stronger team obviously, since they won" that's a dumb and circular answer.

Just because Palpy killed his master in his sleep doesn't mean he could've taken him in a straight-on contest.


2. Either the Sith should be purely selfish, caring only for their own power, in which case they wouldn't want to bother with this "rule of two" teacher/student thing, and wouldn't care about some stupid Jedi/Sith feud,

OR they should care about Sith ideology and success and revenge against the Jedi ABOVE their own selfishness in which case they should quit with the internal rivalry stuff, and unite to take on the Jedi(which they could still use secrecy to do as long as they kept their numbers somewhat low and stayed out of the public view)


the rule of two wants it BOTH ways, where they're still loyal to Sith philosophy and out for revenge yet supposed to be selfishly pursuing their own power.



And beyond this, I still say that a teacher/student relationship that's based around constant wariness over betrayal wouldn't really work.

 

[Set Harth]

Once the apprentice has learned all they can, the master is discarded as he is no longer useful and an obstacle to personal power.

Furthermore, it was said that Plagueis lost his power.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

See what I mean? And yet Dooku in ROTS and Palpy in ROTJ are both SHOCKED when they're betrayed! Why? Both should've been like, "oh well, that's the way our stupid order works."

If you've been watching TCW, Ventress was shocked at being betrayed, too. But was Palps shocked, though? I always found him pretty blase about everything (and that's how a Sith should be).

It's possible for a two-person cult to be very stable, in fact, more stable than if you added more people to the mix, but they'd have to be maniacally loyal to each other. And if that's the route to stable power, then why wouldn't they be loyal? How is another question, but that can be finessed. Some kind of telepathic connection via being the only two Sith in existence (focuses the power vs spread out among thousands of Jedi, something along those lines).

Like a lot of stuff in the PT, it could have worked if it had gone thru a few more drafts.

2. Either the Sith should be purely selfish, caring only for their own power, in which case they wouldn't want to bother with this "rule of two" teacher/student thing, and wouldn't care about some stupid Jedi/Sith feud,

OR they should care about Sith ideology and success and revenge against the Jedi ABOVE their own selfishness in which case they should quit with the internal rivalry stuff, and unite to take on the Jedi(which they could still use secrecy to do as long as they kept their numbers somewhat low and stayed out of the public view)

Yeah you've id'ed the essential problem. The Sith need to be thought thru more carefully so that they can be rewritten to be more plausible. Selfishness is a big handicap, so why do the Sith allow themselves to be handicapped? And if it's because the Dark Side just makes you selfish (or you need to be selfish to tap into it), then how do they overcome that handicap to beat the Jedi (without the Jedi being written as morons, which is the "solution" the PT uses).

The problem is that trust, loyalty and group cohesion aren't "good" things so much as "powerful" things. When used for evil ends, they become evil, and they are often used for evil because they are powerful. The Nazis were very good at generating trust, loyalty and group cohesion (to the point of eliciting suicidal self-sacrifice from their followers). You also have examples today of terrorists using suicide tactics for evil philosophies (apart from murdering people being evil in and of itself.)

Why don't the Sith do likewise, developing legions of followers so loyal they will die for the Sith? Not pathetic robots - real people. It would make them more impressive as foes, not less. The Sith at least have to come up to the level of evil we're familiar with in history and current events! How can we take them seriously otherwise?

And whatever happens, all Sith must STOP being shocked at being stabbed in the back! It just makes them look like idiots.

 

[JoeZhang]

How do you have an 'order' with two people? What happens if their ship crashes and they both die?

 

[Jack Bauer]

I don't think that the Sith travel together for that very reason. The President and Vice President of the US never fly together either. You don't want your leadership wiped out all at once.

 

[Tom]

As for Telepathic connection, Palps did sense Vader was in danger in ROTS.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Yeah something like that, but make it strong enough that they wouldn't want to betray each other, or even more interestingly, wouldn't want to, because it would be too much like betraying yourself.

Or just make it one Sith only, at the head of a large contingent of fanatically loyal followers.

 

[6079SmithW]

^ In the post-ROTJ EU this is what happens. Darth Krayt declares the Rule of One, with him being the One. All the rest of the sith consider themselves to be a mere extension of Krayt's will, and have little individuality of their own. At least that;'s my understanding.

