2

Does it mean "A master has only one apprentice, if he becomes a master we part and search for new apprentices each" or always "enter random number here" masters with apprentice, or even "There can only be two" in Highlander fashion?

Lord_Gestalter
  • 385
  • 3
  • 11
  • I only know the six films, can't answer it from that – Lord_Gestalter Aug 22 '14 at 12:29
  • That question explains the Rule of Two pretty well within the EU. However, as I explained here, I personally believe that the G-Canon "Rule of Two" has been misunderstood and distorted from what was intended. – phantom42 Aug 22 '14 at 12:34
  • I think the Highlander fashion is the right interpretation (in EU terms at least): "When your power eclipses mine I will become expendable. This is the Rule of Two: one Master and one apprentice. When you are ready to claim the mantle of Dark Lord as your own, you must do so by eliminating me." ―Darth Bane, to Darth Zannah in "Darth Bane: Rule of Two" – BMWurm Aug 22 '14 at 12:36
  • @phantom42 I checked that question, it didn't answer mine. And if the answer to my question is hidden in the answer of the other one ... didn't read them all, but there've been too many suggestions for my taste. The quote of BMWurm indeed answers, but that doesn't make sense if the intention was strengthening the Sith. (Not strictly) Monotonous decreasing and limited (to 0) means extinction – Lord_Gestalter Aug 22 '14 at 12:43
  • @Lord_Gestalter It does strengthen the Sith: In the past the Sith often had infighting where many weaker Sith united to defeat a strong master. Thus, the weak defeated the strong weakening the Sith order as a whole. With the Rule of Two you don't get this anymore. An apprentice can only become the master if he is strong enough to defeat his master. If he fails he dies and the old master takes a new apprentice. Thus the Sith (in theory) grow ever stronger over time. Of course, there are some logical complications. Aging might weaken a master and so if an apprentice waits long enough... – Philipp Aug 22 '14 at 12:50
  • ...he might defeat the master even though he is not stronger than he was when he was at the pinnacle of his power. Also, finding a suitable apprentice might take time. But the master should try to work against this and the natural lust of a Sith for power (and the inclination to prove that they are the strongest) should make the apprentice challenge his master as soon as he feels strong enough. If the apprentice is too weak overall, the master will notice this during the time of training and dispense of him soon enough to find a better one. – Philipp Aug 22 '14 at 12:55
  • If master and apprentice are both killed, the number of Sith decreases, see Palpatine and Vader. How can a near to sure sure extinction of an order strengthen it? – Lord_Gestalter Aug 22 '14 at 12:58
  • And even if the "we part in peace" option was out of scope, where there really only two, or did the Sith only group in two? – Lord_Gestalter Aug 22 '14 at 13:01
  • There used to be more than two Sith until the Seventh Battle of Ruusan, when a huge amount of Jedi and all but one Sith wiped each other out. The singular Sith that escaped was Darth Bane of course, and because infighting had killed more Sith than were killed by Jedi, he henceforth made the Rule of Two mandatory, taking Darth Zannah as his apprentice, until she was strong enough to kill him, then she was killed by her apprentice and so on, until Vader killed Palpatine and died himself (after having wiped out (almost) all Jedi before that).... he brought balance, in a way.... – BMWurm Aug 22 '14 at 13:07
  • But "The Sith" is also a way of life, or a cult if you wish. And if ever they are wiped out (both Sith die) than someone else could start it again. I mean the Sith have been extinct so often it's almost not funny anymore. And on some planet somewhere there could be an order of Sith that was stranded there, before the Rule of Two ever came into place.... which of course happened: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Lost_Tribe_of_Sith – BMWurm Aug 22 '14 at 13:11
  • I think the “Rule of Two” is mainly designed to provide scope for misunderstandings that fuel questions on this site. If it wasn’t, it’s remarkably good at doing so. – Paul D. Waite Aug 22 '14 at 13:22
  • 1
    @PaulD.Waite Sorry, I don't understand what your comment is up to. What are you trying to say? – Lord_Gestalter Aug 22 '14 at 14:05
  • @Lord_Gestalter: I just mean there are quite a few questions on the site basically saying “But there are only ever two Sith, right?” (for example http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/6160/how-could-asajj-ventress-be-a-sith-if-there-cant-be-more-than-two-of-them, http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/38242/are-there-too-many-sith-in-the-phantom-menace, http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/7635/does-the-rule-of-two-serve-any-actual-purpose), which I believe misunderstands the rule. (I don’t think your question is one of these.) – Paul D. Waite Aug 22 '14 at 14:24
  • There sure were more than one 'Highlander' from what I recall of that show. – Oldcat May 20 '15 at 22:15

0 Answers0