Timeline for Is the Sith Rule of Two based on Darwin's Natural Selection?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21, 2016 at 19:52 | comment | added | Oldcat | And he was the first in, what, a thousand generations, or years? Efficiency! | |
| Mar 21, 2016 at 18:32 | comment | added | Hypnosifl | @Oldcat - But Palpatine did in fact conquer the galaxy and destroy the Jedi, so the Rule of Two wasn't an impediment. And I don't see what being self-centered and power-hungry has to do with not being willing to trust others might have a better intellectual grasp of certain subjects than oneself. Do you think Sith wouldn't trust the expertise of engineers who designed technologies they use like spaceships, for example? In the real world, would there be anything contradictory about a selfish power-hungry politician reading Machiavelli for practical guidance in gaining and holding power? | |
| Mar 21, 2016 at 17:35 | comment | added | Oldcat | Why would an evil, self centered, power mad Sith trust in the Wisdom of Darth Bane? Or anyone besides himself? | |
| Mar 21, 2016 at 17:31 | comment | added | Oldcat | Yes, conquering a galaxy and destroying thousands of Jedi opponents would be seriously impeded by having only two people involved. Think of the paperwork! | |
| Mar 21, 2016 at 17:07 | comment | added | Hypnosifl | @Oldcat - How do you get from what I said to "there would be no Rule of Two"? What I said was that they'd be willing to be loyal to a cause that would last beyond their lifetimes if doing so didn't significantly impede their personal pursuit of power. Do you think following the rule would impede their pursuit of power, and if so, why? Also, I'd speculate that part of any master's respect for the Rule of Two could just be trusting in Darth Bane's practical wisdom that whenever you have a bunch of Sith, all the less powerful ones will gang up on the most powerful one. | |
| Mar 21, 2016 at 17:01 | comment | added | Oldcat | So, then, there would be no Rule of Two, just a lot of Sith trying to increase their own personal power by wiping out the Jedi. | |
| Mar 21, 2016 at 16:54 | comment | added | Hypnosifl | @Oldcat - Perhaps only limited loyalty, willing to work for a long-term goal as long as doing so doesn't really get in the way of their pursuit of personal power. A master taking on an apprentice would as I said be gaining a powerful flunky to do their bidding, which is appealing for selfish reasons as well as for furthering the Sith "cause" of eventually destroying the Jedi, and masters doing so would probably feel (over)confident that the apprentice would remain less powerful than them and would only take over when the master died of old age. | |
| Mar 21, 2016 at 16:47 | history | edited | Hypnosifl | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 67 characters in body
|
| Mar 21, 2016 at 16:37 | comment | added | Oldcat | @Hypnosifl - if they can have loyalty to Sith cause, surely the first thing required would be to put aside trivial goals of killing the master to win his sofa in order to build a legion of Siths that can carve up the entire Galaxy, thus negating the Rule of Two? | |
| Mar 18, 2016 at 20:12 | comment | added | Hypnosifl | @Kosmos - Maybe he was thinking that in most cases the apprentice wouldn't be powerful enough to take on the master alone, maybe because Force powers just grow with age unlike physical strength...obviously that was changed in the EU where pretty much every Sith was killed by their apprentice, but the idea isn't itself incoherent. The last sentence is using a biological metaphor, but it seems clear enough, symbiosis stands for sustainable cooperation while cancer stands for short-sighted gain in power at the expense of others which isn't sustainable long term, like cancer vs. other cells. | |
| Mar 18, 2016 at 19:49 | comment | added | Kosmos | @Hypnosifl He seems to be saying that, under the rule of 2, an apprentice would not try to usurp/kill his master in the way Vader did. As if the apprentice would not try to kill his master by himself. Also yeah, the last sentence is just a bunch of words. | |
| Mar 18, 2016 at 19:49 | vote | accept | The Mandolorian | ||
| Mar 18, 2016 at 19:29 | comment | added | Hypnosifl | @Oldcat - You would presumably have to look to the EU to figure out how Darth Bane could've been confident he was the only surviving Sith, but if you take that for granted, it's hard to see how any additional Sith could have arisen outside of Bane's "lineage". As for tea, probably Sith are smart/paranoid enough to keep careful track of where their nourishment comes from? And I don't know that Sith are purely selfish, maybe they can have some "loyalty" to a cause which will outlast their lifetimes if it's rooted in negative dark side type emotions, like their hatred of the Jedi. | |
| Mar 18, 2016 at 18:44 | comment | added | Oldcat | How do the Sith even know that there are no other Sith around to break the Rule of Two? If the Sith were so self centered, why take on any apprentices? Why can't one apprentice just as easily poison the master's tea and take over? Why can't a master play off several apprentices against each other so they can't unite against them? Nasty totalitarian states have managed to get lots of bad people pointed in more or less the same direction without having to kill them all first. | |
| Mar 18, 2016 at 17:20 | comment | added | Hypnosifl | @Kosmos - How so? The whole thing, or just the last part about cancer vs. symbiotic relationships? | |
| Mar 18, 2016 at 16:37 | comment | added | Kosmos | Good answer but the quote from Lucas seems nonsensical. | |
| Mar 18, 2016 at 15:42 | history | answered | Hypnosifl | CC BY-SA 3.0 |