 

[DarKush]

Sonak,

You bought up some interesting questions but who's fault is it that the Jedi didn't sufficiently challenge Palpatine? Certainly not his. And as I posted before the Jedi were suspicious of him (at least Mace, Yoda, and Obi Wan were). Just because he took advantage of the Clone Wars doesn't tie to him starting them. It could just be chalked up to his opportunism.

And certainly most people wouldn't think that a guy would have his own planet blockaded and his people attacked. Though the books don't "really" count, at least they did establish that the Jedi suspected that Sidious was probably in Palpatine's inner circle, though not Palpatine. I gathered that they suspected that Palpatine was being used too. I wish the books had done a better job of coming up with a suspect or patsy.

As for the other Sith Lord, why should Obi Wan necessarily believe Dooku? Of course the movies pretty much went with that, and so did the books, setting up a hunt for Sidious in Labyrinth of Evil, the book that was supposed to be the official lead into the Clone Wars. However, Palpatine's kidnapping were contradicted by the second volume of the Clone Wars microseries. It could stand to reason perhaps that Dooku was the other Sith Lord mentioned in TPM. I mean, Dooku undercut his argument as soon as he brandished a red lightsaber. If anything, I wish that Dooku actually had been a 'dark' Jedi who turned against the Republic because of Sidious's hold. I think it would've made his arc more compelling, that he was right after all. But as it stands, that scene were he tries to convert Obi Wan on Geonosis didn't make much sense, in light of his mustache twirling a few scenes later.

One of the problems with the Jedi, and I blame GL more for this, is that they didn't question. IMO, they felt their duty was to protect the Republic period, and did that by leading the Clone Wars. They didn't seem to be reaching out to the Separatists, and GL made this harder because he stacked their ruling council with the Trade Federation and other shady types, and then had it headed by Dooku. I wish there had been more ambiguity there. The EU provides for some of that. A lot of the Jedi's actions or inactions were plot driven, but perhaps not organic, and it made the Jedi look like dupes and to some extent callous.

Even in the ROTS novelization, and echoed by the movie, Mace and the Jedi sending a hit squad to arrest/take out the elected leader of the Republic was another sign of showing how they had been outfoxed, and how their negligence had forced them to make a dictatorial decision in their own rights. Who were they to remove Palpatine? Just because he was a Sith? Because of his religion? Because of things that other Sith had done over a thousand years ago? There was no proof, at that time, that Palpatine had engineered the wars. Anakin was perfectly within his rights to protect the lawfully elected leader of the Republic against an assassination attempt.

I do wish those scenes had been done differently and not made the Jedi look like they were orchestrating a junta, which played right into Palpatine's hands and actually gave that charge credibility. In the book, he recorded the exchange and played a highly edited version of it to the Senate to get them to elect him Emperor. It's hinted at in the movie, in that big speech he makes before he's crowned.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

You bought up some interesting questions but who's fault is it that the Jedi didn't sufficiently challenge Palpatine? Certainly not his.

I don't think anyone is blaming Palps - poor guy is just a fictional character! We're blaming George Lucas! (At least I am.)

A story that is so blatantly contrived to get the outcome the writer wants is a poorly written story. A good story feels organic and natural - "yes, I can see how it would happen that way." And it's important that both heroes and villains operate at the peak of their abilities. Stupid characters don't work in drama - comedy, yes, but in drama, they are annoying and simply elicit contempt. If the stakes are high, intelligent characters should be pulling out all the stops to win, using every ounce of brains that they possess.

Of course this requires the writer have brains as well, and to apply them in figuring out what each side does, and how they counter the other side. Writing a good story is like grandmaster chess where the writer is playing both sides. The PT is more like tic-tac-toe.

These are all just basics of good writing, the sorts of things that professional writers shouldn't be getting wrong. Lucas' problem is that he doesn't have anyone with the balls to tell him that he's fucking up badly. Most people have bosses, editors, etc to do that.

One of the problems with the Jedi, and I blame GL more for this, is that they didn't question. IMO, they felt their duty was to protect the Republic period, and did that by leading the Clone Wars. They didn't seem to be reaching out to the Separatists, and GL made this harder because he stacked their ruling council with the Trade Federation and other shady types, and then had it headed by Dooku. I wish there had been more ambiguity there. The EU provides for some of that. A lot of the Jedi's actions or inactions were plot driven, but perhaps not organic, and it made the Jedi look like dupes and to some extent callous.

