True, any one of them could...but it kind of defeats the purpose. If Bane did it, for example, then he risks getting killed by either of them at any point, b/c he can't watch them both all the time...and try to keep them from knowing about each other. It obviously takes a real commitment to the plan.

With 1000 years between Bane and Anakin, there is potential for all sorts of "rule" breaking by potential Sith. But I think it's safe to assume by the time Palps shows up they generally kept it to 2 all along the way.

Quote:

---

Between Bane and Palpatine, any Sith Lord could have taken two apprentices at any point if they so wanted. It isn't some kind of absolute.

---

oh, and btw, only Sith deal in absolutes, so it's on brand.

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Well first off I was just joking.

I like the Rule of 2 as well. It's what makes Palpatine's triumph in simulanenously destroying the Jedi and becoming Emperor so bad-ass. It's the work of hundreds of years of work by an ever-changing duo.

---

But Palps didn't really care about the Rule of Two. If the Rule of Two was an absolute rule, Palps trying to get Vader to bring Luke to the Dark Side was handled pretty poorly. Basically, Palps is telling Vader kill me or kill your son. Because the three of us can't exist, if the rule of 2 is an absolute.

I like the Rule of Two, it just needs to function like "Thou shalt not kill" kind of rule. You should follow it unless there is a really good reason why you can't.

Dekker_Lentz said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Well first off I was just joking.

I like the Rule of 2 as well. It's what makes Palpatine's triumph in simulanenously destroying the Jedi and becoming Emperor so bad-ass. It's the work of hundreds of years of work by an ever-changing duo.

---

But Palps didn't really care about the Rule of Two. If the Rule of Two was an absolute rule, Palps trying to get Vader to bring Luke to the Dark Side was handled pretty poorly. Basically, Palps is telling Vader kill me or kill your son. Because the three of us can't exist, if the rule of 2 is an absolute.

I like the Rule of Two, it just needs to function like "Thou shalt not kill" kind of rule. You should follow it unless there is a really good reason why you can't.

---

Regarding the Vader/Luke, thing...Palps had started questioning replacing Vader almost immediately upon finding him all cut up on Mustafar. Now, that might be a Legends thing at this point, but just b/c he was telling Vader to turn Luke doesn't mean he wanted Vader and Luke both. Remember, he connived Dooku into thinking he wanted Anakin killed, when he really manipulated it so Anakin could kill Dooku.

The real problem, that you raise, imo...is that if he had taught Vader about Rule of Two, then Vader wouldn't have tried to convince Palpatine to bring Luke over as a third. He would have just tried to convince Luke by himself.

Another consideration is that once Palpatine "won" and became emperor, he might not have cared about the rule anymore.

Quote:

---

It isn't some kind of absolute.

---

That's not what Obi-Wan says.

Dekker_Lentz said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Well first off I was just joking.

I like the Rule of 2 as well. It's what makes Palpatine's triumph in simulanenously destroying the Jedi and becoming Emperor so bad-ass. It's the work of hundreds of years of work by an ever-changing duo.

---

But Palps didn't really care about the Rule of Two. If the Rule of Two was an absolute rule, Palps trying to get Vader to bring Luke to the Dark Side was handled pretty poorly. Basically, Palps is telling Vader kill me or kill your son. Because the three of us can't exist, if the rule of 2 is an absolute.

I like the Rule of Two, it just needs to function like "Thou shalt not kill" kind of rule. You should follow it unless there is a really good reason why you can't.

---

Dooku had his own apprentice while being one to Palpatine so the Rule of Two was already broken in the prequel era of Star Wars.

Dekker_Lentz said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Well first off I was just joking.

I like the Rule of 2 as well. It's what makes Palpatine's triumph in simulanenously destroying the Jedi and becoming Emperor so bad-ass. It's the work of hundreds of years of work by an ever-changing duo.

---

But Palps didn't really care about the Rule of Two. If the Rule of Two was an absolute rule, Palps trying to get Vader to bring Luke to the Dark Side was handled pretty poorly. Basically, Palps is telling Vader kill me or kill your son. Because the three of us can't exist, if the rule of 2 is an absolute.

I like the Rule of Two, it just needs to function like "Thou shalt not kill" kind of rule. You should follow it unless there is a really good reason why you can't.

---

The Rule of the Two was only in place until the SIth were back in power. That's why they started it in the first place, because the all-out Jedi vs. Sith war had gone bad because the Sith couldn't stop their in-fightinng.

One Palpatine had "won" the war with the Jedi and taken over the galaxy, there was no point doing things in secret anymore. Palpatine was doing the same thing with Vader/Luke that he had done with Dooku/Anakin, convincing this apprentice that the new guy would be a "powerful ally" when he really just meant "I'm going to have him kill you and take your place."

He got what he wanted eventually with Dooku / Anakin and was probably convinced history was well on it's way to repeating itself when Luke was bashing Vader into oblivion over the Leia trash talk.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Quote:

---

It isn't some kind of absolute.

