Rule of Two Abandoned: Why The Sith Failed

Our friend, the non-canon expert, discusses why the Sith failed at the end of Return of the Jedi and how this may play into the approaches of Supreme Leader Snoke and Kylo Ren concerning the Force.

[ertymexx]

"I look forward to learning how Luke, Snoke and Kylo Ren look at these philosophies" - Ouch, that gotta hurt. :-(

[Doc]

The rule of two is the longest game of telephone ever played

[WoodysPickle]

“What will be interesting to see in ep 7 8 9 is the philosophy that fills the void…”
Me from the future:

[adamdavenport]

Zannah: I have surpassed you, Bane. Now I am the Master.
Bane: Then prove it.

Those two were real Sith. Be like them. Don't be like this guy...

Sidious: Unlimited...

[assman]

There is always one greedy bastard that has to ruin it for everyone.

[MisterTutor]

The greatest weakness of the Sith is selfishness. This was why large Sith organizations fail because each Sith cares more about their own power than group. As a result the Sith can't trust each other and the group had little cohesion with treachery and infighting as the result. The biggest threat to a Sith is not the Jedi but other Sith. The Rule of Two partially solves that problem but does not eliminate it. Every Sith is selfish and given the chance would try to stay in power forever. The Rule of Two can't ultimately work because it requires the master to unselfishly care more about the Sith Order than himself and to never try to cheat the system.

[kyle]

ah, the rule of two. a rule meaning one shuttle accident could wipe out the order. lol

[Landibert]

The Rule of Two is inherently flawed in itself. So risky. So much could have easily gone wrong. Just one duel where both master and pupil die and the sith are extinct. Or die through anything else. It wouldn't even necessarily need to die both, if the master dies with only a young apprentice...

Also the asssumption that the sith would get stronger and more powerful with every succeding master and that these masters would care about Bane's idea of the sith is naive. Especially considering they are sith. They do what they think is best for themselves.

[girlgarde]

After hearing how the last three Sith masters behaved, Vader seems benign in comparison. He strikes me as someone who'd go along with the Rule of Two or at least behave in a fairly honourable fashion for a Sith Lord. He's brutal and tough but honest. If he had managed to depose Palpatine and become Emperor, he'd have reformed the Empire and eventually created a new order of Sith that would emulate his teachings and produce someone who could take his place at some point.

[cunjoz]

When you think of it, the rule of two, as conceived by Darth Bane is actually selfless. He wished not that he himself controls the galaxy, but the sith, and the way for that, is sacrificing himself to the stronger sith and so on and so on.

[Lennis]

I forget if I had commented on this earlier, but it's worth repeating. The ultimate failure of the Sith was not because of the latter day masters failing to uphold the Rule of Two, but because Darth Bane himself had failed to anticipate the degradation of his philosophy as the Grand Plan came closer to fruition. Darth Bane instituted his philosophy as a means to destroy the Jedi and the Republic. He did not institute it as an end unto itself. It was inevitable that later day masters would succumb to the temptation of immortality, because once the Jedi and the Republic were destroyed, there would be no other outlet for the Dark Side to manifest itself. As a scholar of the Dark Side, I'm surprised that Bane didn't consider this fundamental philosophical problem. The example of Darth Nihilus should have served as a warning. That Sith Lord decided to worship the void instead of seeking immortality, but the philosophical problem leading to that choice was the same that confronted Teneborous, Plagueus, and Sidious. For Darth Bane, there was no endgame beyond the destruction of the Jedi and the Republic. No analysis of what the Dark Side's purpose was after the goal of supremacy was achieved. That was why the Rule of Two failed.

[ouioui]

Plagueis seems like a pretty nice guy though tbh

[williamparcell]

Legends is so much better that current canon.

[KalibreSteelblast]

0:42 "Through the perversion of Darth Bane's grand plan..."

... That implies that the Rule of Two wasn't a moronic idea to begin with. Granted, the Brotherhood of Darkness was doomed to fail, but at least it didn't put all its eggs into one basket.

