PDA

View Full Version : Why do Sith Lords encourage apprentices to kill them?



Pages : [1] 2

Supreme Evil
2012-08-13, 10:46 PM
Seriously, why do the Sith Masters encourage their students to try and kill them if they become weak? I never got this. If you're really evil, the first thing you do is change the damn rules so that the apprentice doesn't kill off the master. I mean, they'll probably turn on you eventually, but do you really want to encourage that sort of behavior? "Go ahead. Kill me. I want you to try!" If you're amoral, you shouldn't really have any problems changing the system so it benefits you and screws your underlings.

snoopy13a
2012-08-13, 10:50 PM
And the Sith Apprentice would obey this rule?

The Sith Master is just acknowledging what the Apprentice would try to do anyway.

Logic
2012-08-13, 10:50 PM
Seriously, why do the Sith Masters encourage their students to try and kill them if they become weak? I never got this. If you're really evil, the first thing you do is change the damn rules so that the apprentice doesn't kill off the master. I mean, they'll probably turn on you eventually, but do you really want to encourage that sort of behavior? "Go ahead. Kill me. I want you to try!" If you're amoral, you shouldn't really have any problems changing the system so it benefits you and screws your underlings.

Long story short: According to one interpretation in the Expanded Universe, The Dark Side of the Force is basically just insanity.

Supreme Evil
2012-08-13, 10:55 PM
And the Sith Apprentice would obey this rule?

The Sith Master is just acknowledging what the Apprentice would try to do anyway.

If they're indoctrinated from birth into it? Why not? Indoctrination works wonders in the real world. Add a bit of highly invasive and illegal brain surgery and you're golden.

Tragic_Comedian
2012-08-13, 10:56 PM
It completes their journey to the Dark Side.

Maquise
2012-08-13, 10:58 PM
The point is to ensure that the only way the apprentice can become the master is to become more powerful than the master, thus ensuring that the Sith are always getting stronger.

Trazoi
2012-08-13, 10:58 PM
I've only seen the movies and played some of the games, but my taking of it was that Sith believe in Rule By The Strongest. Keeping a powerful apprentice in check proves that the Sith Master is the strongest and only makes them stronger. Intentionally changing this would be a sign of weakness. (Although Sith Masters still tend to hobble their apprentices which is also a sign of weakness so frankly the "Sith are plain nuts" theory holds better).

Supreme Evil
2012-08-13, 10:59 PM
The point is to ensure that the only way the apprentice can become the master is to become more powerful than the master, thus ensuring that the Sith are always getting stronger.

"Who the hell cares about other people? The Dark Side is about three people: me, myself, and I."

CarpeGuitarrem
2012-08-13, 11:04 PM
I believe that the Rule of Two was instituted as a logical corollary to the fact that the Dark Side is self-destructive, with any group of Sith bound to eventually start infighting and possibly kill off the entire branch of them.

The immediate corollary is that there can only be one Sith Master; with no other Masters to challenge their dominance, the sole Sith Lord can maintain the Dark Side with strength. Of course, that Sith Lord needs someone to pass their mantle onto, thus the apprentice.

And then survival of the fittest. It's not a bad idea for the Sith, actually. If it continues on, they keep the Sith line strong and unified.

Mikeavelli
2012-08-13, 11:08 PM
"Who the hell cares about other people? The Dark Side is about three people: me, myself, and I."

Yes, and you are constantly becoming stronger thanks to the push that comes from having a murderous apprentice.

Also, while force users are long-lived, they grow old and die eventually. You know you're going to die eventually, and it's an egotistical thing wanting to leave behind the greatest legacy you can.

This is also the reason why they stopped taking on multiple apprentices. It was not only possible, but probable, for the Apprentices to team up on their master and kill him, even though they were all individually weaker than he was. This actually resulted in a gradual weakening of the Sith.

Supreme Evil
2012-08-13, 11:22 PM
Yes, and you are constantly becoming stronger thanks to the push that comes from having a murderous apprentice.

Also, while force users are long-lived, they grow old and die eventually. You know you're going to die eventually, and it's an egotistical thing wanting to leave behind the greatest legacy you can.

This is also the reason why they stopped taking on multiple apprentices. It was not only possible, but probable, for the Apprentices to team up on their master and kill him, even though they were all individually weaker than he was. This actually resulted in a gradual weakening of the Sith.

The whole point of the Dark Side is "do whatever you want, and screw everybody else". Why should a master want a lunatic trying to murder them to seize power, as opposed to a brainwashed minion? Legacies only matter to other people, and besides, you're going to live forever.

NerdyKris
2012-08-14, 12:43 AM
The whole point of the Dark Side is "do whatever you want, and screw everybody else". Why should a master want a lunatic trying to murder them to seize power, as opposed to a brainwashed minion? Legacies only matter to other people, and besides, you're going to live forever.

No, it isn't. The point of the Dark Side is for the Dark Side to become stronger. One doesn't become a Sith to be the strongest. One becomes a Sith lord to ensure that the Sith regime prevails. If you just want to be powerful and live forever, you'd just be a regular old evil force user. If you're a Sith, your primary goal is to destroy the Jedi and ensure the dominance of the Sith, regardless of your own personal benefit.

The Sith aren't cardboard cutout bad guys for the sake of bad guys. The rule of two was instituted for a reason, and the Sith ideology isn't simply "Get power, kill Jedi".

MLai
2012-08-14, 02:23 AM
Yes, I was gonna add that when I was young, I skimmed thru a SW comic book where some evil woman was asking a Sith Lord to take her as his apprentice. My memory is hazy but I think when he asked her why she wants to be Sith, she said something like for power, for herself.

He then killed her while lecturing to her about how a Sith's true purpose is not for self-aggrandizement, but to serve the Dark Side. That was a mind-blower to me at the time, how a complete villain can also strive for something greater than himself.

Zevox
2012-08-14, 02:39 AM
The whole point of the Dark Side is "do whatever you want, and screw everybody else".
For some it is. Not for the Sith who follow the Rule of Two, which is the branch you reference with regards to the tradition of the Apprentice being expected to kill the Master.

The Rule of Two branch of the Sith was founded by Darth Bane, who had seen from the Sith branch that taught him how self-destructive groups of Sith engaged in constant, selfish infighting are. He destroyed them and decided to rectify that by creating the rule that there should only ever be two Sith: the Master and the Apprentice, one to embody the power of the Dark Side and the other to crave it. The Apprentice would become the Master by one day killing him, and would then take up their own Apprentice, and so it would continue, with the Sith constantly becoming stronger through this process. The end goal was to destroy the Jedi and conquer the galaxy, which would be achieved through subterfuge and secrecy. Darth Sidious/Emperor Palpatine saw this goal to fruition, and he and Vader were the last of this line of Sith.

In most other branches of the Sith throughout history, things work more as you described. Apprentices are not encouraged to kill their teachers, but it is common for infighting of that sort to take place anyway. Bane's Rule of Two was crafted to take this reality of the Sith and turn it from a weakness into a strength.

Zevox

Jayngfet
2012-08-14, 03:29 AM
I believe that the Rule of Two was instituted as a logical corollary to the fact that the Dark Side is self-destructive, with any group of Sith bound to eventually start infighting and possibly kill off the entire branch of them.

The immediate corollary is that there can only be one Sith Master; with no other Masters to challenge their dominance, the sole Sith Lord can maintain the Dark Side with strength. Of course, that Sith Lord needs someone to pass their mantle onto, thus the apprentice.

And then survival of the fittest. It's not a bad idea for the Sith, actually. If it continues on, they keep the Sith line strong and unified.

This. If you read the stuff set right before the rule of two it's clear the sith are a mess. Even with things like Family ties binding a good deal of them they're a complete mess who can't get anything done. Even with a dozen sith lords running around unless there's one all controlling warlike figure they can't even conquer a few star systems between all of them.

During the novel Knight Errant it's made painfully clear that their evil isn't even efficient, it's a kind of egotistical contest with everyone sniping at each other and burning limited resources for constant tributes to how great they are and arguing over who's way is the best. All their militaries are falling apart from a lack of infrastructure getting them new machines or even kinda decent parts to fix what they have, and the haphazard lolevil way they do things means even things that sound like they'd kinda work out in theory usually just results in their hypothetical super-weapon just being a bunch of starving engineers who can barely function pumping out ridiculous stuff that only works in very specific contexts.

Say what you like about it, but at least the rule of two meant that, for the first time in centuries, the sith got things done. Even when they didn't lead armies across the galaxies they experimented and learned and occasionally tried the shocking idea of not being total jerks(which tended to fail, but it's the thought that counts). It was the only time the sith ever really managed to full on conquer the entire known galaxy without huge amounts of dispute beyond rebellion(Which means admitting they'd lost to begin with), and the only time the sith had managed to hold onto any chunk of land while keeping it stable.

Life under Palpatine may have been kinda crap, but you didn't have children working 20 hours a day or raw recruits being forced to stand in the desert without moving for a straight week or any of the straight up senseless, or armies on the same side trying to kill each other because two sith lords had a personal dispute. I mean yeah, you had like, Vader going around choking anyone who failed him but that's like, one guy compared to about five dozen guys all choking all your generals and footsoldiers and stopping your entire war machine because some poor bastard spills his drink on the dark lords boots and it escalates into a bloodbath.

MLai
2012-08-14, 04:08 AM
You mean Cobra Commander/ Skeletor type evil doesn't work in SW universe? LOLshock! :smallbiggrin:

Traab
2012-08-14, 06:53 AM
I believe that the Rule of Two was instituted as a logical corollary to the fact that the Dark Side is self-destructive, with any group of Sith bound to eventually start infighting and possibly kill off the entire branch of them.

The immediate corollary is that there can only be one Sith Master; with no other Masters to challenge their dominance, the sole Sith Lord can maintain the Dark Side with strength. Of course, that Sith Lord needs someone to pass their mantle onto, thus the apprentice.

And then survival of the fittest. It's not a bad idea for the Sith, actually. If it continues on, they keep the Sith line strong and unified.

How is it unified? There are only two sith according to those rules, and one is going to try and kill the other, while the other will kill the first if he tries and fails! What the hell kind of unity is that? To be a Sith Lord is to commit slow suicide. You intentionally pick an apprentice that is strong, and teach him everything you know. The entire time, you KNOW he is going to eventually try to kill you. When he does try he will either kill you, or fail and you kill him, making you start the whole thing over again, until you find an apprentice patient enough to wait till he has learned everything, and strong enough to beat you with it. The Dark Side of the Force should be renamed to The Stupid Side of the Force.

A Sith Lord is a gorram LEMMING, constantly searching for a cliff face to jump off of. At first I tried to compare it to Elans dad and his stance of, "Better to live great for 20 years and die a legend" but even though he knows that eventually a group of heroes will kill him, he isnt actively searching them out and daring them to do so. (Not counting elans revenge setup) Sith Lords are intentionally creating their own death.

Fragenstein
2012-08-14, 07:11 AM
Inspector Clouseau approved...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_nHkHmJl7K88/TMRzOmvg-TI/AAAAAAAAHgk/iDrJq6xocTU/s1600/closeaukato.jpg

Not now Kato! You fool!

Supreme Evil
2012-08-14, 07:47 AM
This. If you read the stuff set right before the rule of two it's clear the sith are a mess. Even with things like Family ties binding a good deal of them they're a complete mess who can't get anything done. Even with a dozen sith lords running around unless there's one all controlling warlike figure they can't even conquer a few star systems between all of them.

During the novel Knight Errant it's made painfully clear that their evil isn't even efficient, it's a kind of egotistical contest with everyone sniping at each other and burning limited resources for constant tributes to how great they are and arguing over who's way is the best. All their militaries are falling apart from a lack of infrastructure getting them new machines or even kinda decent parts to fix what they have, and the haphazard lolevil way they do things means even things that sound like they'd kinda work out in theory usually just results in their hypothetical super-weapon just being a bunch of starving engineers who can barely function pumping out ridiculous stuff that only works in very specific contexts.

Say what you like about it, but at least the rule of two meant that, for the first time in centuries, the sith got things done. Even when they didn't lead armies across the galaxies they experimented and learned and occasionally tried the shocking idea of not being total jerks(which tended to fail, but it's the thought that counts). It was the only time the sith ever really managed to full on conquer the entire known galaxy without huge amounts of dispute beyond rebellion(Which means admitting they'd lost to begin with), and the only time the sith had managed to hold onto any chunk of land while keeping it stable.

Life under Palpatine may have been kinda crap, but you didn't have children working 20 hours a day or raw recruits being forced to stand in the desert without moving for a straight week or any of the straight up senseless, or armies on the same side trying to kill each other because two sith lords had a personal dispute. I mean yeah, you had like, Vader going around choking anyone who failed him but that's like, one guy compared to about five dozen guys all choking all your generals and footsoldiers and stopping your entire war machine because some poor bastard spills his drink on the dark lords boots and it escalates into a bloodbath.

Again, this is only the case if you're unwilling to use heavy indoctrination from birth, which has made people ardently believe much more ridiculous things than "I must obey my master", and highly invasive brain surgery. No need to be ethical about it - just lobotomize what you can't brainwash.

pendell
2012-08-14, 07:59 AM
I recently read the Darth Bane trilogy. Darth Bane explains it as a sort of evolution in action -- He is the Sith'ari, the ultimate Sith. He wants to raise up an apprentice who is even more powerful and more of a Sith than he is.

So his apprentice must grow in strength and ultimately challenge Darth Bane when they are both at the height of their powers and prevail. Then Darth Zinnah will choose her own apprentice who will in turn become stronger than she. Ultimately the Sith will be produced that is a godlike being in human form, overwhelmingly powerful in the force, who will subvert and corrupt the galaxy, then use it to exterminate the Jedi, as ultimately happened.

Darth Bane, in the story becomes concerned that Zinnah won't do this ... that she'll either wait for age to do her work for her, or wait to challenge him until he is old and feeble, unable to defend himself appropriately. And so Darth Bane goes in search of a new apprentice. It isn't enough that his apprentice kill him -- his apprentice must do it when they are both at the height of their powers. The apprentice must surpass the Master, not merely supplant him.

You'll have to read the book to find out how it all works out. :)

At any rate, Darth Bane made two fundamental changes to the Sith Order as traced in the books -- the first is to institute the Rule of Two. The second is to renounce military conquest of the galaxy in favor of its subversion. Sith ultimately cannot form a military power because that requires banding together, and Sith don't band together any more than cats do. The attempt to do so resulted, in Bane's time, in the Sith becoming an imitation of the Jedi Order in darker clothing. They could no longer access the limitless potential of the Dark Side but could only play in the shallows, like children in a pool. So Bane did away with the ethos of cooperation and subordination in favor of pure self-exaltation. Thus, there would be only two Sith -- one to embody ultimate power, the other to crave it. To gain the galaxy by subverting it and ruling as a power behind the throne, rather than openly as a military dictator.

It is my belief that Palpatine fell away from this vision through his own megalomania. Had he continued to rule the Republic from behind the throne, not even taking the position of chancellor but simply serving as an advisor, he and his apprentice could have been a blight on the galaxy for generations. As it was, Sith rule, which took a thousand years to achieve, was wiped out after less than a generation.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Supreme Evil
2012-08-14, 08:12 AM
I recently read the Darth Bane trilogy. Darth Bane explains it as a sort of evolution in action -- He is the Sith'ari, the ultimate Sith. He wants to raise up an apprentice who is even more powerful and more of a Sith than he is.