---

That's not what Obi-Wan says.

---

"Only Sith deal in absolutes" is also a really bad line from a world building point of view.

First, the Jedi have an absolute rule in no attachments.

So, I guess they are all Siths then under the view of Obi Wan?

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Dekker_Lentz said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Well first off I was just joking.

I like the Rule of 2 as well. It's what makes Palpatine's triumph in simulanenously destroying the Jedi and becoming Emperor so bad-ass. It's the work of hundreds of years of work by an ever-changing duo.

---

But Palps didn't really care about the Rule of Two. If the Rule of Two was an absolute rule, Palps trying to get Vader to bring Luke to the Dark Side was handled pretty poorly. Basically, Palps is telling Vader kill me or kill your son. Because the three of us can't exist, if the rule of 2 is an absolute.

I like the Rule of Two, it just needs to function like "Thou shalt not kill" kind of rule. You should follow it unless there is a really good reason why you can't.

---

The Rule of the Two was only in place until the SIth were back in power. That's why they started it in the first place, because the all-out Jedi vs. Sith war had gone bad because the Sith couldn't stop their in-fightinng.

One Palpatine had "won" the war with the Jedi and taken over the galaxy, there was no point doing things in secret anymore. Palpatine was doing the same thing with Vader/Luke that he had done with Dooku/Anakin, convincing this apprentice that the new guy would be a "powerful ally" when he really just meant "I'm going to have him kill you and take your place."

He got what he wanted eventually with Dooku / Anakin and was probably convinced history was well on it's way to repeating itself when Luke was bashing Vader into oblivion over the Leia trash talk.

---

There is also the whole Maul not actually dying bit. He is like the Prince Harry of Sith Lords.

In James Luceno's brilliant Darth Plagueis novel, Palpatine really strings Maul along calling him a Darth but having zero intention of ever really making him the SIth heir. I've said it a million times but that book is a must-read for Palpatine fans and people that want a bigger picture of the events leading up to and during The Phantom Menace. I could read it 100 times.

After Maul's fall, he's just another rogue out there with the Force like Komari Vosa until he and his brother Big Bad Guy McGee start teaming up and Sidious whips their asses.

Maul also stopped considering himself a Sith after Phantom Menace

I miss this part of the SW Discussion thread on TexAgs.

As for Dooku, if we're talking about Ventress being his apprentice...I'm not sure it truly counts b/c Palpatine knew and Dooku didn't really mean to make her a true sith

as for Savage Opress, or whatever, that was an apprentice Dooku intended to train up after killing Palpatine and taking over...which is exactly what Rule of Two designed.

The Porkchop Express said:

---

In James Luceno's brilliant Darth Plagueis novel, Palpatine really strings Maul along calling him a Darth but having zero intention of ever really making him the SIth heir. I've said it a million times but that book is a must-read for Palpatine fans and people that want a bigger picture of the events leading up to and during The Phantom Menace. I could read it 100 times.

After Maul's fall, he's just another rogue out there with the Force like Komari Vosa until he and his brother Big Bad Guy McGee start teaming up and Sidious whips their asses.

---

Fair. I haven't read that book. I really need to read it. I stopped religiously reading all the EU after Vector Prime and missed this one.

I did read the Bane trilogy of books because of KOTOR and after I finish Revan will do Darth Plagueis next.

Been on a big SW kick after the brilliance of Andor.

redline248 said:

---

As for Dooku, if we're talking about Ventress being his apprentice...I'm not sure it truly counts b/c Palpatine knew and Dooku didn't really mean to make her a true sith

as for Savage Opress, or whatever, that was an apprentice Dooku intended to train up after killing Palpatine and taking over...which is exactly what Rule of Two designed.

---

This is what I am driving at there are mental exercises about who intends to make who a true Sith and who is using who for what to preserve the integrity of the Rule of Two when it would be far easier to just say it is a guideline.

And when the Sith don't follow it you get the Dooku/Maul/Ventress/Opress/Vader/Palpatine/Inquisitors/Starkiller all infighting each other which is why they try to follow it. It just so happens they can't always due it.

With regards to Palpatine/Vader/Luke, there would never have been three. Vader tried to convince Luke to join him so they could destroy the Emperor and rule the galaxy as father and son. And the Emperor wanted Luke to kill Vader and take his father's place at his side.

Ok I think some of your issue is that its title is "Rule."

Whatever it's called, the main point is that one master devotes almost all of his/her effort into training one apprentice, until such time as they can destroy the jedi. That doesn't mean if the master thinks the apprentice sucks he/she won't start recruiting another one while the first is still alive.

They are still Sith, after all, and the only real thing they care about is their power and how to advance the goal of galactic domination. The apprentice is a means to an end.

Dekker_Lentz said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Quote:

---

It isn't some kind of absolute.

---

That's not what Obi-Wan says.