Even in the ROTS novelization, and echoed by the movie, Mace and the Jedi sending a hit squad to arrest/take out the elected leader of the Republic was another sign of showing how they had been outfoxed, and how their negligence had forced them to make a dictatorial decision in their own rights.

Those are good examples of how the Jedi weren't operating at the peak of their abilities. They have enormous power, are in control of the military and diplomacy, yet seem to think with their lightsabers almost exclusively. They don't demonstrate critical, savvy thinking or even creative thinking. They don't seem to have any sort of political skills at all (that would have stopped them from blundering into looking like a junta for example.)

Maybe this is because they are a dysfunctional organization who train younglings to think of every problem as solvable via lightsaber, but the PT didn't seem to want us to think of the Jedi that way, and I'm not getting that sense from TCW either, that the whole thing is a terrible tragedy because the Jedi are waaaay in over their heads and everyone else is too complacent to pull them off the job and get themselves a real military before it's too late.

Who were they to remove Palpatine? Just because he was a Sith? Because of his religion?

And that's another question - are Jedism and Sithism actual religions? It would be fascinating if they were, and there seem to be no other religions that I've much noticed.

 

[Set Harth]

But was Palps shocked, though?

Actually, he was the one doing the shocking. Ironic, eh?

Who were they to remove Palpatine? Just because he was a Sith?

You've got to be kidding. Not only just a Sith - the Sith. "The one we've been looking for". Who they know to be involved with the Separatists. Who belongs to an order which the Jedi hope to see destroyed.

Because of his religion?

Yeah, that's what it is - religious oppression.

Congratulations, you've bought into Stover's version of Palpatine's in-universe spin! With thunderous applause.

Because of things that other Sith had done over a thousand years ago?

I'm not like those other Sith! I'm a newfangled nice Sith!

I'm not going to turn into the Lizard anymore, Peter! I'm all better now!

I'm really gonna let you kick the football this time! Trust me!

There was no proof, at that time, that Palpatine had engineered the wars.

You're actually arguing against Jedi action in this instance? So the Jedi should have been so mindlessly bound to the letter of Republic law that in the event a Sith took over the government, they would have been powerless to do anything? You forget that though they have become attached to the Republic, the Jedi's overarching duty is to the Force. It is a moral rather than a legal one. Furthermore, given that the Jedi know the Sith are in league with the Separatists, if Palpatine is the Dark Lord then it does indeed mean that he is working both sides of the conflict. That constitutes treason against the lawful Republic and the Jedi have every right to arrest him.

 

[DarKush]

Temis,

With Palpatine I was speaking of the audience blaming the character. I was trying to say that the burden was on the Jedi to prove Palpatine was crooked. He wasn't going to help them do that. They came close, but by the time they put it all together, it was too late. Plus, there was nothing stopping the Jedi from working with friendly Senators like Organa, Padme, etc. to form a stronger opposition if they felt Palpatine was overreaching. If not the 'official' Jedi, some individuals. I would think even one accomplished Jedi's opinion would carry some weight.

I think a lot of that behavior you're describing came from the complacency of the Jedi. They had stagnated, and to GL's credit, he did throw in a line in either AOTC or ROTS were Mace (I think) suggested that the Jedi Council tell the Senate about their diminishing ability to sense the Force or something. Also Yoda warned about the shroud of the dark side falling at the end of AOTC. The Jedi had their own secrets and didn't want to lose their power or position by admitting that they weren't up to full strength. Ironic since they were telling Anakin to let go attachment. Yet they were also too attached to the Republic to see that it had become, or was becoming, anti-democratic. Also, I think they were too tied to their big fancy Temple and the perks of being a Jedi. Guys like Dooku and Jorus C'baoth (from the EU) were just more honest about it IMO.

To me the Jedi should've tried to play the role of peacemaker more, which unfortunately would've made both the Republic and the Seps view them with suspicion, setting up their eventual fall because they would have no strong support from either side. I wish it had been more like the Jedi in the KOTOR comic where most of them stayed out of the Mandolarian conflict except the forces being gathered by Revan and Malak. I could easily see an impetuous Anakin breaking ranks with the more staid Obi Wan over the question of whether to get involved in the conflict. I think it would've made their schism feel more weighty than what we got, but that's just one fan's speculation.