So his apprentice must grow in strength and ultimately challenge Darth Bane when they are both at the height of their powers and prevail. Then Darth Zinnah will choose her own apprentice who will in turn become stronger than she. Ultimately the Sith will be produced that is a godlike being in human form, overwhelmingly powerful in the force, who will subvert and corrupt the galaxy, then use it to exterminate the Jedi, as ultimately happened.

Darth Bane, in the story becomes concerned that Zinnah won't do this ... that she'll either wait for age to do her work for her, or wait to challenge him until he is old and feeble, unable to defend himself appropriately. And so Darth Bane goes in search of a new apprentice. It isn't enough that his apprentice kill him -- his apprentice must do it when they are both at the height of their powers. The apprentice must surpass the Master, not merely supplant him.

You'll have to read the book to find out how it all works out. :)

At any rate, Darth Bane made two fundamental changes to the Sith Order as traced in the books -- the first is to institute the Rule of Two. The second is to renounce military conquest of the galaxy in favor of its subversion. Sith ultimately cannot form a military power because that requires banding together, and Sith don't band together any more than cats do. The attempt to do so resulted, in Bane's time, in the Sith becoming an imitation of the Jedi Order in darker clothing. They could no longer access the limitless potential of the Dark Side but could only play in the shallows, like children in a pool. So Bane did away with the ethos of cooperation and subordination in favor of pure self-exaltation. Thus, there would be only two Sith -- one to embody ultimate power, the other to crave it. To gain the galaxy by subverting it and ruling as a power behind the throne, rather than openly as a military dictator.

It is my belief that Palpatine fell away from this vision through his own megalomania. Had he continued to rule the Republic from behind the throne, not even taking the position of chancellor but simply serving as an advisor, he and his apprentice could have been a blight on the galaxy for generations. As it was, Sith rule, which took a thousand years to achieve, was wiped out after less than a generation.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

That (what I bolded) is exactly the point I've been trying to make. The Dark Side isn't about some sissy ideals or some such. It's about letting loose, ignoring all restraints put on you by the feeble-minded Jedi, and doing whatever you want to do. Why on earth should you then want an apprentice trying to kill ou as opposed to a thoroughly brainwashed minion who worships the ground you walk on?

Philistine
2012-08-14, 08:34 AM
Dude. Look. You clearly have some very strong preconceived ideas about what the Dark Side of the Force is and isn't - not to mention notions of where Sith apprentices come from - that don't appear, AFAIK, in any source at any level of canon. In universe, though, it. Does. Not. Work. That. Way. So maybe the thing to do is recite the MST3K mantra to yourself and not worry about it?

Tiki Snakes
2012-08-14, 08:36 AM
The answer is simple really.
Because the only thing dumber than a Sith is an EU Sith.

pendell
2012-08-14, 08:44 AM
Why on earth should you then want an apprentice trying to kill ou as opposed to a thoroughly brainwashed minion who worships the ground you walk on?



Because unless you discover the secret of immortality, you're going to die. And what , then? Do the Sith die with you?

If not, to whom will you entrust this priceless legacy? If you're Darth Bane, the answer can only be: To the One person in the galaxy worthy to inherit the mantle.

Of course, Darth Bane sets this up before he learns that Sith immortality IS technically possible ... but again, how that works and what he does about it, would be spoiler material.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Yora
2012-08-14, 08:44 AM
That (what I bolded) is exactly the point I've been trying to make. The Dark Side isn't about some sissy ideals or some such. It's about letting loose, ignoring all restraints put on you by the feeble-minded Jedi, and doing whatever you want to do. Why on earth should you then want an apprentice trying to kill ou as opposed to a thoroughly brainwashed minion who worships the ground you walk on?
Because a brainwashed minionlacks a spine and is not worth much.
And how can think of yourself as a great master when you don't dare having an apprentice that will try to kill you.

The point is not, that a sith master is supposed to arrange his own death. Rather the opposite. He is supposed to survive the attack as the victor. Having to start all over again with a new apprentice is a lot of work, but the idea is that it is worth it for a sith master to always be allert and on the guard. Not about a threat that might exist, but one that he knows exist and which he doesn't want to simply "nuke it from orbit".
And of course, the apprentice needs to show that he is planning something, or the master does not have any benefit from having an apprentice as at.
It's like training with sharp weapons and life ammo. Some things you only can really learn when there is real danger and it's not just a simulation.

Parra
2012-08-14, 09:38 AM
One thing I always thought was a flaw with the Rule of Two was what happens if both die?
Say they are meeting together on a ship and it gets blown up some how.
Or the apprentice tries to kill the master, fails, but mortaly wounds the master before dying himself.
Or if the Master kills his apprentice (for whatever reason) and dies before finding a replacement.
Or dozens of other potenial hazards that breaks the flow

I find it odd that in a galaxy of trillions (quadrillions?) that there are only 2 Sith, it just seems like a fairly frail and flawed system to me

Gamer Girl
2012-08-14, 11:15 AM
Seriously, why do the Sith Masters encourage their students to try and kill them if they become weak? I never got this. If you're really evil, the first thing you do is change the damn rules so that the apprentice doesn't kill off the master. I mean, they'll probably turn on you eventually, but do you really want to encourage that sort of behavior? "Go ahead. Kill me. I want you to try!" If you're amoral, you shouldn't really have any problems changing the system so it benefits you and screws your underlings.

I think this is a great idea myself.

Say I'm an Evil Powerful Sith Lady. Well, I want to stay just as I am. And the best way to do that is to stay on my toes. I should spend a chunk of everyday watching out for foes and my student. The day I take off and relax in a pool some where is the day I deserve to die.

And encouraging behavior is sneaky. Then the student knows that you know they are coming. That alone might even scare them into doing nothing. After all Darth Vader stayed a pawn of the Emperor for decades and did nothing, just as Darth Tryanius did before him

snoopy13a
2012-08-14, 11:32 AM
One thing I always thought was a flaw with the Rule of Two was what happens if both die?
Say they are meeting together on a ship and it gets blown up some how.
Or the apprentice tries to kill the master, fails, but mortaly wounds the master before dying himself.
Or if the Master kills his apprentice (for whatever reason) and dies before finding a replacement.
Or dozens of other potenial hazards that breaks the flow

I find it odd that in a galaxy of trillions (quadrillions?) that there are only 2 Sith, it just seems like a fairly frail and flawed system to me

Some jedi would turn to the dark side sooner or later and recreate the order.

SmartAlec
2012-08-14, 11:40 AM
Darth Bane was possibly the first Darth to believe so deeply that the way of the Sith was right that he was prepared to sacrifice his life to ensure that one day, a Sith somewhere in the future would become strong enough to prove it.

The Sith were a cult, with all the religion and belief and not-necessarily-logical thinking that implies. The Rule-of-Two Sith were 'puritan' fanatics, beyond 'regular' Sith. Why do you want to train an apprentice that one day will kill you? Well, perhaps you don't. But if you were brought up in the tradition of the Rule of Two, then you do it because you believe.

Bulldog Psion
2012-08-14, 12:04 PM
I like the "Sith are the fanatic element of the Dark Jedi" slant myself. There have be a lot of force-users who aren't part of either order. Some lean a bit light, some lean a bit dark, some are just neutral.

Heck, Count Dooku is proof that there are force users outside the Jedi and Sith even without looking at the Expanded Universe. The Jedi knew he was a former Jedi, IIRC, yet they let him alone until they had proof he'd gone to the Dark Side.

(That's why I always thought that Anakin's best move would have been to take Padme and head off into the galaxy as an independent force user, saying something along the lines of "I'm not going to be your Chosen One, it's a lousy job, and I don't want anything to do with your factions. If I sense any of you approaching me with hostile intent, I won't hesitate to kill you, but I'm not interested in interfering, either. You leave me alone, I leave you alone." But that's another discussion.)

So, the Sith are the few from the independent ones who make the Dark Side a cult. I don't want to bring up anything real world, but we have ample evidence that a certain segment of humanity is willing to die for their beliefs.

And honestly, aren't the Sith a bit more interesting as complex, conflicted humans trying to stay alive yet also training up someone they know will kill them because they believe in that, rather than just "bwahaha, bow useless minions" villains with lobotomized mooks?

Traab
2012-08-14, 12:23 PM
Some jedi would turn to the dark side sooner or later and recreate the order.

And dont they generally leave records behind as well? Holocrons or whatever they are called? It might set the sith back a few generations of ever increasing power, but eventually, they would rise again.

pendell
2012-08-14, 12:55 PM
Some jedi would turn to the dark side sooner or later and recreate the order.

Not necessarily. They could create an order of dark side force users, certainly, but they wouldn't be the Sith unless they had access to holocrons containing Sith traditions and teachings and chose to build on them.

In the EU, IIRC, there are a number of Dark Side groups such as the Witches of Dathomyr who are not part of the Sith. There are also Dark Jedi who are not Sith. Nor is it necessary that a Dark Jedi would choose to follow Sith teachings. Given the nature of the Dark Side, I would expect just the opposite.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Parra
2012-08-14, 12:57 PM
Some jedi would turn to the dark side sooner or later and recreate the order.

Granted. But why would these fallen Jedi suddenly start following the rule of 2?

hamishspence
2012-08-14, 01:05 PM
Not necessarily. They could create an order of dark side force users, certainly, but they wouldn't be the Sith unless they had access to holocrons containing Sith traditions and teachings and chose to build on them.

Yup. Or they might get tutored by a Sith spirit- as happens a few times.

Bulldog Psion
2012-08-14, 01:09 PM
Granted. But why would these fallen Jedi suddenly start following the rule of 2?

Holocrons, Sith spirits, even some carvings in an ancient and dreadful temple -- sky's the limit! :smallsmile:

hamishspence
2012-08-14, 01:14 PM
Problem is the Rule of 2 only lasted 1000 years- and the Sith were very secretive in that period.

A lot of cases where Sith teachings were adopted by fallen Jedi tend to involve older spirits, holocrons, or temples. Result- a bigger group of Dark Jedi.

In one rather interesting case (in I, Jedi) the would-be Sith students had their masters killed by Jedi- who failed to investigate thoroughly and find them. As a result, with only the beginnings of Sith teachings, they ended up orientated in less malevolent fashion- using the Dark Side only to protect their community and hide themselves- so they never really went evil.

Jayngfet
2012-08-14, 01:17 PM
Some jedi would turn to the dark side sooner or later and recreate the order.

This. There's always someone who wants into the famed and feared order in the galaxy. There's also enough artifact swords, holocrons, crystals, carvings, and any other thing you'd care to name scattered on so many planets that somebody running across them is a matter of course at this point.

I mean like, say you're a Nerf Herder out in the outer rim that's somehow force sensitive but never got caught by the jedi, or any of the half a dozen smaller orders skulking around. A calf falls into a little sinkhole and you find the bodies of a couple of dead sith warriors who died there like, two thousand years ago. Suddenly you have their sabers or swords, any texts they had on them, anything in their pockets, their armor and robes, and you're basically good to go unless you get caught. I mean odds are you have some kids who you can train and now the sith begin anew.

Somebloke
2012-08-14, 01:27 PM
...said new Sith promptly inherit the earlier discussed weaknesses of the old order, fight amongst each other and then die out in a hail of...uh...Jedi lightsabers. Only the RoT tradition endured between Bane and Palpatine. Only this tradition gave the Sith the stability it needed by codifying and channeling the urge to power.

hamishspence
2012-08-14, 01:28 PM
The Naga Sadow tradition (Lost Tribe) also lasted- survived some 5000 years of isolation without them killing themselves off.

mangosta71
2012-08-14, 01:46 PM
Based on all levels of canon, it is apparent that the Dark Side of the Force makes people squander their power and resources in the most mind-boggingly stupid schemes imaginable. This all stems from the fact that George Lucas is too simple-minded to create a villain that isn't a mustache-twirling idiot.

The Jedi Order was recruiting faster than its ranks were being depleted, and the whole point of their Order was to share knowledge and power. Thus, with each generation, they become stronger and increase their knowledge. Meanwhile, Darth Bane decides that the best way to overcome them, presumably in battle because doing so any other way would be weakness, is to kill all but one of his potential allies in the greater conflict. Not only cutting their numbers down so that they're vastly outnumbered, but also NOT teaching his apprentice his most powerful techniques, meaning that a portion of knowledge is lost in each generation. Brilliant plan. How many Jedi did Palpatine and Vader actually kill themselves? One. And Obi-wan LET Vader kill him. Darth Bane would have been disgusted, even though the logical extension of his scheme practically guarantees that, eventually, a single Sith wouldn't stand a chance against a single Jedi in combat.

pendell
2012-08-14, 01:51 PM
...said new Sith promptly inherit the earlier discussed weaknesses of the old order, fight amongst each other and then die out in a hail of...uh...Jedi lightsabers. Only the RoT tradition endured between Bane and Palpatine. Only this tradition gave the Sith the stability it needed by codifying and channeling the urge to power.

Part of the reason the ROT was the only one to endure -- described at length in Dynasty of Evil and the precursor book -- was that the Sith were actively working to eliminate other sources of trouble and dark side influence. It would be they and no one else who would overthrow the Republic. So they sought out separatist groups and dark side wannabes and deliberately provoked them into suicidal attacks on the Republic and the Jedi order. The result being that rivals to the rule of Two were eliminated, while the Jedi were given other things to worry about than hunting down Sith lords.

Ironic. If that book stands as EU canon it means that the 1000-year reign of peace and justice was the result of inadvertent co-operation between the Jedi and the Sith -- the Sith flushing the rebels into the crosshairs of the Jedi before they could be more than a minor nuisance, while the Jedi took all the credit and became all the more arrogant and complacent. Exactly As Planned.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

hamishspence
2012-08-14, 01:52 PM
Meanwhile, Darth Bane decides that the best way to overcome them, presumably in battle because doing so any other way would be weakness, is to kill all but one of his potential allies in the greater conflict.


Actually he decided battle simply wouldn't work:

p296 Path of Destruction:

The Jedi were many, and they gained strength when united against a common foe: that was the nature of the light side. The key to defeating them wasn't fleets or armies. Secrecy and deception were the weapons to bring them down. Victory could only come through subtlety and cunning.


How many Jedi did Palpatine and Vader actually kill themselves? One. And Obi-wan LET Vader kill him.

Onscreen. Several were killed by Vader in the Jedi temple "offscreen" though. And lots of Jedi survive in the novels Vader kills most of them, as per "helped the Emperor hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights" in A New Hope.

Reverent-One
2012-08-14, 01:56 PM
How many Jedi did Palpatine and Vader actually kill themselves? One.

That's flat out wrong. Take a look at the casualty list (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Great_Jedi_Purge#Casualties), Vader has a large number of kills and Palpatine has some as well. Further, since the apprentice should only be able to kill his master when he has surpassed him, the setup leads to more, not less, powerful Sith.

