Skip to main content

star wars - Does the Rule of Two Serve any Actual Purpose?


I know Darth Bane came up with the Rule of Two to ensure the survival of the Sith, but, in reality (or in the Star Wars reality), does it (or any Sith rule) serve a true purpose? And why does each successive Sith bother with it?


Due to the nature of the Sith, Sith Lords tend toward arrogance and self-importance. Both the Sith master and Sith apprentice seem to regularly break the rule by training others. Deceit and personal interest over loyalty is a way of life for the Sith.


What is to keep any Sith from following the Rule of Two (or any rule, for that matter) if it is against their own self interest? If a Sith Master can stay in power longer by training a 2nd apprentice and pitting the two against each other, is he really going to worry about the Rule of Two more than his own plans and survival?


The Rule of Two also assumes that every Sith Master would place the survival of the Sith over his own survival, as opposed to attempting to ensure his own immortality in whatever way he could (like Plagueis). When you have a group that, by default, is arrogant and self-serving, as well as deceptive, why would they want the Sith to survive themselves?


I can see how the Rule of Two, and any other Sith beliefs would be possible guidelines, but it terms of the nature of ambitious people (and the Sith are ambitious), it's hard to believe that each new Sith Master would follow this rule faithfully.


So does this rule, or any Sith rule, actually work? Or is it more of a suggestion that is broken when convenient?




Answer



To rougly quote from Starship Troopers (the book, not the movie), The Rule of Two perservered because it worked.


Those Sith Lords who violated it by trying for >1 apprentice, seemed to have ended up worse off than if they only had one.


So the benefit to keeping to the Rule of Two was not to some abstract "Sith order", but to the specific Sith Master.


Case in point: Darth Sidious. Had he left Luke well enough alone, Vader would not have been strong enough to challenge him. When he started pitting Luke against Vader, the whole thing predictably backfired, and



Vader, conflicted over possible death of his son Luke, killed the Emperor (aka Darth Sidious).



And Darth Plagueis explicitly rejected Rule of Two hoping to live forever and not be killed by his apprentice. We know how that turned out for him.





A second, less important factor in keeping the Rule of Two was the influence of past Sith Lords. More specifically, the gatekeepers of the Darth Bane's Sith Holocron refused to give information to Darth Krayt, didn't help him and condemned him:



Darth Nihilus did not provide Krayt with helpful information, Darth Andeddu accused him of heresy, and Darth Bane warned the Rule of One would be the death of Krayt and the entire Sith.



Since learning from Holocrons is one way for a Sith to increase his power, that was a somewhat effective leverage.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why didn't The Doctor or Clara recognize Missy right away?

So after it was established that Missy is actually both the Master, and the "woman in the shop" who gave Clara the TARDIS number... ...why didn't The Doctor or Clara recognize her right away? I remember the Tenth Doctor in The Sound of Drums stating that Timelords had a way of recognizing other Timelords no matter if they had regenerated. And Clara should have recognized her as well... I'm hoping for a better explanation than "Moffat screwed up", and that I actually missed something after two watchthroughs of the episode. Answer There seems to be a lot of in-canon uncertainty as to the extent to which Time Lords can recognise one another which far pre-dates Moffat's tenure. From the Time Lords page on Wikipedia : Whether or not Time Lords can recognise each other across regenerations is not made entirely clear: In The War Games, the War Chief recognises the Second Doctor despite his regeneration and it is implied that the Doctor knows him when they fir

the lord of the rings - Why is Gimli allowed to travel to Valinor?

Gimli was allowed to go to Valinor despite not being a ring bearer. Is this explained in detail or just with the one line "for his love for Galadriel"? Answer There's not much detail about this aside from what's said in Appendix A to Return of the King: We have heard tell that Legolas took Gimli Glóin's son with him because of their great friendship, greater than any that has been between Elf and Dwarf. If this is true, then it is strange indeed: that a Dwarf should be willing to leave Middle-earth for any love, or that the Eldar should receive him, or that the Lords of the West should permit it. But it is said that Gimli went also out of desire to see again the beauty of Galadriel; and it may be that she, being mighty among the Eldar, obtained this grace for him. More cannot be said of this matter. And Appendix B: Then Legolas built a grey ship in Ithilien, and sailed down Anduin and so over Sea; and with him, it is said, went Gimli the Dwarf . And when that sh

Did the gatekeeper and the keymaster get intimate in Ghostbusters?

According to TVTropes ( usual warning, don't follow the link or you'll waste half your life in a twisty maze of content ): In Ghostbusters, it's strongly implied that Dana Barret, while possessed by Zuul the Gatekeeper, had sex with Louis Tully, who was possessed by Vinz Clortho the Keymaster (key, gate, get it?), in order to free Big Bad Gozer. In fact, a deleted scene from the movie has Venkman explicitly asking Dana if she and Louis "did it". I turned the quote into a spoiler since it contains really poor-taste joke, but the gist of it is that it's implied that as part of freeing Gozer , the two characters possessed by the Keymaster and the Gatekeeper had sex. Is there any canon confirmation or denial of this theory (canon meaning something from creators' interviews, DVD commentary, script, delete scenes etc...)? Answer The Richard Mueller novelisation and both versions of the script strongly suggest that they didn't have sex (or at the very l

What is the etymology of Doctor Who?

I recently decided to watch Doctor Who, and started viewing the 2005 version. I have the first two episodes from the first season, and I can't help but wonder what is the etymology of the name "Doctor Who"? And why does the protagonist call himself "the Doctor" (or is it "the doctor")? Answer In the very first episode of Doctor Who (way back in 1963), the Doctor has a granddaughter going by the name "Susan Foreman", and the junkyard where the TARDIS is has the sign "I.M. Foreman". Barbara, who becomes one of the Doctor's companions, calls him "Doctor Foreman" (probably assuming that is his name given his relationship to Susan), and Ian (another early companion) does the same in the second episode, to which the Doctor says: Eh? Doctor who? What's he talking about? "Foreman" is most likely selected as a convenient surname for Susan to use because it happened to be on display near where the TARDIS landed.