I think it's debatable if the Jedi and Sith are religious orders though I think both have trappings of religious orders, with the robes, the temples, etc. Tarkin also referred to Vader's 'religion' in ANH.

 

[Set Harth]

Plus, there was nothing stopping the Jedi from working with friendly Senators like Organa, Padme, etc.

Who were completely outnumbered and, as we see, unable to stop Palpatine from declaring himself Emperor.

I wish it had been more like the Jedi in the KOTOR comic where most of them stayed out of the Mandolarian conflict except the forces being gathered by Revan and Malak.

And we saw how well that turned out.

 

[Gepard]

yet seem to think with their lightsabers almost exclusively.

Yeah, I've heard men do that.


Thank you! I'll be here all week!

 

[6079SmithW]

^In KOTOR 2 Kreia has a line hinting at the male jedi obsession with the phallic lightsaber. lol

 

[Temis the Vorta]

With Palpatine I was speaking of the audience blaming the character.

Nobody should blame the character. Palps was doing what a good fictional character should do: he had a goal and he was doing his utmost to achieve it. I only wish the Jedi had been allowed to do likewise.

I was trying to say that the burden was on the Jedi to prove Palpatine was crooked.

Of course, since he's the villain and isn't going to give the Jedi any help.

None of that is the problem. The problem is in how the Jedi were written. They were being held back by the writer from being as competent as people in their positions should be. Certainly they weren't as competent as fictional characters should be. I don't want to watch a drama about stupid characters.

I think a lot of that behavior you're describing came from the complacency of the Jedi.

I think it came from the incompetence of George Lucas. The complacency of the Jedi is just one of about half a billion things in the PT that were so ineptly communicated that it's impossible to figure out what the intent was.

This is like the idea of the corrupt Republic - is it corrupt beyond redemption, or is it salvageable? We don't know, based on the movies, but it's important because if the Republic is irredeemably corrupt, then the Jedi are fools for blindly defending it, rather than stopping to wonder if the Separatists are right.

Another inarticulate but vital point: Anakin's anti-democracy rant. Based on what he knows and has seen, does he have a good reason for that viewpoint? Or is it a symptom of his mental instability? Depending on what the answer is, the interpretation of the entire story changes.

If Lucas meant the story to include complacent Jedi, he needed to communicate that. It's not my job to figure out what his inarticulate writing and directing means. It's his job to write and direct in a way that gets across whatever the frak it is that he wants to get across. I'm not even certain he'd thought things through well enough that he had any more than a quarter-baked story to tell.

Once again: he needed to write more drafts, LOTS more drafts. The story wasn't nearly formed when he started filming. Really, he just needed to hand off the writing and directing to more competent people.

and to GL's credit, he did throw in a line in either AOTC or ROTS were Mace (I think) suggested that the Jedi Council tell the Senate about their diminishing ability to sense the Force or something.

I didn't at all get "complacency" out of that line. I thought Palps was clouding the Force or something like that. They seemed to be very concerned about this development. Complacent people wouldn't care.

The Jedi had their own secrets and didn't want to lose their power or position by admitting that they weren't up to full strength. Ironic since they were telling Anakin to let go attachment. Yet they were also too attached to the Republic to see that it had become, or was becoming, anti-democratic. Also, I think they were too tied to their big fancy Temple and the perks of being a Jedi. Guys like Dooku and Jorus C'baoth (from the EU) were just more honest about it IMO.

That wasn't what the movie was about, but it might have been interesting if it had been, for the Jedi to be depicted as being too power-hungry and hypocritical to actually do what was right for the Republic, namely lay down their lightsabers and insist that the Senate go form a real military, which they should have done long ago. The Jedi were never seriously depicted as anything but good, noble and right, in contrast to the cartoonishly evil Sith.

To me the Jedi should've tried to play the role of peacemaker more, which unfortunately would've made both the Republic and the Seps view them with suspicion, setting up their eventual fall because they would have no strong support from either side.

They needed to develop support. The TCW retcon of the Separatists as at least partly people who could be reasoned with opens up this possibility. In the movies, the Seppys were just flat out evil and mercenary, so any attempt to negotiate with them would have been foolish.