Tyndmyr
2012-08-14, 01:57 PM
I believe that the Rule of Two was instituted as a logical corollary to the fact that the Dark Side is self-destructive, with any group of Sith bound to eventually start infighting and possibly kill off the entire branch of them.

The immediate corollary is that there can only be one Sith Master; with no other Masters to challenge their dominance, the sole Sith Lord can maintain the Dark Side with strength. Of course, that Sith Lord needs someone to pass their mantle onto, thus the apprentice.

And then survival of the fittest. It's not a bad idea for the Sith, actually. If it continues on, they keep the Sith line strong and unified.

It's also terminally stupid.

See, if there's only ever two of them, and it must inevitably end with one killing the other, then the number of pairs can never, ever increase.

However, they can obviously decrease. So, termination is inevitable.

Whereas, in canon, we have masses of sith surviving and flourishing. So, it never made sense to me.

Reverent-One
2012-08-14, 02:01 PM
Whereas, in canon, we have masses of sith surviving and flourishing. So, it never made sense to me.

We also see that Sith following the Rule of Two surving and basically taking over the galaxy and nearly wiping out the Jedi.

hamishspence
2012-08-14, 02:03 PM
It does leave it awfully open to them being killed off somehow, leaving no-one to carry on the tradition.

But they were lucky enough not to run afoul of anything that would take them both out.

In the Darth Plagueis novel, one of the biggest setbacks mentioned is when a Sith Master got drawn to the light side (not by a Jedi- just through experimenting with the light side), and started destroying the artefacts they'd collected. His apprentice killed him- was badly wounded, but survived to pass on what was left.

Among the secrets lost in that era was the technique of essence transfer- jumping into a new body.

pendell
2012-08-14, 02:09 PM
But they were lucky enough not to run afoul of anything that would take them both out.


I don't believe there is any such thing as luck in the SW universe. The ROT survived for a thousand years because the Sith were powerful enough in the Dark Side of the Force to influence events such that 'unfortunate' occurrences either did not happen or were taken advantage of.

Sith do not have bad luck. Sith inflict bad luck on other people.

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is not that they were manipulating events, but that they were the Dark Side's chosen champions and thus were protected by it from "luck".

Are they pawns, or kings? Manipulator of events? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Probably not something we can know. But whether the Sith use the Dark Side to influence luck, or whether the Dark Side uses them , is not a question easily answered. What is certain is that the symbiosis exists.



Respectfully,

Brian P.

Tyndmyr
2012-08-14, 02:12 PM
We also see that Sith following the Rule of Two surving and basically taking over the galaxy and nearly wiping out the Jedi.

So? What if they did wipe out the jedi, what then? People still die. Horrible accidents happen, especially in the star wars universe.

Only having two people at any given time(and only one to pass along the knowledge) means that your entire way of life hinges on nothing randomly bad happening to that person, ever.

hamishspence
2012-08-14, 02:14 PM
They often had "apprentice's apprentices" - a bunch of candidates for further induction- that the Apprentice chose from when the Master was finally slain.

In the Clone Wars era Ventress was one such.

Reverent-One
2012-08-14, 02:16 PM
So? What if they did wipe out the jedi, what then? People still die. Horrible accidents happen, especially in the star wars universe.

The point is that is perhaps the most successful we've ever seen the Sith.


Only having two people at any given time(and only one to pass along the knowledge) means that your entire way of life hinges on nothing randomly bad happening to that person, ever.

And having more results in in-fighting that weakens the group, loses knowledge, and thus makes them more vulnerable to being wiped out.

Tiki Snakes
2012-08-14, 02:19 PM
We also see that Sith following the Rule of Two surving and basically taking over the galaxy and nearly wiping out the Jedi.

Well, not in the films we don't. Given that the rule of two is EU stuff, after all.

Reverent-One
2012-08-14, 02:21 PM
Well, not in the films we don't. Given that the rule of two is EU stuff, after all.

See episode 1, where Windu says that there is always a Master and an Apprentice. Further, even if that wasn't mentioned, we still see a pair of Sith, not a large group of them, doing all that.

mangosta71
2012-08-14, 02:22 PM
Further, since the apprentice should only be able to kill his master when he has surpassed him, the setup leads to more, not less, powerful Sith.
Unless, at some point during those thousand years, we have a master who never finds an apprentice capable of defeating him until he's gotten old and feeble (as Darth Bane was afraid would happen to him). Or, ya know, an apprentice who decides to simply murder his master in his sleep. Or poison him. It's not a good setup for survival or growth of power in the long term.

Is Knights of the Old Republic considered canon? Because it was set something like 4000 years before the events of the movies, but they apparently followed the Rule of Two then. It also gives another example of an apprentice being too big a coward to face his master personally.

And another thing - how is it that the Jedi know about the Rule of Two? They obviously do, since Yoda asked in Phantom Menace which of the two Darth Maul was. A pair that supposedly exists without Jedi knowledge, yet the Jedi know about traditions that were established after they disappeared from the Jedi Council's radar?

Tyndmyr
2012-08-14, 02:23 PM
The point is that is perhaps the most successful we've ever seen the Sith.



And having more results in in-fighting that weakens the group, loses knowledge, and thus makes them more vulnerable to being wiped out.

In-fighting and a big group does not make them more vulnerable to being wiped out, though. It's a problem, but reducing to two people means it's a statistical certainty that you will be wiped out.

It's the equivalent of saying "If they find us, they'll kill us. Best commit suicide to avoid that".

hamishspence
2012-08-14, 02:25 PM
In Darth Bane: Path of Destruction we find that KOTOR's Revan had a "Rule of Two" which Bane cribbed from, after finding Revan's holocron.

Reverent-One
2012-08-14, 02:27 PM
Unless, at some point during those thousand years, we have a master who never finds an apprentice capable of defeating him until he's gotten old and feeble (as Darth Bane was afraid would happen to him). Or, ya know, an apprentice who decides to simply murder his master in his sleep. Or poison him. It's not a good setup for survival or growth of power in the long term.

Neither is relying a large group prone to in-fighting and backstabbing within the group. There is no system so perfect that nothing can go wrong, so simply pointing out that something can go wrong in X system doesn't prove it's a worse choice than Y system.


Is Knights of the Old Republic considered canon? Because it was set something like 4000 years before the events of the movies, but they apparently followed the Rule of Two then. It also gives another example of an apprentice being too big a coward to face his master personally.

And another thing - how is it that the Jedi know about the Rule of Two? They obviously do, since Yoda asked in Phantom Menace which of the two Darth Maul was. A pair that supposedly exists without Jedi knowledge, yet the Jedi know about traditions that were established after they disappeared from the Jedi Council's radar?

The bolded parts contradict each other. If the rule of two was used in KoTR, then it wasn't established after they went off the radar.

Tiki Snakes
2012-08-14, 02:27 PM
See episode 1, where Windu says that there is always a Master and an Apprentice. Further, even if that wasn't mentioned, we still see a pair of Sith, not a large group of them, doing all that.

Which could just as easily imply that the Sith work in master-pupil pairs just like the Jedi do. The idea that there could only ever be two Sith at a time is just kind of odd. I mean, it's pretty hard to enforce, too.

So, you've set yourself up as the Sith Master then? A Jedi, investigating Sith ruins on the other side of the galaxy finds a whole bunch of Holocrons and falls as he studies. He raises himself up as the Master of the Sith, and takes his own apprentice.

Both think they are enforcing the 'Rule of Two', but there are now four Sith in the universe.

Reverent-One
2012-08-14, 02:28 PM
In-fighting and a big group does not make them more vulnerable to being wiped out, though.

It is if it leaves the group weaker than it would be with a smaller number.

VanBuren
2012-08-14, 02:29 PM
In-fighting and a big group does not make them more vulnerable to being wiped out, though. It's a problem, but reducing to two people means it's a statistical certainty that you will be wiped out.

It's the equivalent of saying "If they find us, they'll kill us. Best commit suicide to avoid that".

Which is why they operate with subterfuge and secrecy. So that they don't get got.

Reverent-One
2012-08-14, 02:33 PM
Which could just as easily imply that the Sith work in master-pupil pairs just like the Jedi do.

The exact quote from IMDB "Yoda: Always two there are, no more, no less. A master and an apprentice.". I did incorrectly attribute it to Windu, not Yoda. Windu merely asks which one they killed.


The idea that there could only ever be two Sith at a time is just kind of odd. I mean, it's pretty hard to enforce, too.

So, you've set yourself up as the Sith Master then? A Jedi, investigating Sith ruins on the other side of the galaxy finds a whole bunch of Holocrons and falls as he studies. He raises himself up as the Master of the Sith, and takes his own apprentice.

Both think they are enforcing the 'Rule of Two', but there are now four Sith in the universe.

Eventually one pair is likely to find the other, especially since, as has been mentioned, the Sith like finding other dark siders and using them as cannon fodder/distractions.

mangosta71
2012-08-14, 02:33 PM
The bolded parts contradict each other. If the rule of two was used in KoTR, then it wasn't established after they went off the radar.
The contradiction is in the canon. Apparently, the Rule of Two was an idea that a few Sith used before Darth Bane, but not universal until he made it so (which he did after the Jedi believed that all the Sith had been exterminated). If The Old Republic is to be believed, the Sith following Revan did NOT follow the Rule of Two. Yet when the Sith appear in the prequels, the Jedi somehow know that they do follow that rule.

Tyndmyr
2012-08-14, 02:35 PM
It is if it leaves the group weaker than it would be with a smaller number.

This only makes sense if the inverse square ninja law applies.


Which is why they operate with subterfuge and secrecy. So that they don't get got.

Look, they could defeat the Jedis, or never be found by the Jedis, and still get ended. One thing goes wrong, ever, and bam, the order ends. Older Sith can't find a younger sith better than him. Younger sith gleefully stabs him to death, then abandons the practice, enjoying life with booze and hookers. Random disaster in disaster filled universe happens to new master before he takes a student. Student isn't better than master, but wins anyway, because he cheats rather than die(the sith? do something dishonorable? Cmon...) Master dies before he finishes training the student...bam, weaker student.

Literally, it doesn't even need the jedi to end it. They'll end themselves.

hamishspence
2012-08-14, 02:37 PM
It is a little odd. We have Jedi saying "the Sith have been extinct for a millennium" yet we also have Yoda and Mace knowing about the Rule of Two- and also knowing the name Darth Bane. Maybe one of Bane's allies ended up in Jedi hands?

Or his holocron.


One thing goes wrong, ever, and bam, the order ends. Older Sith can't find a younger sith better than him. Younger sith gleefully stabs him to death, then abandons the practice, enjoying life with booze and hookers. Random disaster in disaster filled universe happens to new master before he takes a student. Student isn't better than master, but wins anyway, because he cheats rather than die(the sith? do something dishonorable? Cmon...) Master dies before he finishes training the student...bam, weaker student.

The power of the Sith might have gone up and down a few times. Sometimes apprentices have left the Sith order and founded their own. Darth Millennial was an apprentice not long after the Bane era- and he left to found the Prophets of the Dark Side- which survived to the Vader era.

"weaker student succeeds" doesn't guarantee destroyed Order- but it does show how precarious it was.

"Master goes crazy and student has to kill him before he's learned most of Master's secrets" certainly happened at least once.

Wyntonian
2012-08-14, 02:40 PM
This only makes sense if the inverse square ninja law applies.

I believe the assumption is that two really badass Sith guys have thicker plot armor than a horde of X darksider mooks, riddled with infighting.

On the other hand, wouldn't having the competition of a rather violent group of peers weed out the slow learners and weaker individuals?

Reverent-One
2012-08-14, 02:43 PM
The contradiction is in the canon. Apparently, the Rule of Two was an idea that a few Sith used before Darth Bane, but not universal until he made it so (which he did after the Jedi believed that all the Sith had been exterminated). If The Old Republic is to be believed, the Sith following Revan did NOT follow the Rule of Two. Yet when the Sith appear in the prequels, the Jedi somehow know that they do follow that rule.

Fair enough. In that case, the answer to how Yoda knew is that George Lucas said so. :smalltongue:


This only makes sense if the inverse square ninja law applies.

The infighting would be the justification of the inverse ninja law in this case.

hamishspence
2012-08-14, 02:43 PM
If you think of the Dark Side itself as having a degree of will (some Jedi, like Qui-Gon, certainly think of the light side that way)- its attempts at protecting its own "puppets" (which of course think of themselves as masters) may manifest as "plot armor".

Calemyr
2012-08-14, 02:44 PM
Manageability and sustainability aside, isn't the whole thing just an "iron sharpens iron" sort of thing?

One of the dark side tenants, near as I ever understood it, was that conflict is the key to power. You grow strong by pitting yourself against the strong, you grow weak by denying yourself conflict.

The whole Rule of Two thing is the logical conclusion to that philosophy. True strength is obtained through constant, intense conflict, therefore the best path to obtain that strength is to create that conflict. By raising an apprentice, a master places himself in a position where indolence is lethal, where comfort is a death knell, where peace is the last thing you'll ever know. The apprentice exists to keep you sharp, to keep you strong, to force you to continue to grow in power and continue to work for your dominance.

But it's more than that. Nobody lives forever, even in this setting. Your apprentice is your ultimate legacy, the glorious headstone to your might. Your apprentice's successes are your successes, your apprentice's infamies are the flowers on your grave. In this way, your death becomes your greatest victory, your killer becomes your herald. And beyond all that, you die in the dark side, you die at the height of your passion and power, and you die in the knowledge that your final breath unleashes an even greater scourge upon the galaxy. What Sith would choose to die old and feeble, or fat and comfortable, their true power and passion long since lost in favor of this pale practicality?

If there was ever a heresy in the tenants of the dark side, that would be the greatest one in existence.

Tiki Snakes
2012-08-14, 02:46 PM
Manageability and sustainability aside, isn't the whole thing just an "iron sharpens iron" sort of thing?

One of the dark side tenants, near as I ever understood it, was that conflict is the key to power. You grow strong by pitting yourself against the strong, you grow weak by denying yourself conflict.


Say, by instituting a rule wherein your number of competitors is permenantly limited to a single individual at a time?

Tyndmyr
2012-08-14, 02:48 PM
On the other hand, wouldn't having the competition of a rather violent group of peers weed out the slow learners and weaker individuals?

I would imagine it would, yeah.

The same logic that applies to the student killing off the master basically applies to the infighting.

I mean, there's infighting either way. You're just changing the number of people involved.

hamishspence
2012-08-14, 02:48 PM
Say, by instituting a rule wherein your number of competitors is permenantly limited to a single individual at a time?That would fall under "too much conflict". Just enough to keep you sharp, while not enough to result in you being pulled down by apprentices weaker than you, was the idea.

Wyntonian
2012-08-14, 02:49 PM
That would fall under "too much conflict". Just enough to keep you sharp, while not enough to result in you being pulled down by apprentices weaker than you, was the idea.

You don't get pulled down. You kill them, and get better in the process.

Reverent-One
2012-08-14, 02:51 PM
You don't get pulled down. You kill them, and get better in the process.

What if you don't kill them? And then, with the more powerful threat gone, they turn on each other? The end result is weaker Sith.

Calemyr
2012-08-14, 02:55 PM
You don't get pulled down. You kill them, and get better in the process.

