I don't understand the Rule of One. If there can only be one Sith under the Rule of One, how come there are all the Sith Lords? BC 22:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's saying that one Sith leads all the rest of the Sith, not a council like the Jedi or an equal Brotherhood. ^{(Talon Three)} 22:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. So the Rule of One means that there will be one Dark Lord of the Sith, whom all the other Sith Lords will obey. BC 23:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• No, it means that everyone must be loyal to the Sith Order itself, above their own ambitions. Kaje 02:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• isn't this theory of one master and many lords and such what Darth Bane was considering? before he realized the many would eventually gang up on the one in a sick perversion of the dark side.--Black Jack Scarron 04:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The only flaw in the Rule of One is that it only takes a single individual who desires power beyond his limits to cause a complete collapse within the Order. Imagine it: one Sith rallies all others against the Dark Lord, Dark Lord dies, Sith destroy each other in a battle to decide the new leader. Darth Bane knew this, which is why he appointed the Rule of Two, which is equally flawed in its own way. Darth Raivon 10:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Rule of Two Edit

I think it is good that Sith came to Rule of One, because the previous rule prove itself to be dangerous to Sith Lord as each apprentice tried to kill his master 90.150.113.138 11:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That was the point. The apprentice was supposed to kill his master when he had surpassed him. Zeldafanjtl 00:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)