---

"Only Sith deal in absolutes" is also a really bad line from a world building point of view.

First, the Jedi have an absolute rule in no attachments.

So, I guess they are all Siths then under the view of Obi Wan?

---

Yes, that's the irony and has been a meme for years.

Obi-Wan was one of the greatest Jedi ever and even he couldn't see past a lot of the rigidity of the order.

Kind of makes me wish for a story that dealt with when and how the jedi came up with the no attachment thing

Well more specifically, the joke is that "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" is in fact, an absolute.

As for the no attachments, I did appreciate Obi-Wan's arc in TCW where he falls in love because it gives him flaws and allows for him to be able to understand Anakin's betrayal on a more fundamental level.

By the way, here is the real question...and it's likely muddled b/c of the questions about what is canon and what isn't...

If Bane created the rule of two AFTER the Jedi thought the Sith were extinct...how did the Jedi Council know about it in Phantom Menace?

On another pivot of funny Star Wars things that came about in melding everything together:

But how many people could Yoda be talking about when he says:

"No, there Is another."

I have Leia, Grogu, Ezra, Ashoka, and Kanan's son.

I would like to think Obi-Wan and Yoda discussing the possible candidates like high school football recruits.

And The kid from that game. Cal Krestis?

redline248 said:

---

By the way, here is the real question...and it's likely muddled b/c of the questions about what is canon and what isn't...

If Bane created the rule of two AFTER the Jedi thought the Sith were extinct...how did the Jedi Council know about it in Phantom Menace?

---

Through his holocron which could have been bounced around? Also, 1,000 years is a long time for there to be a straight line. Maybe someone in the chain was captured or washed out and the Jedi found out?

Also I think Bane was created to explain the line in the prequels about there being two?

ChipFTAC01 said:

---

And The kid from that game. Cal Krestis?

---

Good call. Although in theory he could die before Empire?

Also, if Obi Wan knows about Leia and had an adventure with her, then does it seem odd for Yoda to mention her back to him?

Dekker_Lentz said:

---

Also, if Obi Wan knows about Leia and had an adventure with her, then does it seem odd for Yoda to mention her back to him?

---

At the time, Yoda was talking about Luke's long-lost sister, who was NOT Leia.

AliasMan02 said:

---

Dekker_Lentz said:

---

Also, if Obi Wan knows about Leia and had an adventure with her, then does it seem odd for Yoda to mention her back to him?

---

At the time, Yoda was talking about Luke's long-lost sister, who was NOT Leia.

---

Yeah. That is the correct answer that Lucas originally intended. But in universe it isn't it.

Quote:

---

I would like to think Obi-Wan and Yoda discussing the possible candidates like high school football recruits.

---

"His ankles...too skinny they are."

Dekker_Lentz said:

---

Also, if Obi Wan knows about Leia and had an adventure with her, then does it seem odd for Yoda to mention her back to him?

---

That's the thing though, he didn't have an adventure with her.

redline248 said:

---

By the way, here is the real question...and it's likely muddled b/c of the questions about what is canon and what isn't...

If Bane created the rule of two AFTER the Jedi thought the Sith were extinct...how did the Jedi Council know about it in Phantom Menace?

---

It's in a couple of bigger reference type books about a Jedi named Kibh Jeen, who fell to the dark side on some planet with a Sith temple. He killed his master and built up an army not unlike Maul in the Clone Wars era. When the Jedi finally stop him he says the Rule of the Two (one to wield the power, one to covet it) while he's dying.

Chipotlemonger said:

---

Dekker_Lentz said:

---

Also, if Obi Wan knows about Leia and had an adventure with her, then does it seem odd for Yoda to mention her back to him?

---

That's the thing though, he didn't have an adventure with her.

---

Oh? From his prospective he knew had an adventure with her as Bail Organa tasked him with the mission. She didn't know who he was.

The Porkchop Express said:

---

redline248 said:

---

By the way, here is the real question...and it's likely muddled b/c of the questions about what is canon and what isn't...

If Bane created the rule of two AFTER the Jedi thought the Sith were extinct...how did the Jedi Council know about it in Phantom Menace?

---

It's in a couple of bigger reference type books about a Jedi named Kibh Jeen, who fell to the dark side on some planet with a Sith temple. He killed his master and built up an army not unlike Maul in the Clone Wars era. When the Jedi finally stop him he says the Rule of the Two (one to wield the power, one to covet it) while he's dying.

---

Which books?

So, do they believe he was the last of the Sith...or what?

Dekker_Lentz said:

---

Chipotlemonger said:

---

Dekker_Lentz said:

---

Also, if Obi Wan knows about Leia and had an adventure with her, then does it seem odd for Yoda to mention her back to him?

---

That's the thing though, he didn't have an adventure with her.

---

Oh? From his prospective he knew had an adventure with her as Bail Organa tasked him with the mission. She didn't know who he was.

---