It's a question of quality, not quantity. The bane of the Sith is always quantity. They twist in on themselves, betray each other, hamstring each other, weaken each other. That is not the path to power. Power shared is power divided. Power must be taken, and it must be taken by one individual.

Wyntonian
2012-08-14, 02:58 PM
What if you don't kill them? And then, with the more powerful threat gone, they turn on each other? The end result is weaker Sith.

It seems more logical that, as a result of turning on each other, the weak ones die out and only the strongest SOBs you had are left, bloody-handed and screaming victory.

If their entire philosophy focuses on conflict and inflicting death, why not have a system that allows A. More conflict and B. being able to kill your inferiors without ruining all that work you'd put into developing them?

hamishspence
2012-08-14, 02:58 PM
It can sometimes take a very long time for the Sith to fall though. The Rule of Two is one among many versions of the Sith- and not the longest-lasting one at that.

A case could be made that they were able to achieve the most though- ruling the whole galaxy rather than a medium-sized empire, or one world.

Tyndmyr
2012-08-14, 03:02 PM
It can sometimes take a very long time for the Sith to fall though. The Rule of Two is one among many versions of the Sith- and not the longest-lasting one at that.

A case could be made that they were able to achieve the most though- ruling the whole galaxy rather than a medium-sized empire, or one world.

For a fairly short period of time, with a rebellion fighting them for the entire time, yes? So...they managed to start a war that was mostly successful before going badly.

Kind of the hitler of military leaders. I wouldn't describe it as the best of strategems.

Reverent-One
2012-08-14, 03:03 PM
It seems more logical that, as a result of turning on each other, the weak ones die out and only the strongest SOBs you had are left, bloody-handed and screaming victory.

Except if the apprentices had to team up to kill the master, than the strongest SOB (the master) is already dead, and the same cycle could be repeated within the apprentices, with weaker ones working together long enough to kill the stronger ones, then fighting each other.


For a fairly short period of time, with a rebellion fighting them for the entire time, yes? So...they managed to start a war that was mostly successful before going badly.

Kind of the hitler of military leaders. I wouldn't describe it as the best of strategems.

Better than any of the alternatives, they were able to virtually wipe out of Jedi order when the Sith had previously been unable to.

DaedalusMkV
2012-08-14, 03:12 PM
It's probably worth pointing out that the Sith use weaker, indoctrinated-to-be-loyal Dark Side users too. While I'm not solid on pre-Palpatine Rule of Two Sith, Palpatine made extensive use of brainwashed or otherwise manipulated Dark Side adepts as part of his schemes, many of whom knew at least a little bit about Sith lore. Even Darth Maul pretty much falls into this category, since he was basically used as a dumb assassin while Dooku was kept as the 'real' Apprentice, and the Hands of the Emperor were all fanatically loyal Dark Side adepts kept outside of the Master-Apprentice dichotomy. Vader does it as well in at least a few cases.

Basically, the general idea is that you only have two true powerhouse Sith, one to rule the Sith and the other one to learn from the first and act as his second in command until he feels he's learned everything his master has to teach, at which point he kills said master and starts the cycle anew. All of the rest of the Dark Side users are just pawns or obstacles to be thrown to the Jedi as sacrificial bait. Presumably, the Sith pawns would have been used as a failsafe mechanism if somehow the main two Sith died at the same time (say, for example, the Apprentice and Master accidentally inflict simultaneous mortal wounds on each other), given Holocrons to found a new Sith order if necessary. It's... Really not exactly hard in a setting as technologically advanced as Star Wars to arrange for information to be given out to a select group of people in the event of your death.

The benefit of this system is that it's very predictable. The Apprentice will not try to kill the Master until he feels he's learned everything his master has to teach, because doing so means losing out on power for himself and weakening the Sith order. Both sides know that there will be a conflict, but for most of their relationship they will also know that that conflict will not happen for years to come. It encourages long-term plotting (the Apprentice is supposed to spend years preparing the field, after all) and eliminates the stupid, random "he spilled coffee on my boots, time to fight to the death" stuff that happened before the Rule of Two, and with proper use of technology the fragile nature of the two-person system can be mostly overcome. It's about as good a system as a bunch of backstabbing, mustache-twirling bad guys are going to be able to maintain in the long run, and it worked.

hamishspence
2012-08-14, 03:23 PM
Better than any of the alternatives, they were able to virtually wipe out of Jedi order when the Sith had previously been unable to.

Nihilus came close in KoTOR2- may have actually had less Jedi left over after his attack than Palpatine left after Order 66- but he had little control over the rest of the galaxy.


Even Darth Maul pretty much falls into this category, since he was basically used as a dumb assassin while Dooku was kept as the 'real' Apprentice,

On Maul and Dooku- Maul was killed before Dooku was recruited. In fact, Palaptine was still the Apprentice when he recruited Maul- his master suspended the Rule of Two and gave Palpatine permission to train the child.

Palpatine's Master died toward the end of Episode I.

Reverent-One
2012-08-14, 03:31 PM
Nihilus came close in KoTOR2- may have actually had less Jedi left over after his attack than Palpatine left after Order 66- but he had little control over the rest of the galaxy.


Well, Order 66 wasn't the end of Palpatine and Vader's rule, many of the survivors of Order 66 were killed by Vader/Dark Side Adepts/troops.

hamishspence
2012-08-14, 03:34 PM
Yup. In fact, the shutdown of the droids wasn't the end of hostilities, either- there was a lot of "rooting out Seperatist holdouts" afterward.

pendell
2012-08-14, 03:52 PM
Palpatine's Master died toward the end of Episode I.


Really? Darth Plagueis was still alive during Episode 1? Darth Sidious went from Apprentice to Master during the movie?

And this all happened off-camera?

My estimation of Lucas' storytelling capability just dropped further, I'm afraid.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Yora
2012-08-14, 03:58 PM
Well, this all seems to have been made up in a 2012 novel which wasn't written by Lucas in any way. Can't blame that on him.

It also contradicts the fact that there are only two sith at any time, which is mentioned in the movie itself, yet we have Sidious and Maul since the very beginning. If Sidious has an apprentice, then Plaguesis must already be dead.

hamishspence
2012-08-14, 04:01 PM
It did make use of, for example, TCW's version of Darth Maul- someone who was handed over as a child to Sidious and trained.

It also stresses that "only two Sith" is not a hard and fast rule- hence Plagueis being around at the same time as Maul. With Maul being much more like an "Emperor's hand" than a normal apprentice.

VanBuren
2012-08-14, 04:02 PM
This only makes sense if the inverse square ninja law applies.



Look, they could defeat the Jedis, or never be found by the Jedis, and still get ended. One thing goes wrong, ever, and bam, the order ends. Older Sith can't find a younger sith better than him. Younger sith gleefully stabs him to death, then abandons the practice, enjoying life with booze and hookers. Random disaster in disaster filled universe happens to new master before he takes a student. Student isn't better than master, but wins anyway, because he cheats rather than die(the sith? do something dishonorable? Cmon...) Master dies before he finishes training the student...bam, weaker student.

Literally, it doesn't even need the jedi to end it. They'll end themselves.

What, they can't use the Force to subtly manipulate events? This is Star Wars, "chance" is just the Force.


If you think of the Dark Side itself as having a degree of will (some Jedi, like Qui-Gon, certainly think of the light side that way)- its attempts at protecting its own "puppets" (which of course think of themselves as masters) may manifest as "plot armor".

IIRC, isn't the light side the "true side" with the dark side being a perversion of it?


Say, by instituting a rule wherein your number of competitors is permenantly limited to a single individual at a time?

You have a bunch of weaker apprentices. They band together to take you down. Strong didn't survive.


Nihilus came close in KoTOR2- may have actually had less Jedi left over after his attack than Palpatine left after Order 66- but he had little control over the rest of the galaxy.

I was going to point out that Nihilus was something of an eldritch abomination at the time, but given the EU Palpatine was pretty much one as well.

hamishspence
2012-08-14, 04:04 PM
IIRC, isn't the light side the "true side" with the dark side being a perversion of it?

Lucas said that once in an interview- but later works seem to have moved away from it.

Tiki Snakes
2012-08-14, 04:08 PM
You have a bunch of weaker apprentices. They band together to take you down. Strong didn't survive.

You are unsuccessful in playing your apprentices off against one another, and they take you down. One of them emerges to take your place, having played his fellows off against you and succeeded. Strong Survives.


Lucas said that once in an interview- but later works seem to have moved away from it.

Moved away from, or willfully ignored it in order to put their own spin on the thing. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. The EU is a strange and unruly beast.

Yora
2012-08-14, 04:12 PM
It did make use of, for example, TCW's version of Darth Maul- someone who was handed over as a child to Sidious and trained.

It also stresses that "only two Sith" is not a hard and fast rule- hence Plagueis being around at the same time as Maul. With Maul being much more like an "Emperor's hand" than a normal apprentice.
Yet he calls him his apprentice in the movie. Though technically, that scene could have been a few hours after Plaguesis death. But really, this is just stupid! It's just really bad writing and forced justification.

And don't give too much credit to Lucas. He really was only the Producer for the first trilogy who had an interesting idea that was very heavily worked over, smoothed out, and expended on by other writers, and directed by other directors for Empire and Jedi. And then there were over 20 video games and tonnes of novels in the following decades before Lucas took direct participation again with the second trilogy.

Yes "fantasy with rusty space ships" was a cool idea which he should be rightfully credited for. But if anything, he created the look and feel. All the story and detail of the setting isn't his work at all.

hamishspence
2012-08-14, 04:15 PM
Moved away from, or willfully ignored it in order to put their own spin on the thing. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. The EU is a strange and unruly beast.

Sometimes it's works Lucas has more of a hand it- like The Clone Wars and its Mortis episodes.


Yet he calls him his apprentice in the movie. Though technically, that scene could have been a few hours after Plaguesis death.

Nope- it was a case of Plagueis knowing about Maul, and permitting it (Plagueis had suspended the Rule of Two in the novel).

Gnoman
2012-08-14, 04:20 PM
You are unsuccessful in playing your apprentices off against one another, and they take you down. One of them emerges to take your place, having played his fellows off against you and succeeded. Strong Survives.



No, Weak survives. Even if the winner manages to break the other apprentices to his will (which isn't likely, the Dark Side encourages Chronic Backstabbing disorder, so the apprentice in the best shape after the fight will probably wrest control), the one that was most powerful still died. The Order gets weaker.

It's a strange philosophy because it's forthrightly, unashamedly Evil. It's the traditional flaw of Evil. Good gains strength by banding together in times of strife, and generally leaves disputes over the spoils to a later day to a post-war confrence or, at worst, a later war. Evil will backstab an enemy now to avoid having to fight them later. If the ultimate power is in the hands of one person too strong to overcome (as a Rule of Two pair will almost always be), then there can be no backstabbing.

Aragehaor
2012-08-14, 04:26 PM
You are unsuccessful in playing your apprentices off against one another, and they take you down. One of them emerges to take your place, having played his fellows off against you and succeeded. Strong Survives.Not technically correct - while this would quite possibly lead to the most cunning Sith surviving, that is quite a different matter then the Sith strongest in the dark side surviving. (And, incidentally this also leads to a problem with the Rule of Two - namely the master dieing before his apprentice(s) are properly trained and dark side arts being lost.)

Traab
2012-08-14, 04:34 PM
It seems more logical that, as a result of turning on each other, the weak ones die out and only the strongest SOBs you had are left, bloody-handed and screaming victory.

If their entire philosophy focuses on conflict and inflicting death, why not have a system that allows A. More conflict and B. being able to kill your inferiors without ruining all that work you'd put into developing them?

But the problem with this is, instead of spending time growing stronger, they are spending all their time trying to stab each other in the back, while guarding their own from others attempts. With the rule of two, the master has one threat to watch over, while the apprentice has one person he has to surpass and overcome. This lets both grow as strong as they can. (assuming the master isnt hamstringing his apprentice so he never becomes stronger)

Thats the thing about the rule of two that confuses me. It suggests a level of selflessness that just doesnt seem to line up with how the master acts. According to the rule, the master would actively be trying to make his apprentice strong enough to kill him, so the dark side is lead by the strongest master possible. Why would a dark lord of the sith want anyone else but him to be supreme? Why would he willingly train an apprentice enough to defeat him? Isnt it more likely the master would train his apprentice with a single flaw that only the master knows of, so if he ever turns on his master, the apprentice gets slaughtered?

I can understand a megatron/starscream style of relationship. Megatron is pretty much ALWAYS superior, starscream is allowed to be powerful enough to be a threat, but never powerful enough to win. That way the master gets someone to keep him on his toes, but isnt actively working towards making sure he will eventually be killed by his own apprentice.

hamishspence
2012-08-14, 04:41 PM
Possibly because- at the time Bane came up with the Rule- there were no ways known to him of becoming immortal. He knew that overthrowing the Republic would be the endpoint of centuries of work, by many generations of Sith- and Palpatine was the heir to all this work.

Bane isn't "purely selfish"- he has a long term goal- and he indoctrinated his apprentice in it (and so on, and so on).

Reverent-One
2012-08-14, 04:42 PM
Thats the thing about the rule of two that confuses me. It suggests a level of selflessness that just doesnt seem to line up with how the master acts. According to the rule, the master would actively be trying to make his apprentice strong enough to kill him, so the dark side is lead by the strongest master possible. Why would a dark lord of the sith want anyone else but him to be supreme? Why would he willingly train an apprentice enough to defeat him? Isnt it more likely the master would train his apprentice with a single flaw that only the master knows of, so if he ever turns on his master, the apprentice gets slaughtered?


Pendell got it several pages ago, I think.


Because unless you discover the secret of immortality, you're going to die. And what , then? Do the Sith die with you?

If not, to whom will you entrust this priceless legacy? If you're Darth Bane, the answer can only be: To the One person in the galaxy worthy to inherit the mantle.

Also, because the Master can't accomplish all his goals alone.

Tiki Snakes
2012-08-14, 04:44 PM
Not technically correct - while this would quite possibly lead to the most cunning Sith surviving, that is quite a different matter then the Sith strongest in the dark side surviving. (And, incidentally this also leads to a problem with the Rule of Two - namely the master dieing before his apprentice(s) are properly trained and dark side arts being lost.)


Think of it this way, whilst the master lives, any student can learn from him and grow more powerful. If a student tries to initiate a move on the master, it's tantamount to saying "I believe I have enough power to subdue or kill the rest of you, if you will only help me destroy our source of knowledge".
So the other students would, naturally, have an interest in keeping the Master alive until they are capable of dealing with both the Master AND the other students in a single stroke, otherwise they risk the rest teaming up against their attempts to become the master, too.

This would also encourage them to seek power and knowledge from outside the group, to bring in new ideas and tricks and sources of power to give them an edge over their fellows and their master when the time comes, which encourages the overall power and knowledge of the Sith to grow rather than stagnate in a procession of merely passing down your knowledge to your apprentice untill you are satisfied with letting them kill you.

Reverent-One
2012-08-14, 04:49 PM
Think of it this way, whilst the master lives, any student can learn from him and grow more powerful. If a student tries to initiate a move on the master, it's tantamount to saying "I believe I have enough power to subdue or kill the rest of you, if you will only help me destroy our source of knowledge".
So the other students would, naturally, have an interest in keeping the Master alive until they are capable of dealing with both the Master AND the other students in a single stroke, otherwise they risk the rest teaming up against their attempts to become the master, too.