[irllcd]

I understand the logic behind the Rule of Two, but I still disagree with it. Two is far too few. Simple bad luck could wipe out both master and student. We still had incredibly powerful sith long before the Rule of Two. Ancient sith didn't need it.

[jedidethfreak]

The Rule of Two may have been necessary, but it was also inherently flawed, as it required too many selfless acts by Sith, for too long, in order to be effective -

-The Master would have to teach the Apprentice EVERYTHING s/he knew about the Force.
-The Apprentice would have to STAY the Apprentice until his/her master taught him/her everything s/he knew about the Force.
-The Master would have to research, discover, and master new Force techniques.
-The Master would then have to teach these new Force techniques to the Apprentice.
-The Master, who's life would be limited, would have to protect his/her Apprentice until death, even if they are too weak.

THAT is why it failed. It was flawed from the start.

[nickmayo]

I highly doubt The Sith will fully go away because there are sith temples and holocrons across The Galaxy that any force sensitive can access and be influenced by

[josephbeckett]

The Rule of 2 made little sense, and was very counter to the Sith's beliefs. The Dark Side required destruction and action. This is why it was very common for the Sith, once they had actually won to not hold that power long. They stopped being active and became reactive and defensive, and the Dark Side was not with them. Palpatine and Vader where noteworthy excepts, as they kept the Empire in constant strife.

The Sith also believe that one must constantly be challenged for rulership, (specifically by other Dark Side users), as that is how the Sith learn and advance the secrets (new powers) of the Dark Side. The Rule of Two causes stagnation, and would be seen as cowardly by the Sith, hiding behind fake logic as weakness.

Another major issue is that no Sith should give a crap about "the Sith" ruling the galaxy. A Sith wants THEMSELF, and only themself to rule it. Or rather, they want the Sith to rule, but only if they are the one to do it.

And... this is 3 years old.

[MeterLP]

To be fair, being murdered by your apprentice so some dude in the future can rule the galaxy sounds like a stupid concept.

[vnleao]

Forgive me if I missed something but my understanding that being a "Sith" was not simply synonymous with "a dark side Force user" but was a specific title with specific implications. When Order 66 happened, we had folks like the Inquisitors being training in the ways of the dark side in a limited fashion but who WEREN'T given the title of "Sith." The "Sith" were originally an actual race, and others who would later carry that title did so in a more honorary, figurative sense despite their literal bloodline not being of the Sith people. Having additional dark side users, even ones in direct allegiance with the Sith, did not automatically constitute a breach of the rule of two. My understanding of the title of "Sith" was that it was not a descriptor but a specific role to be played.

A comparison would be with the concept of a "president." A "president" (Sith Lord) has a particular defined role and using that title denotes very specific meaning. The word "politician" (dark side Force user) is more descriptive and covers a wide range of possibilities and does not necessarily require a position of any importance. A president IS a politician, but that doesn't mean every politician is a president by default. In fact, let me take it a step further. A president also has a vice president under him (rule of two LOL.) Those are specific, defined positions with specific responsibilities and liberties attached, but there are more politicians out there than just those two individuals.

The additional politicians aid in the work of the president and vice president, but they have neither of those titles or those roles to fulfill. Technically (at least in the American political system, ) the president and vice president are still subject to a system of checks and balances (at least they're supposed to be...) so that they cannot act unilaterally but work in accord with the rest of the government (hmm.) The Sith stopped having any semblance of checks and balances when defining the rule of two due to the Sith Lord taking the job of "Supreme Leader" with the purpose of acting as a unilateral governing force.

So, the punchline being, as far as I can see having a "rule of two" wouldn't put the Sith in a position of vulnerability as some have questioned here. There could still be plenty of other dark side users (where do you think they get new apprentices from? they don't just feed off the Jedi and catch trained Force users to convert them to the dark side...) For example, the Night Sisters. They were trained Force users that practiced a specific art of "Force magic" and took advantage of the power of the dark side, but they weren't Sith. Yet they existed for quite a long time and weren't some new variant on the rule of two.

Ok that's enough of my ramblings, if someone thinks I'm wrong or has info to challenge this, please feel free to post. I'd love to learn more. My brain is still asleep and not working great at the moment.