No more need for Rule of Two? Edit
I was going over the Questions and Answers part of starwars.com and I caught this in Episode III Lore section under the "Why do the Sith want revenge?" question:
"By Episode III, the Sith are ready to reveal themselves. There's no more need for subterfuge, no more need for skulking in the shadows, no more need for having only two Lords at a time."
Should this be added into this article? Is this canon? Any input would be great. Stinkywookie 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Rule of Two Obsession Edit
I wasn't sure where else to put this, because there are many places where Sith are hammered to not be true followers because of lack of the use of the Rule of Two. But based on the statement above and the Sith before the Dark Brotherhood fiasco that led to the Rule of Two, there have on more occasions than not been more than two Sith, and even within the pace of most of the Rule of Two followers, like Sidious & Tyrannus or Sidious & Vader, there were others that were Sith Acolytes of sorts, that undoubtedly followed the Sith Philosophy without the teachings being linked too them, Asajj Ventress to name one, perhaps we should not state that they are simply Not Sith and look at them more as Sith Acolytes or Sith Followers, in the times of Old Republic Sith there were non force users that were claimed as Sith, and the entire Sith had an army full of them, so in the light of Lumiya and the current situation with Jacen where a lot of people have degraded Jacen as a possible true Sith Lord perhaps we should try and run a more open mind about such a thing, and start noting some of our simple Dark Jedi as more of a Sith Follower or if in the employ of a Lord like Asajj a Sith Acolyte, just a thought N.Y.N.E.Comlink 03:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Plagueis, Sidious, and Maul Edit
Where does it say in canon that Sidious was training Maul while Sidious was still the apprentice of Plagueis? He was 28 years old when Maul was born, so he just could have recognized Maul's potential, killed Plagueis, and then kidnapped Maul to make him a Sith.--Jedi Kasra 04:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The Force UnleashedEdit
- Vader had many apprentices. So long as they are not Dark Lords of the Sith, the rule is being followed. -- Ozzel 21:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
How did Yoda become aware of the rule of two? I was under the impression from Darth Bane: Rule of Two, the Jedi thought they had killed the sith and never realized the Rule of Two. Am I missing an important source or is it just a discrepancy?
Boogaboo122 00:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- The article says: "during the Dark Jedi Conflict, Kibh Jeen told the Jedi that the Sith had survived and were operating under the Rule of Two". This Kibh Jeen guy told the Jedi about the Rule of Two, but no one believed him at the time. 126.96.36.199 00:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That, and with Darth Maul appearing, there had to be a master and/or an apprentice. Darth Oompa Loompa 00:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok but How did Kibh Jeen learn this? was he a official sith? it seems like he only fell so how did he know?
Boogaboo122 16:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was unsure as well as to how the Jedi learned of the rule of two as it was never truely in practice until after the Sith went into hiding with Bane others followed a close version but was not actually put into action, apparently the Rule of two book cannot be entirely cannon until something more definate is revealed. Ryan Fett (For Mandalore!) 00:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Rule of two Edit
- I still dont understand tge poi9nt of the rule of two. HELP!!! FireBaron 19:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC) FireBaron
- For example, when revan was Dark lord of the sith and he killed Malek, because of the lack of a strong obviace leader the powerfull sith fought for the mantle of dark lord of the sith and they wiped them selves all out, if there was only two one would always survive with the perpuse of the apprentice to eventually kill the master. If in the case of Maleks sith, even though revan killed both malek and his apprentice, when they died there wouldnt be others to assume the mantle and no one to distroy the sith, only the next in line for maleks apprentice, any clearer Alexsau1991 18:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Revans rule of two Edit
even though revan wasnt the first sith who orginised it this way, with in his orginisation of the sith, there was a master, and an apprentice, in which the apprentice was to replace the master, and low down sith wouldnt replace the dark lord of the sith. should this be mentioned Alexsau1991 18:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure if this is canon, but I recall in the "Diary of Darth Maul" that Darth Sidious informed Darth Maul that he had another apprentice while training Maul. This would be as yet another violation of the Rule of Two. I don't recall the exact details (it had something to do with inheriting the double-bladed lightsaber, as well) or if it was a lie made to add to Maul's endless rage, but I can try to find that book. Assuming it's canonical, of course —Unsigned comment by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs).
- The "other apprentice" was just a complete lie designed to make Maul tap into his rage even more than he already was. The 2nd apprentice never existed. —Unsigned comment by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs).
First Appearance? Edit
It says in the article that the first appearance of the rule of two is Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. If I remember correctly Palpatine was only mentioned in passing, you don't know there is any kind of Master/Apprentice relationship until ROTJ when Sidious calls Vader up on the holo-phone to tell him that he thinks there might be a connection between the Skywalker that blew up the death star and the Skywalker that is kneeling in front of him in knee high leather boots (Or kneeling in front of his hologram at least), to which Vader is shocked, like he had forgotten that his last name is Skywalker too. So wouldn't ROTJ be considered the first appearance? Since that is the first place where you see the afore mentioned Master/Apprentice relationship, I think it should be. Please don't jump down my throat if I'm missing something big here, but any thoughts? --DarthZaiger 05:04, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
- As you can see with the "first identified as..." point as well, it isn't necessarily just when it is stated in the open. Vader is referred to as "Dark Lord of the Sith" in ANH supplementary material, which is itself a reference to the Sith Order and Rule of Two. -Zekk_Skywalk 05:23, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
- Sith order, yes. Rule of 2 is nowhere mentioned. Don't make unfounded and unwarranted assumptions. Even ROTJ only has Vader calling Palpatine "Master". It makes no mention of there being only one master and one apprentice. TPM is for sure the first mention of the "Rule of Two". --220.127.116.11 04:51, March 29, 2014 (UTC)