This would also encourage them to seek power and knowledge from outside the group, to bring in new ideas and tricks and sources of power to give them an edge over their fellows and their master when the time comes, which encourages the overall power and knowledge of the Sith to grow rather than stagnate in a procession of merely passing down your knowledge to your apprentice untill you are satisfied with letting them kill you.

On the other hand, it encourages the other apprentices to sabotage anyone advancing too quickly, or that just might be a threat later.

Jothki
2012-08-14, 04:53 PM
Is there any evidence that the Sith didn't screw up the transition and effectively have to start over from near scratch multiple times while they were in hiding?

hamishspence
2012-08-14, 05:00 PM
There's some evidence that things did go wrong on occasion- apprentices leaving (like Darth Millennial) and a new apprentice having to be found, a Master going crazy and being replaced by a less experienced than usual apprentice, and so on.

Aragehaor
2012-08-14, 05:12 PM
Think of it this way, whilst the master lives, any student can learn from him and grow more powerful. If a student tries to initiate a move on the master, it's tantamount to saying "I believe I have enough power to subdue or kill the rest of you, if you will only help me destroy our source of knowledge".
So the other students would, naturally, have an interest in keeping the Master alive until they are capable of dealing with both the Master AND the other students in a single stroke, otherwise they risk the rest teaming up against their attempts to become the master, too.Sith are - depending on exactly which Sith we're talking about - in general, Impatient and power hungry. I do not find it likely that they would wait until they were strong enough to take down all of the rest, Rather - i'd expect the one who takes power to be the one who was cunning enough to realize that he need not be the strongest to win - rather all he needs is cunning and explosives.


This would also encourage them to seek power and knowledge from outside the group, to bring in new ideas and tricks and sources of power to give them an edge over their fellows and their master when the time comes, which encourages the overall power and knowledge of the Sith to grow rather than stagnate in a procession of merely passing down your knowledge to your apprentice untill you are satisfied with letting them kill you. Assuming for a moment that this is how it would go down as opposed to the aforementioned cunning and explosives. - This has a chance to lead to the apprentice seeking power to 'fall' to the light side and end up with the Sith order being wiped out by the Jedi in their ranks.

The idea is also more of 'force your apprentice to grow in strength until he can kill you.' as opposed to 'let your apprentice kill you when you have taught them everything you know'

That said, there are major problems with the rule of two - and the whole 'falling to the light side' bit is just as present in it as it would be in your scenario(And has actually happened) And more over, the rule of two hardly guarantees the strongest survives - for instance, The apprentice could simply use a ship to destroy his master rather then challenge him to a dark side duel.

(See: Revan And Malak - though admittedly that plan managed to fail.)

hamishspence
2012-08-14, 05:19 PM
Palpatine himself didn't exactly beat his master in a straight duel- he fed him sleeping drugs, fried his breathing apparatus (does seem to be common in Sith to have that kind of injury) then kept attacking him (while lecturing him on his stupidity) until he finally died.

"Killed him in his sleep" turns out to be true only technically- he attacked him in his sleep, but Plagueis was awake when he actually died.

Tiki Snakes
2012-08-14, 05:22 PM
Yeah, there are still risks either way (partly because evil backstabbing, regardless of the number of players) is a silly way to try to get ahead in any universe.

But the risks are much greater in a rule of two situation, as all it takes is the will to be rid of master and a dozen guys with blasters, potentially. At least with a half dozen other apprentices, you also have to keep them out of the way.

The sith wouldn't get any more patient simply because there's only one guy in their way rather than a dozen.

edit - Oh, as for the let them kill you thing, the problem with the Rule of Two is that, if all goes according to plan, they kill you. So, really, on some level any rule of two master is subconciously hoping for his apprentice to win.

Without Rule of Two, there are more potential endgames, such as the apprentices simply going off to be a master in their own right, rather than feeling the need to kill you for arbitrary philosophical reasons (rather than the solid darkside motivations of not liking your face, or you standing in their way somehow).

hamishspence
2012-08-14, 05:24 PM
They might be eager to learn the "secrets" though- each apprentice torn between "Need more info" and "want to be the Master".

the urge to learn just one more Dark Side Secret, might be what keeps apprentices from rebelling till they're actually powerful enough to succeed.

SoC175
2012-08-14, 05:29 PM
I believe that the Rule of Two was instituted as a logical corollary to the fact that the Dark Side is self-destructive, with any group of Sith bound to eventually start infighting and possibly kill off the entire branch of them. And voluntarily reducing yourself to a single branch of two individuals instead of countless branches some of which destroying themselves helps to avoid this?

The immediate corollary is that there can only be one Sith Master; with no other Masters to challenge their dominance, the sole Sith Lord can maintain the Dark Side with strength. Or if he is killed too early the whole Dark Side is reduced to being represented by a single apprentice.

It's not a bad idea for the Sith, actually. If it continues on, they keep the Sith line strong and unified.Only ever having two at the same time instead of hundreds is good?

hamishspence
2012-08-14, 05:34 PM
Might have been to keep themselves as hidden as possible. They managed well enough that some Jedi believed that the Sith had been "extinct for a millennium"- would have been harder to achieve this with hundreds of "master-apprentice pairs" rather than one.

Closet_Skeleton
2012-08-14, 05:37 PM
the urge to learn just one more Dark Side Secret, might be what keeps apprentices from rebelling till they're actually powerful enough to succeed.

Also the fact that they're crazy, not stupid.

Aragehaor
2012-08-14, 05:38 PM
They might be eager to learn the "secrets" though- each apprentice torn between "Need more info" and "want to be the Master".

the urge to learn just one more Dark Side Secret, might be what keeps apprentices from rebelling till they're actually powerful enough to succeed.

They also would not have to worry about another apprentice exceeding them in power - thus allowing them to learn all of their masters secrets before brutally murdering him/her. (Though i admit its still perfectly possible for an apprentice to go 'Bugger that.' and kill his master through use of hired mercs, explosives, droids, what have you far before he is actually ready to be the master.) The rule of two does promote patience in that sense.

Jothki
2012-08-14, 05:39 PM
Who says that Sith duels aren't done with mercenaries, explosives, and droids?

Aragehaor
2012-08-14, 05:44 PM
Who says that Sith duels aren't done with mercenaries, explosives, and droids?

There is nothing stopping that from happening - and it really is only a issue when the apprentice does it before hes actually strong enough to be the master.

Tavar
2012-08-14, 05:45 PM
Going from the examples of Sith Master/Apprentice relationships given, I don't think there are limits on how an Apprentice overthrows their master. Part of the Master's task it seems to be to make sure his apprentice cannot muster enough resources to do it.

Squark
2012-08-14, 06:05 PM
If memory serves, putting the sith on the edge of extinction was half the point of the rule of two. It meant that the Master and Apprentice would have to use all their wits to merely survive. Self preservation actually encourage an apprentice to take things slowly, because if he kills the master before he's learned enough, he's up the creak without a paddle. And yes, it was risky. If you like, think of it as a gamble. Sure, it might not work, but Darth Bane is absolutely sure the current system won't work, so he chooses the path he thinks has some chance of success instead of continuing in a system he believes has no chance at all.

On Revan and the Rule of Two: Specifically, Revan was of the opinion that a Master should only have one apprentice at the time. You could train multiple sith over your lifetime, and other sith existing weren't inherently a problem, but by keeping only one apprentice at a time, you ensure apprentices aren't wasted needlessly, and you only have one apprentice to keep your eyes on.

Coidzor
2012-08-14, 06:06 PM
The biggest problem is simple statistics. When you have two people engaged in high lethality melee combat, often well away from medical equipment or any kind of ally that could help maintain the life of an otherwise mortally wounded survivor, the chance of the Sith dying out due to their ritual combats approaches certainty the longer things go on. Unfortunately I forget the term for this, but it's also why one would need a whole suite of super powers to avoid a fate worse than death if one were simply unable to die, since the likelihood that one will become trapped or a maimed, unrecognizable shell goes up with every day and all those years add up.

Then again, very few people actually seem to believe that the Sith represent a cogent, practical philosophy, thankfully, so it's easily enough accounted for by the fact that the Dark Side makes new Sith even after they've killed themselves off as has surely happened innumerable times.

Closet_Skeleton: On the contrary, a not insignificant number of them *are* stupid. Darth Malak, Darth Caedus, Darth Vader before his racial reassignment surgery to name a few. Hell, you could argue that Vader was chosen *for* his stupidity and how easy it is to manipulate him, which craps on the idea of at least appearing to choose a likely candidate as one's apprentice.

SmartAlec
2012-08-14, 06:49 PM
And another thing - how is it that the Jedi know about the Rule of Two? They obviously do, since Yoda asked in Phantom Menace which of the two Darth Maul was. A pair that supposedly exists without Jedi knowledge, yet the Jedi know about traditions that were established after they disappeared from the Jedi Council's radar?

I believe that the Jedi managed to apprehend an agent of the Sith during that 1000-year period, who blabbed about the Sith still being in existence under the new 'rule of two'. The Jedi kinda followed it up... a bit... sort of, but the Sith knew it was coming and went even more off the radar for a time, so the Jedi never found anything and chalked it up to the snitch being delusional.

By the end of Phantom Menace, though, Yoda and Mace have realised that the confession must have been the truth after all.

Edit: I was kinda right. 'Around 188 BBY, during the Dark Jedi Conflict, Kibh Jeen warned the Jedi that the Sith had survived and were operating utilizing the Rule of Two, his warnings were mostly ignored or passed off as the rantings of a madman.' http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Kibh_Jeen

Devonix
2012-08-14, 06:51 PM
People also seem to be forgetting that the Sith Order is in many ways more importaint than even themselves. Sith can and will self sacrifice if it means that the order becomes more powerful.

If you don't think this way then you are not Sith you're just someone using the darkside. Its not the same thing.

MLai
2012-08-14, 07:10 PM
Further exploring the fact that the Sith are "fanatics", not just Dark Side users... if you think of it in the way of religion, a ROT makes sense if you look at how a powerful Sith Lord sees himself.

A powerful SL indoctrinated in the ROT, and in Dark Side superiority/ inevitability as his worldview, pretty much sees himself as a Space Jesus. He doesn't care about gathering fallible human disciples and then founding a church which later dilutes and distorts his teachings for its own mundane concerns (political power, money, influence, etc). The ROT is for him to foster the Second Coming.

What you say about superiority/ safety in numbers, and the feasibility of operating within organizations, makes sense in the framework of humans/ mortals. That's not how a post-Bane Sith Lord sees himself and his legacy.


Manageability and sustainability aside, isn't the whole thing just an "iron sharpens iron" sort of thing?

One of the dark side tenants, near as I ever understood it, was that conflict is the key to power. You grow strong by pitting yourself against the strong, you grow weak by denying yourself conflict.

The whole Rule of Two thing is the logical conclusion to that philosophy. True strength is obtained through constant, intense conflict, therefore the best path to obtain that strength is to create that conflict. By raising an apprentice, a master places himself in a position where indolence is lethal, where comfort is a death knell, where peace is the last thing you'll ever know. The apprentice exists to keep you sharp, to keep you strong, to force you to continue to grow in power and continue to work for your dominance.

But it's more than that. Nobody lives forever, even in this setting. Your apprentice is your ultimate legacy, the glorious headstone to your might. Your apprentice's successes are your successes, your apprentice's infamies are the flowers on your grave. In this way, your death becomes your greatest victory, your killer becomes your herald. And beyond all that, you die in the dark side, you die at the height of your passion and power, and you die in the knowledge that your final breath unleashes an even greater scourge upon the galaxy. What Sith would choose to die old and feeble, or fat and comfortable, their true power and passion long since lost in favor of this pale practicality?

If there was ever a heresy in the tenants of the dark side, that would be the greatest one in existence.
Damn. You got fanfics? I wanna read you write, LOL.

Zevox
2012-08-14, 08:18 PM
Might have been to keep themselves as hidden as possible. They managed well enough that some Jedi believed that the Sith had been "extinct for a millennium"- would have been harder to achieve this with hundreds of "master-apprentice pairs" rather than one.
That is precisely true. Darth Bane took great pains to ensure that the Jedi Order thought that the Sith had gone extinct with the destruction of the branch that taught him, and to ensure that none ever learned of himself and his apprentice. The Rule of Two Sith were not supposed to reveal their existence again until they were ready to eliminate the Jedi entirely.

Zevox

Supreme Evil
2012-08-14, 08:59 PM
If anyone cares as to where I'm coming from, look at Set Harth (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Set_Harth). He's everything I conceive of the Dark Side as being: self-obsessed, hedonistic, sociopathic, and not in the least bit concerned with petty philosophies. He doesn't aspire to be the ultimate grand master of evil through some endless, pointless conflict - he just wants to be the boss and take everything he likes. He embraced the Dark Side simply because it let him throw off the stifling philosophies of the Jedi, gave him unrestricted access to power, and let him do whatever he wanted. That is how I picture the Dark Side at its core - pure unrestricted power for those lacking in morality to take and do whatever they want with.

Raimun
2012-08-14, 10:17 PM
Few things:

Two people will go unnoticed. Sith academy won't.

Those with the Force are psychic. Espesially the powerful ones. They can avoid household accidents or exploding battleships.

It looks like the Sith use the Jedi order to "weed out the weak ones".

There's still Dark Jedi if you need mindless minions. They don't have any philosophies.

The Sith believe in the rule of two so they'd challenge themselves and gain power that way. One master vs. two or more students just ruins the exercise. If master is worth 10 and two students, worth 5 and 6, would be together 11, the resulting successor would be worth 6, after he has killed 5. The true successor... goes up to 11. (http://mirrors.rit.edu/instantCSI/). Edit: Even if it takes a lot of time. Edit2: The master's better to go up to 12 and so on.

Devonix
2012-08-14, 10:25 PM
If anyone cares as to where I'm coming from, look at Set Harth (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Set_Harth). He's everything I conceive of the Dark Side as being: self-obsessed, hedonistic, sociopathic, and not in the least bit concerned with petty philosophies. He doesn't aspire to be the ultimate grand master of evil through some endless, pointless conflict - he just wants to be the boss and take everything he likes. He embraced the Dark Side simply because it let him throw off the stifling philosophies of the Jedi, gave him unrestricted access to power, and let him do whatever he wanted. That is how I picture the Dark Side at its core - pure unrestricted power for those lacking in morality to take and do whatever they want with.

Those can be traits of the Darkside if you want them to be, but that ignores the point that the Sith use the Darkside they aren't Darkside beings.

Sith can love, and feel, can have and use every emotion that exists. Indeed by the Sith philosophy you NEED those emotions both good and bad ones inside of you to be true Sith as they feel stifling emotion to be a tool of the Jedi.

Coidzor
2012-08-14, 10:28 PM
Those can be traits of the Darkside if you want them to be, but that ignores the point that the Sith use the Darkside they aren't Darkside beings.

Sith can love, and feel, can have and use every emotion that exists. Indeed by the Sith philosophy you NEED those emotions both good and bad ones inside of you to be true Sith as they feel stifling emotion to be a tool of the Jedi.

Have the apologists even come up with examples of loving Sith yet?

Devonix
2012-08-14, 10:41 PM
Have the apologists even come up with examples of loving Sith yet?

Oh they can love, I never ment that they were any good at it just that they feel the emotion and usually twist it to something else, but there is the core of love before it's twisted into a desire to possess.

Coidzor
2012-08-14, 10:49 PM
Oh they can love, I never ment that they were any good at it just that they feel the emotion and usually twist it to something else, but there is the core of love before it's twisted into a desire to possess.

Or there was just covetedness that was never actually love or even love-like that naturally went into a desire to possess. The desire to possess someone or something doesn't need to come from love. :smalltongue:

Philistine
2012-08-15, 12:41 AM
Have the apologists even come up with examples of loving Sith yet?

You mean apart from Darth freaking Vader?

MLai
2012-08-15, 02:17 AM
If anyone cares as to where I'm coming from, look at Set Harth (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Set_Harth). He's everything I conceive of the Dark Side as being: self-obsessed, hedonistic, sociopathic, and not in the least bit concerned with petty philosophies.
It seems what you think about the Dark Side is different from what the post-Bane Sith actually think about the Dark Side. The Sith is not one unchanging monolithic entity of thought. Think of the ROT as a schism, or a new denomination, if you must. Like all religions/philosophies, there's no one correct answer. Bane's answer just happened to be the one that survived into the era of ANH.

VanBuren
2012-08-15, 03:42 AM
Have the apologists even come up with examples of loving Sith yet?


You mean apart from Darth freaking Vader?

Better example might be Darth Vectivus. Pretty chill bro who died surrounded by friends and family.

Even stopped his whole mining operation at one point because the dark energy was poisoning his workers. Because Darth Vectivus has principles.

MLai
2012-08-15, 04:02 AM
Even stopped his whole mining operation at one point because the dark energy was poisoning his workers. Because Darth Vectivus has principles.
Wait, this is a Sith Lord?
This guy can't even make it as a petroleum exec. He's a Sith Lord??

VanBuren
2012-08-15, 04:31 AM
Wait, this is a Sith Lord?
This guy can't even make it as a petroleum exec. He's a Sith Lord??

Yup. And enough of a badass that even the hardcore baby-eating Sith had to recognize his mad skillz, yo.

SmartAlec
2012-08-15, 06:24 AM
If anyone cares as to where I'm coming from, look at Set Harth (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Set_Harth). He's everything I conceive of the Dark Side as being: self-obsessed, hedonistic, sociopathic, and not in the least bit concerned with petty philosophies. He doesn't aspire to be the ultimate grand master of evil through some endless, pointless conflict - he just wants to be the boss and take everything he likes. He embraced the Dark Side simply because it let him throw off the stifling philosophies of the Jedi, gave him unrestricted access to power, and let him do whatever he wanted. That is how I picture the Dark Side at its core - pure unrestricted power for those lacking in morality to take and do whatever they want with.

Set Harth is a classic regular dark-sider. The Dark Side wants to consume the rest of the Force and spread itself wherever it can, and twerps like Set there are its classic tools - individuals twisted towards extreme selfishness who indulge in the power they've been given and spread bad vibes and pain wherever they go, unwittingly giving the Dark Side places to grow. Nitwits like Set think they're the king of the world, when they're just pawns.

The Sith are different in that they've taken that game and gone pro. They know what the Dark Side wants, and their cult is dedicated to being willingly complicit in that goal. The Sith tenets want the Dark Side to consume all! In a galaxy where the Dark Side has done so, all people will be free of the limitation of being connected to every other living being. All there'll be in the galaxy is power, anger, fear and hate - and for the Sith, whose techniques and training allow them to overcome and harness their anger, fear and hate, there'll be only power.

(that's why even the smartest still indulge in cartoon villainy, random killing and 'pointless' spreading of bad vibes - the more the Dark Side spreads, the stronger they are.)

The level of commitment and dedication varies between individual Sith, just as it does among Jedi. The Sith Code requires a Sith to become just as inhuman as the Jedi Code does. Don't think of them as more 'normal', as in the main, they're not.

mangosta71
2012-08-15, 09:54 AM
I believe that the Jedi managed to apprehend an agent of the Sith during that 1000-year period, who blabbed about the Sith still being in existence under the new 'rule of two'. The Jedi kinda followed it up... a bit... sort of, but the Sith knew it was coming and went even more off the radar for a time, so the Jedi never found anything and chalked it up to the snitch being delusional.

By the end of Phantom Menace, though, Yoda and Mace have realised that the confession must have been the truth after all.

Edit: I was kinda right. 'Around 188 BBY, during the Dark Jedi Conflict, Kibh Jeen warned the Jedi that the Sith had survived and were operating utilizing the Rule of Two, his warnings were mostly ignored or passed off as the rantings of a madman.' http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Kibh_Jeen
If I'm reading the dates right, this means that, 150 years before Episode I, a single madman, with his dying breath, muttered something about "there are always two". In the following century and a half, there's no other apparent evidence supporting that idea. Yet somehow Yoda, who wasn't present when he died, and Mace Windu, who hadn't even been born yet, are not only familiar with his words, but accept them as absolute truth. Note that, earlier in the film, the Jedi are still expressing the belief that the Sith had been completely exterminated a thousand years prior. There's no transition period where anyone says, "This reminds me of an old story. Maybe it was true..." They immediately leap from "they're all gone" to "was he the master or the apprentice?" No speculation as to whether some Force-sensitive individual had found some lost Dark Side ruin and been corrupted (because that certainly never happens. Nope. Not even then), then joined the Trade Federation as a high-power hitman/enforcer. They automatically knew he was Sith, and that there was another.

Also possibly worth noting is that Kibh Jeen's first appearance was in a book published in 2001 - 2 years after Episode I hit the theaters.

Reverent-One
2012-08-15, 10:02 AM
Yeah, it obviously was written to give some justification for the Jedi knowing about the rule of two. Still doesn't do a good job of it, but it's better than nothing.

Tergon
2012-08-15, 10:23 AM
The problem here is that there's not enough of a distinction being made. The assumption seems to be Dark Force = Sith = Evil, and Light Force = Jedi = Good. That's simply not the case. There are many groups and individuals who've learned to sense, tap into, and even wield the Force in their own way without qualifying as Jedi or Sith. The Force, in a very basic sense, is a source of energy that exists in all living things, and can be accessed in various different ways. However you use it can qualify it as Dark or Light, but that too can be seen as acts of Good or Evil. Check Wookiepedia, there's examples of Force users who use Dark Force powers for good, or Light for evil. It's a tangled mess of morality and folks who have access to varying levels of potentially Godlike powers.

Sith and Jedi are something fundamentally different here - they are belief systems. They are religions based upon the Force. And that means they follow rulings and belief systems that aren't necessarily logical at first glance. They are also systems with their own flaws, and aren't automatically the best way of doing things. So, the Rule of Two wasn't formed by a couple of Sith guys sitting around drinking space beers until the one who was slightly tougher said to the one who was slightly weaker, "Hey. Wanna try and kill me?" The Sith are considerably more than just moustache-twirling villians who want to accumulate wealth and power. They have an agenda, and that agenda includes true mastery and domination of the Force.
They tried armies and mind control and enforced loyalty and following one Grand Master, and that didn't seem to work. So the Rule of Two was established to allow the Sith to focus not on military strength or combat skill, but upon cunning and use of the Force. The Master wields it with incredible levels of power, the mightiest living user of the Dark Force, and he'll continue to wield it with that level of power until someone more powerful takes the rank of Master from him. And then they'll hold it until someone more powerful than them comes along. The individuals die, but the Sith become stronger and stronger and stronger by what's essentially forced evolution - become powerful, or die. Which, though they may have their private misgivings, is a system the Sith have found to work. As Master, you get to be top dog of the Dark Side for your entire life, until you're killed in a way that only guarantees your enemies are even more screwed than they were before. To the mind of a Sith, there's no downside there.

And let's be perfectly blunt - it worked. Darth Sidious took control of the damn Galaxy and wiped out all but a handful of Jedi, while corrupting the prophesied Bringer of Balance into joining the Sith. Now, Sidious got greedy and slapped a big target on his butt by taking the position of Emperor, but if he hadn't vastly underestimated the Skywalkers and let himself get lazy in the seat of power, the Sith would have truly won.

The Rule of Two: Crazy? Sure. Justified? Given the history, yes. Successful? Beyond question.

pendell
2012-08-15, 10:30 AM
The Rule of Two: Crazy? Sure. Justified? Given the history, yes. Successful? Beyond question.


It worked in the story and the EU, yes. Whether it would have actually worked in real life is another question. That's an issue -- the idea that two people can have this all-powerful system that would work for thousands of years without diverging from the plot requires a certain amount of suspension of disbelief.

Fundamentally, it worked because authorial intent decided it would be so. It worked because the sith were plot armored for thousands of years. That doesn't mean it follows logically from the plot or the actions of the protagonists.

Deus Ex Machina happens when the author writes himself into a corner and pulls a plot contrivance out of his pocket to rescue the protagonist from the unresolvable situation. Having the Force magically make everything work out for the villains over a period of thousands of years is only marginally better than having an actress playing Athena being lowered on a crane to the stage and set everything right.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Tergon
2012-08-15, 10:43 AM
Fundamentally, it worked because authorial intent decided it would be so. It worked because the sith were plot armored for thousands of years. That doesn't mean it follows logically from the plot or the actions of the protagonists.

Deus Ex Machina happens when the author writes himself into a corner and pulls a plot contrivance out of his pocket to rescue the protagonist from the unresolvable situation. Having the Force magically make everything work out for the villains over a period of thousands of years is only marginally better than having an actress playing Athena being lowered on a crane to the stage and set everything right.
I won't argue that point, you're absolutely right. You can stretch it by saying that the Master has essentially programmed the Apprentice into following this system, and that the Dark Side of the Force is actively manipulating the Sith into following this path, and I'd buy that it worked for a few generations. But having literally no more than two Sith in the entire Universe at a time, for thousands of years, and at no point do any of these walking avatars of chaos and destruction say, "Hey, y'know, I think I'd like to not die," is stretching it a little far than you can really accept.
I know that it's literally using magic that can control your behaviour, so the power of the Dark Side pushing the Sith down this path will get you a long way here. But we also witnessed Sidious make two bad decisions (claim the seat of power and try to corrupt Luke rather than kill him) that were fuelled entirely by his ego. They utterly derailed his plan and destroyed the Rule of Two pretty much completely. I have trouble accepting that this was the only time in thousands of years that a Sith Master just plain screwed up because he thought he was tougher than he really was.

Still. That's an example of bad storytelling more than anything else. Throw in a few conceptual edits and it works. Like, keep the Sith as a proper religion and order, but the Rule of Two is an internal system of selectively training their single most powerful Force User to create a Master capable of wiping out the Jedi. Suddenly it's plausible again! The Rule of Two remains what it was: crazy, but not entirely idiotic.

Yora
2012-08-15, 11:39 AM
While the Sith want to conquer the galaxy, it's still not pure self-gain, but they have a cause.
It's not just about yourself becoming the Emperor, but about there being any Sith Emperor, and if you can't be immortal, it will eventually have to be someone else. And that's what the apprentices are trained for. An apprentice who is not commited enough to enter a duel to the death with his own teacher is also unfit to become Emperor and to continue the Sith tradition. Same for those who get themselves killed by not being able to defeat or evade their enemies in combat. So they are discarded and someone else gets chosen. Even just in the movies, Palpatine goes through two apprentices that get killed by Jedi before Vader finally is able to surpass him. With novels, there are also Mara Jade and Lumiya, which he had on standby to get the title of apprentice in case Vader wouldn't make it either. And then, yeah... The whole thing falls appart because Vader died shortly after with no interest to keep the tradition alive. However, the sith spend the 1,000 years in secret without anyone knowing they existed, and comming back from the dark side is treated as something extremely rare and unusual in the movies. So the chancees of a new Master dying or retireing before there is a new apprentice are relatively small.

hamishspence
2012-08-15, 11:44 AM
Palpatine goes through two apprentices that get killed by Jedi before Vader finally is able to surpass him. With novels, there are also Mara Jade and Lumiya, which he had on standby to get the title of apprentice in case Vader wouldn't make it either.

I figured that Emperor's Hands were less "standby" and more "different role"- people who could do things like infiltrate, which Vader wasn't suited for.

Sidious choosing to try and corrupt Luke, may have been opportunism- in Heir to the Empire we're told Mara was sent to kill Luke at Jabba's palace- and only later does he revert to the corruption plan.

pendell
2012-08-15, 12:11 PM
Sidious choosing to try and corrupt Luke, may have been opportunism- in Heir to the Empire we're told Mara was sent to kill Luke at Jabba's palace- and only later does he revert to the corruption plan.


Remember the discussion the Emperor had with Vader in Episode V:

Emperor: The son of skywalker must not become a Jedi. He could destroy us.
Vader: If he could be turned, he would be a powerful ally.
Emperor: Yes ... yes. He would be a great asset. Can it be done?
Vader: He will join us or die, my master.

The dynamic seems to be that Sidious isn't thrilled with the idea of Luke Skywalker, but goes along with it while Vader is present. It's Vader's idea to turn rather than destroy Luke, so Sidious gives Vader the go-ahead to do so and attempts to corrupt Luke when Vader brings him in front of him. But his optimal solution seems always to have been to kill Luke, which he does whenever Vader is not in the picture.

Why not simply blast Luke with lightning when Vader and Luke appear before the throne? Presumably because Vader's lingering affection for Luke is a glimmer in his darkness, a hint of light. That is from the Sith point of view a weakness, and must be dealt with. Either Vader will extinguish the light in his heart and kill Luke, or Luke will extinguish the light in Vader's heart by extinguishing Vader's life. But either way the darkness will be supreme. The idea that Vader would lose AND Luke would reject the darkness -- after using the darkness to defeat vader -- was incomprehensible to Sidious.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

hamishspence
2012-08-15, 12:15 PM
Remember the discussion the Emperor had with Vader in Episode V:

Emperor: The son of skywalker must not become a Jedi. He could destroy us.
Vader: If he could be turned, he would be a powerful ally.
Emperor: Yes ... yes. He would be a great asset. Can it be done?
Vader: He will join us or die, my master.

The dynamic seems to be that Sidious isn't thrilled with the idea of Luke Skywalker, but goes along with it while Vader is present.

Irregular Webcomic had a good take on the subject:

http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/380.html

Coidzor
2012-08-15, 02:13 PM
You mean apart from Darth freaking Vader?

Not a very good example of a loving sith, since he stopped being Sith because of developing love at the end and he stopped loving his wife because of his Sith at the beginning.

Kris Strife
2012-08-15, 02:57 PM
Remember the discussion the Emperor had with Vader in Episode V:

Emperor: The son of skywalker must not become a Jedi. He could destroy us.
Vader: If he could be turned, he would be a powerful ally.
Emperor: Yes ... yes. He would be a great asset. Can it be done?
Vader: He will join us or die, my master.

The dynamic seems to be that Sidious isn't thrilled with the idea of Luke Skywalker, but goes along with it while Vader is present. It's Vader's idea to turn rather than destroy Luke, so Sidious gives Vader the go-ahead to do so and attempts to corrupt Luke when Vader brings him in front of him. But his optimal solution seems always to have been to kill Luke, which he does whenever Vader is not in the picture.

Why not simply blast Luke with lightning when Vader and Luke appear before the throne? Presumably because Vader's lingering affection for Luke is a glimmer in his darkness, a hint of light. That is from the Sith point of view a weakness, and must be dealt with. Either Vader will extinguish the light in his heart and kill Luke, or Luke will extinguish the light in Vader's heart by extinguishing Vader's life. But either way the darkness will be supreme. The idea that Vader would lose AND Luke would reject the darkness -- after using the darkness to defeat vader -- was incomprehensible to Sidious.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Part of it might have been that getting prosthetics weakens your connection to the Force. While Vader might have once been more powerful, with all of his replaced limbs, Luke now had the greater potential.

Calemyr
2012-08-15, 03:04 PM
Not a very good example of a loving sith, since he stopped being Sith because of developing love at the end and he stopped loving his wife because of his Sith at the beginning.

Not entirely accurate, he became Sith because he was terrified of losing her (he was told she was going to die). He took his first real step on the dark side because someone hurt his mother, who he loved. And he tried like heck to save his son while staying true to the dark side, and only turned away when it came to choose one or the other.

Most of Vader's motivations were born out of love, albeit mostly fury over love that was lost, but still love.

snoopy13a
2012-08-15, 03:05 PM
While the Sith want to conquer the galaxy, it's still not pure self-gain, but they have a cause.
It's not just about yourself becoming the Emperor, but about there being any Sith Emperor, and if you can't be immortal, it will eventually have to be someone else. And that's what the apprentices are trained for. An apprentice who is not commited enough to enter a duel to the death with his own teacher is also unfit to become Emperor and to continue the Sith tradition. Same for those who get themselves killed by not being able to defeat or evade their enemies in combat. So they are discarded and someone else gets chosen. Even just in the movies, Palpatine goes through two apprentices that get killed by Jedi before Vader finally is able to surpass him. With novels, there are also Mara Jade and Lumiya, which he had on standby to get the title of apprentice in case Vader wouldn't make it either. And then, yeah... The whole thing falls appart because Vader died shortly after with no interest to keep the tradition alive. However, the sith spend the 1,000 years in secret without anyone knowing they existed, and comming back from the dark side is treated as something extremely rare and unusual in the movies. So the chancees of a new Master dying or retireing before there is a new apprentice are relatively small.

I'm not familiar with Lumiya as I haven't read the NJO books but from Zahn's recent books, it seems that Mara is an experiment of sorts. Palpy doesn't really indoctrinate her into the dark side. Instead, he convinces her that he is benevolent. In this manner, he gets the benefit of a force-user--whom I believe is a light-side user--that won't seek to usurp his power. Rather ingenious.

Yora
2012-08-15, 03:11 PM
I figured that Emperor's Hands were less "standby" and more "different role"- people who could do things like infiltrate, which Vader wasn't suited for.
That too. But only Anakin Skywalk gets to be called "Darth Vader" and a "Dark Lord of the Sith". Palpatine is clearly differentiating here.

And when you look at all the EU stuff, pretty much all Sith Lords have a bunch of force users whom they trained and keep for all kinds of purposes. But true, if both Vader and Luke had died, that wouldn't have made Mara Jade filling the position. Palpatine might even have recruited someone entirely new to train from scratch if all of his other force users had been lacking the qualities he is looking for in a Dark Lord of the Sith.



Also, cruising on Wookipedia, people get crazy old. Palaeon dies at the age if 92. In the middle of a campaign. And Boba Fett was still taking contracts to bust people out of high security prisions when he was going strong on 80.
But that may just be writers having no sense of scale or keeping track on how old characters would be, if they put them into their own stories. :smallamused:

DaedalusMkV
2012-08-15, 03:33 PM
Also, cruising on Wookipedia, people get crazy old. Palaeon dies at the age if 92. In the middle of a campaign. And Boba Fett was still taking contracts to bust people out of high security prisions when he was going strong on 80.
But that may just be writers having no sense of scale or keeping track on how old characters would be, if they put them into their own stories. :smallamused:

Or possibly the result of advanced medical technology and superior prosthetics. Star Wars tech can heal fatal wounds and replace missing limbs with full or even superior functionality. Keeping people spry a little bit longer than the modern average seems to be actually a serious low-ball for the setting, all things considered. It doesn't hurt that the former was the highest-ranking member of a major galactic government for the better part of twenty years and the latter was a famous bounty hunter who charged exorbitant sums for his services. Alternatively, the characters who are still going strong are just exemplary individuals. I mean, there are real-life 90+ year olds capable of climbing mountains and running marathons. Commanding a military force seems physically much less demanding, while Fett habitually wears powered armour.

More on topic, keep in mind that the Sith aren't necessarily against any emotions. Their creed basically revolves around embracing their emotions and using them as fuel. All-consuming love would be every bit as effective for them as all-consuming hatred, or greed, or envy. All that matters is that you give in to your emotions and use them as your strength, in comparison to the Jedi doctrine of denying them and bottling them up. A really adept Sith would be every bit as good at harnessing love as hatred to fuel their Force powers.

Popertop
2012-08-15, 03:35 PM
Manageability and sustainability aside, isn't the whole thing just an "iron sharpens iron" sort of thing?

One of the dark side tenants, near as I ever understood it, was that conflict is the key to power. You grow strong by pitting yourself against the strong, you grow weak by denying yourself conflict.

The whole Rule of Two thing is the logical conclusion to that philosophy. True strength is obtained through constant, intense conflict, therefore the best path to obtain that strength is to create that conflict. By raising an apprentice, a master places himself in a position where indolence is lethal, where comfort is a death knell, where peace is the last thing you'll ever know. The apprentice exists to keep you sharp, to keep you strong, to force you to continue to grow in power and continue to work for your dominance.

But it's more than that. Nobody lives forever, even in this setting. Your apprentice is your ultimate legacy, the glorious headstone to your might. Your apprentice's successes are your successes, your apprentice's infamies are the flowers on your grave. In this way, your death becomes your greatest victory, your killer becomes your herald. And beyond all that, you die in the dark side, you die at the height of your passion and power, and you die in the knowledge that your final breath unleashes an even greater scourge upon the galaxy. What Sith would choose to die old and feeble, or fat and comfortable, their true power and passion long since lost in favor of this pale practicality?

If there was ever a heresy in the tenants of the dark side, that would be the greatest one in existence.

Please finish whatever book you are writing and link me to it.


Without Rule of Two, there are more potential endgames, such as the apprentices simply going off to be a master in their own right, rather than feeling the need to kill you for arbitrary philosophical reasons (rather than the solid darkside motivations of not liking your face, or you standing in their way somehow).

This hasn't been fleshed out very much, but it's hinted at in the Plagueis novels that the dark side is more powerful when there are fewer users. I can't remember the quote exactly.

Calemyr
2012-08-15, 03:49 PM
Please finish whatever book you are writing and link me to it.

Soon, my friend. Soon.

Popertop
2012-08-15, 06:18 PM
Not a very good example of a loving sith, since he stopped being Sith because of developing love at the end and he stopped loving his wife because of his Sith at the beginning.

You know, I'm pretty sure no one is thrilled with how they handled that romance.

But hey, you win some, you lose some.


All-consuming love would be every bit as effective for them as all-consuming hatred, or greed, or envy. All that matters is that you give in to your emotions and use them as your strength, in comparison to the Jedi doctrine of denying them and bottling them up. A really adept Sith would be every bit as good at harnessing love as hatred to fuel their Force powers.

Which I think is one of the underlying messages of Star Wars and why we are all drawn to it: Love is the most powerful force in the galaxy.

Interesting to note that both Revan and Anakin were adept at doing this.

Devonix
2012-08-15, 07:35 PM
I'm not familiar with Lumiya as I haven't read the NJO books but from Zahn's recent books, it seems that Mara is an experiment of sorts. Palpy doesn't really indoctrinate her into the dark side. Instead, he convinces her that he is benevolent. In this manner, he gets the benefit of a force-user--whom I believe is a light-side user--that won't seek to usurp his power. Rather ingenious.

Trust me Mara was definetly using Darkside stuff. Even after death she's still being punished for her actions in the afterlife.

Traab
2012-08-15, 09:28 PM
Not a very good example of a loving sith, since he stopped being Sith because of developing love at the end and he stopped loving his wife because of his Sith at the beginning.

Ill be honest, im having a hard time fully deciphering this post, but if I understand correctly, you are saying that he stopped loving padme to become a sith, and started loving just in time to die not being a sith anymore? If thats the case then I disagree. He still loved padme. His rage when he choked her wasnt him hating her, it was him thinking she had betrayed him and lashing out. When palpy told him that padme died we got the most hammy, over the top, girly if it wasnt a bass scream ever. He still loved her. He just thought that she and his kid were dead. As soon as he realized his son was alive, he started working towards protecting him how he could, by convincing his master to NOT slaughter luke out of hand. The love was there, he just couldnt express it, and had to struggle with his own issues as well. I still wouldnt exactly call him a loving sith though. More of one buried under a star destroyers weight of regret, guilt, and pain.

SmartAlec
2012-08-15, 09:28 PM
More on topic, keep in mind that the Sith aren't necessarily against any emotions. Their creed basically revolves around embracing their emotions and using them as fuel. All-consuming love would be every bit as effective for them as all-consuming hatred, or greed, or envy. All that matters is that you give in to your emotions and use them as your strength, in comparison to the Jedi doctrine of denying them and bottling them up. A really adept Sith would be every bit as good at harnessing love as hatred to fuel their Force powers.

Not so sure about this. Or, rather, maybe a Dark Sider would do this, but it wouldn't be something the Sith would usually do while stickin' to their Code.

To compare and contrast a moment - the Jedi are all about connection without attachment. Feel the currents of the Force, go with the flow, touch as many lives as you can for the better but don't become involved with them, materially or emotionally. Do everything you can to help people, but remain apart.

The Sith, conversely, are about attachment without connection. Use, abuse and exploit every angle you can to get to the top. Corrupt others and use them as your weapons - evoke fear and hate in others and spread the Dark Side; but be prepared to sacrifice anyone and everything to achieve the goals ahead.

So it might well be hard to reconcile love with that become-the-ultimate-individual slant on Sith personal development.

Coidzor
2012-08-15, 10:36 PM
Ill be honest, im having a hard time fully deciphering this post, but if I understand correctly, you are saying that he stopped loving padme to become a sith, and started loving just in time to die not being a sith anymore? If thats the case then I disagree. He still loved padme. His rage when he choked her wasnt him hating her, it was him thinking she had betrayed him and lashing out. When palpy told him that padme died we got the most hammy, over the top, girly if it wasnt a bass scream ever. He still loved her. He just thought that she and his kid were dead. As soon as he realized his son was alive, he started working towards protecting him how he could, by convincing his master to NOT slaughter luke out of hand. The love was there, he just couldnt express it, and had to struggle with his own issues as well. I still wouldnt exactly call him a loving sith though. More of one buried under a star destroyers weight of regret, guilt, and pain.

In becoming Sith, yes, he ceased respecting and loving her. He ceased to view her as a person and more as an object to be controlled because his already emotionally immature state was further infantilized when he started taking orders from Sidious.

To put it mildly, there are different ways of interpreting the silly scene that gave us the memetastic no.


You know, I'm pretty sure no one is thrilled with how they handled that romance.

But hey, you win some, you lose some.

Part of why it's a bad example is that, yes, it was badly handled. It's still a bad example is the point at the end of the day though.

Agrippa
2012-08-16, 01:00 AM
Frankly I think the Jedi order's "connection without attachment" ideal is much of a crock as anything from the Sith. If you had a connection with someone or thing, wouldn't you have an emotional attachment, or at least response? Or wouldn't all your "good" deeds be nothing more than a cold, almost robotic reflex out of a detatched sense of duty and obligation? And wouldn't they be willing to do something along the lines of what Ozymandius' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozymandias_(comics)) did in Watchmen?

Lord Raziere
2012-08-16, 01:04 AM
I agree. It was after all, Lukes attachment to his father that made him say "no" to Darth Sideous and it was Vader's attachment to his son that made him good in the end...

Agrippa
2012-08-16, 01:11 AM
I agree. It was after all, Lukes attachment to his father that made him say "no" to Darth Sideous and it was Vader's attachment to his son that made him good in the end...

Yeah, but I'd love to see an Ozymandius-like Jedi. At the same time there should be an Elric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elric_of_Melnibon%C3%A9)-like Sith Lord. Good luck trying to tell the good guys and bad guys apart.

Hopeless
2012-08-16, 05:37 AM
Seriously, why do the Sith Masters encourage their students to try and kill them if they become weak? I never got this. If you're really evil, the first thing you do is change the damn rules so that the apprentice doesn't kill off the master. I mean, they'll probably turn on you eventually, but do you really want to encourage that sort of behavior? "Go ahead. Kill me. I want you to try!" If you're amoral, you shouldn't really have any problems changing the system so it benefits you and screws your underlings.

In some cases their "master" simply used their ill-advised attempt so they could possess their former student's body and begin their life anew with the likelihood if any Jedi or enemies were after them they would assume they were dead unless they knew better...

Devonix
2012-08-16, 06:38 AM
Frankly I think the Jedi order's "connection without attachment" ideal is much of a crock as anything from the Sith. If you had a connection with someone or thing, wouldn't you have an emotional attachment, or at least response? Or wouldn't all your "good" deeds be nothing more than a cold, almost robotic reflex out of a detatched sense of duty and obligation? And wouldn't they be willing to do something along the lines of what Ozymandius' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozymandias_(comics)) did in Watchmen?

The Jedi are supposed to forgo individual attatchments while within the order. As a Jedi you belong to everyone. Love Everyone and do not link yourself to any one person because such things might be used against you or lead to darkness ect.

Yes I think it's a load of crap. But you only have to do it if you want to be a jedi. They aren't forcing you to stay. You wanna go get married then just leave the order its perfectly acceptable. Its like being a Priest, you can't get married while in the order, but if you find a different path you wish to follow you just leave.

Devonix
2012-08-16, 06:44 AM
What it boils down to is that Sith is not just a catch all term for evil people using the force. The Sith is a religious order who follow a set of rules, and if you don't follow those rules then you're not a Sith in the first place. You're just an evil person using the force.



It's like calling yourself a member of a religion and thinking that religion's holy book is something that you should completely ignore.

MLai
2012-08-16, 07:14 AM
"Connection without attachment" is basically the way of the merciful Buddha. That's where the idea comes from. So no, it's not a load of crock.

Yora
2012-08-16, 07:36 AM
Frankly I think the Jedi order's "connection without attachment" ideal is much of a crock as anything from the Sith. If you had a connection with someone or thing, wouldn't you have an emotional attachment, or at least response? Or wouldn't all your "good" deeds be nothing more than a cold, almost robotic reflex out of a detatched sense of duty and obligation?
Well, even the movies have Qui-Gon, who seems to follow a much more balanced approach than complete detachment, and even when he tells the council that he will personally do what the order just decided not to do, the other masters did not appear to be particularly upset about it and respect his descision. It's his choice and they don't enforce that everyone has to be in line with the official policies.

SmartAlec
2012-08-16, 07:43 AM
Yes. Don't think of the Jedi Order as a group of zealots marching in lockstep. The Code describes the impossible ideal, and they each know they'll never achieve it and try to learn from the times they don't.

As far as philosophy goes, you might also give Mohism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism) a look.

What stops the Jedi becoming soulless sociopaths? The Force, mostly. Being able to perceive the many lives around you and the currents of the galaxy likely really does help you keep a sense of empathy.

pendell
2012-08-16, 08:29 AM
Yes I think it's a load of crap. But you only have to do it if you want to be a jedi. They aren't forcing you to stay. You wanna go get married then just leave the order its perfectly acceptable. Its like being a Priest, you can't get married while in the order, but if you find a different path you wish to follow you just leave.


Then why do the Jedi grab every force-sensitive they can at infancy? Grabbing infants, indoctrinating them, brainwashing them and carefully isolating from any sense of normal relationship with normal people does not exactly scream "free choice" or "respect for the lives of sentients". And if one does leave , I expect them to be damaged goods. People who leave real-life cults often have issues.

It's not consistent. If you fear force-users enough to effectively lock them in prison at birth for crimes they have only committed in potentia, why do you let the inmates just walk out on adulthood? The fact that only 20 have speaks less to the strength of the ideal than the power of indoctrination.

At any rate -- to my mind neither the Jedi code nor the Sith believe in "love" as westerners understand it.

The Sith do not appreciate love or self-sacrifice. The Sith appreciate *passion*. And it is their own passion, nothing else. Their own love, their own greed, their own fear, their own pity, their own envy. The point of being a Sith is to indulge your own passions and your own cravings regardless of the impact it has on others because you're the special snowflake. So if you're subordinate makes you angry, you kill him. If you feel greed, you take it. If you feel lust, you take THAT , too. You indulge every whim and the point of self-denial, ultimately, is only to achieve greater power so you can achieve greater freedom -- the freedom to indulge your passion, your appetite, without limit. It's a lifelong adolescent temper-tantrum superpowered by the Force. Why is this even attractive?

The Jedi, likewise, is the opposite: The renouncement of all personal passion, all personal desire, all personal feelings. The Jedi may feel compassion for large groups of people but they really have very little feeling or relationship with individual human beings. One reason, perhaps, they were able to fit into the role of general of a clone army so well -- because "clones" are the way the Jedi see most non-Jedi ordinary people. Interchangeable units who may be nice and whom you will lay your life down for, but they're not real to you. The clones were a trap for the Jedi, tailored to their view of the world. It also tapped into the fear and resentment of ordinary people for these emotionless, calm, seemingly arrogant beings of overwhelming power in their midst who take your starship or your ronto without a word, all for the greater good.

Small wonder the Jedi constantly fear falling to the dark side. I can't imagine suppressing your emotions, suppressing your passions, renouncing your own thoughts and desires and wishes for faceless, interchangeable masses of people you don't know and don't particularly like.

I don't think it works. You can't love people in an abstract mass if you don't love real, live, individual flesh-and-blood people. Their inability to "attach" is, in my view, precisely why the Jedi became blind. In detaching themselves from ordinary people they became detached from the Living Force, from the business of ordinary life and ordinary living. Because they didn't understand one other human, they didn't understand people. And because they didn't understand people, they didn't understand life. And because they didn't understand life, they didn't understand The Force.

ETA: HK-47 recounts Revan's use of ordinary people as Jedi-killing assassins for just this reason (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPeI4mX8Nus) .

This didn't stop them from insisting that their way was the One True Way and killing or at least harassing those who didn't agree.

To my mind, "love" is the rock that broke both the Sith and the Clone Wars Jedi Order. The Jedi's unwillingness to permit love drove Anakin from their ranks to the only source of force knowledge of which he was aware. And the Sith did not understand that attachment -- self-sacrificing love, not simple passion for self -- would motivate Vader to throw away his own life to save his son. From the viewpoint of both the Jedi and the Sith, Luke going to the Death Star to save his father was an act of madness. But it was the act most in tune with the Frce, because at that point Luke understood the Force better than they. Which is why this mad act of love bred other mad acts of love and saved the galaxy, despite all calculations and plans and deceptions -- not just the lies of the Emperor, but the lies of Yoda and Obi-wan as well.

That's right. Yoda and Obi-wan weren't straight with Luke about his father. Luke was a tool to be manipulated for the greater good, no different from the clones. It's the way the Clone Wars Jedi -- except for Qui-Gonn, who was sort of an outlaw -- dealt with non-force sensitives all over the galaxy, not as people that you love, but as either resources to be used or obstacles to be overcome. It's what killed them.

For my own personal philosophy, I think Jolee Bindo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzmrOhQpXeY) got it right. Love doesn't leave to the dark side. Love saves you and redeems you from the dark. That's what the greatest of the Jedi, Jolee and Qui-Gonn and Revan, understood. That's why the Council hounded them out, over a period of thousands of years.

ETA: Real-life for a minute. From my perspective of 18 years of marriage , love isn't something you "find". Love is craftsmanship, a work of art, one that you work at and work at and constantly perfect. Like a fire, there may be an additional spark but it's up to you to feed it and nurture it can care for it so it will burn and burn, to grow into a forest fire or shrink to a tiny candle at need. So for me, that special someone is someone who is just as committed to this lifelong project as I am. Anything is possible when you've got a fellow craftsperson as committed to the work as you are. But it takes two people working at it with all their might to make it flourish.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Philistine
2012-08-16, 09:08 AM
"Connection without attachment" is basically the way of the merciful Buddha. That's where the idea comes from. So no, it's not a load of crock.

You don't really want to open the "real-life religion" can of worms, do you?

Anyway. In the context of the GFFA, it manifestly is a load of crock. It was canonically disproven - very dramatically! - almost 20 years before it was ever articulated on-screen, as it was specifically attachment that led to the redemption of Darth Vader. And while it's true that said redemption is deeply problematic in every moral system I can think of (A single dramatic gesture, and not even a particularly selfless one, wipes away 20+ ears of brutal murders in the service of tyranny and oppression?), the one unambiguously good thing to be said about it is that it absolutely demolishes the prequel-order Jedi code. At the very highest level of canon, the entire notion of "attachment is bad" is refuted utterly when the Force Ghost of Anakin Skywalker shows up next to Yoda and Kenobi.

mangosta71
2012-08-16, 09:28 AM
It's kind of funny. The Jedi, representing the Republic, supposedly stand for freedom and democracy. Yet their system consists of nobles and servants, and there's no opportunity to advance your social position from the caste you're born into. Unless you're Force-sensitive, in which case you're essentially abducted from your family (as a child) and forced into a monastery for the rest of your life.

Meanwhile, in the Empire, you can be born a slave and, if you're strong enough, throw off your shackles and rise to the top. You may be more likely to die young, but at least there's a chance to make something more of yourself.

Anyway, as for "connection without attachment," based on what we know from EU sources, Jedi within the Order definitely spawn. I hesitate to call it having children because, due to that little particular of the Code, I see the relationship being:
"Hey, we should have cold, passionless sex so we can make a baby and then turn it over to this cult as soon as it's born so we don't have to raise it ourselves." Hmm, that's actually not a bad pickup line...
"Okay."
Would it be surprising at all if all the Jedi turned into emotionless sociopaths? Oh, wait.

SmartAlec
2012-08-16, 11:05 AM
For my own personal philosophy, I think Jolee Bindo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzmrOhQpXeY) got it right. Love doesn't leave to the dark side. Love saves you and redeems you from the dark. That's what the greatest of the Jedi, Jolee and Qui-Gonn and Revan, understood. That's why the Council hounded them out, over a period of thousands of years.

Everyone always brings up Jolee, but he's probably the example that shows why it is that the Jedi do the things they do.

He married a woman, and because he loved her, he wanted to train her to be a Jedi. The Order didn't think that was such a good idea, asked him not to do it. They didn't force him to divorce her and split up, mind, just asked if he wouldn't train her. He did it anyway, it turned out the Council were right, she fell to the Dark Side and killed a lot of people before Jolee finally confronted and stopped her.

The Jedi Order's got a lot of responsibilities, and one of them is to protect the galaxy - from the Jedi Order.

Yeah; they focus on attaining a relationship with a higher spiritual power. They don't support the Republic because they believe in freedom of choice, exactly. They support the Republic because democratic government is likely the best shot at harmonious, non-tyrannical government the galaxy has. They help the Republic, but they're not exactly part of it - more allied to it. They help the Republic continue and the Republic keeps governing in a reasonable way, everyone's happy.

As for 'hounding out' the 'greatest' of the Jedi? Qui-Gon was made a Master - they didn't put him on the Council, but he didn't even want to be on it. Revan became a Sith Lord, but when the Jedi got him back, they did... more or less everything they could for him and let him go in the hope that it would work out. And the Jedi forgave Jolee and asked him to come back and be made knight, but he refused and became a hermit.

These are not the acts of zealous persecutors; quite the opposite, there's a fair amount of understanding and compassion in these choices. You've got the Jedi all wrong. They all feel, they just have the self-knowledge and understanding to think before they act on it.

Just as the Sith usually know to temper their impulses with rational thinking.

Bulldog Psion
2012-08-16, 11:13 AM
Anyway. In the context of the GFFA, it manifestly is a load of crock. It was canonically disproven - very dramatically! - almost 20 years before it was ever articulated on-screen, as it was specifically attachment that led to the redemption of Darth Vader. [...] At the very highest level of canon, the entire notion of "attachment is bad" is refuted utterly when the Force Ghost of Anakin Skywalker shows up next to Yoda and Kenobi.

That always struck me as a bit odd, too. Darth Vader killing the Emperor and saving the galaxy from Sith rule was done for love of his son. The Emperor's hate was defeated by Darth Vader's love. That's a profoundly different message than the later films, in which love is depicted not as being redemptive, but as being as destructive as hatred.

SmartAlec
2012-08-16, 11:22 AM
At the very highest level of canon, the entire notion of "attachment is bad" is refuted utterly when the Force Ghost of Anakin Skywalker shows up next to Yoda and Kenobi.

That's connection, but not attachment. Vader realised he had a connection with his son, and could empathise with his pain. But he was willing to sacrifice himself to save his son, which is letting go of the attachment, the need to 'possess' that connection.

The attachment part of Vader's relationship with his son comes earlier, where he tries to have a relationship with Luke on his terms - as rulers of the galaxy, both Dark Lords. He wants some control of that relationship. It's something to fill that gap left by Padme - to have someone by his side. That's what he wants in ESB. In ROTJ, he lets go of that.

Yora
2012-08-16, 11:27 AM
I don't think that's really what the movies attempt to communicate. It's just that the script and directing is so terribly bad that you can't really follow what the chain of causation Lucas attempts to show.

snoopy13a
2012-08-16, 11:48 AM
At any rate -- to my mind neither the Jedi code nor the Sith believe in "love" as westerners understand it.



Not necessarily. Charity is love, and the Jedi's mission to serve the galaxy is charity. They devote their entire lives to make the lives of innocent people in the galaxy better. They love these people. Romantic love is just one aspect of love that the Jedi avoid.

The Jedi avoid romantic love and personal attachment because they believe those can be levers to turn someone to the dark side. And, in the case of Anakin Skywalker, they were right.

hamishspence
2012-08-16, 12:19 PM
Unless you're Force-sensitive, in which case you're essentially abducted from your family (as a child) and forced into a monastery for the rest of your life.

There's a certain amount of debate on how much power parents have to prevent the Jedi Order from taking their children- if the Jedi are bound to accept a refusal or not.

However, The Jedi Path- a background book on the Jedi Order- does say that they at least "have legal custody of all Force-sensitives in the Republic" and that some Masters believe just having the Force counts as "the child consents to join the Order".

Philistine
2012-08-16, 12:28 PM
That's connection, but not attachment. Vader realised he had a connection with his son, and could empathise with his pain. But he was willing to sacrifice himself to save his son, which is letting go of the attachment, the need to 'possess' that connection.

The attachment part of Vader's relationship with his son comes earlier, where he tries to have a relationship with Luke on his terms - as rulers of the galaxy, both Dark Lords. He wants some control of that relationship. It's something to fill that gap left by Padme - to have someone by his side. That's what he wants in ESB. In ROTJ, he lets go of that.

I can see how a person would come to that conclusion, assuming that they started with the premise that Anything that leads to a good end is Connection and Anything that leads to a bad end is Attachment… Just Because, That's Why!, but at that point it's just an exercise in creative semantics to avoid recognizing that the supposed Bad Thing actually had a good effect - was in fact the root driver of what is arguably the best effect in the in-universe history.

Yora
2012-08-16, 12:28 PM
In the expanded material there thousands of force users who are not Jedi. The Jedi are only the most mainstream organization, maybe not even the majority.

And I thought the movies never adress the issue, but they do. The council refuses to allow Anakin to join the Jedi and there is no implication that he'll be confined or disposed off. They are just showing him the exit, not being their problem. And during the clone wars, the Jedi were at one of the most restrictive rigid phases they ever were. In earlier times things were often much looser with the council being only a club of famous masters who would make resulutions and suggestions with no actual authority over other masters and knights.

hamishspence
2012-08-16, 12:30 PM
I can see how a person would come to that conclusion, assuming that they started with the premise that Anything that leads to a good end is Connection and Anything that leads to a bad end is Attachment… Just Because, That's Why!
The usual solution is "Attachment is just the word that means an unhealthy degree of connection"

Or, from one author "Obsession is what the Jedi should be worried about- attachment is healthy- but Obsession is attachment taken to an unhealthy level"

Whatever works.

pendell
2012-08-16, 12:48 PM
Quite . The Jedi evolve. In the latest Revan novel, it is noted that the Jedi are accepting younger and younger people for training, and finally notes sarcastically that they'll wind up accepting none but infants, because anyone older isn't susceptible to brainwashing.

This , to my mind, is the greatest indictment of the clone-wars era Jedi order: It is a cult. They do not accept anyone above infancy because no one with a lick of sense and any exposure to normal life can accept the drivel they teach. The Jedi Order falls apart when exposed to reasonable people, normal sentients, and rational thought. So the Jedi aren't allowed rational thought.
They're taken as babies and indoctrinated and told to trust in the Wisdom of the Council and any non-approved teachings are locked away where only masters can get at them.

They're living in an artificial world, something that no human above the age of about 3 can possibly accept. And then they wonder why they're blind in the force. Well, of course. When you're cut off from life, how do you expect to have any understanding of what makes human life?

ETA: The Revan novel is why I described the Council as hounding Revan out. The novel discusses Revan's attempts to discuss the concept of love with the council and his relationship with Bastila. It doesn't go well.



And I thought the movies never adress the issue, but they do. The council refuses to allow Anakin to join the Jedi and there is no implication that he'll be confined or disposed off. They are just showing him the exit, not being their problem.

Which to my mind is absurd. You bring in the person who may be a vergence in the force, the prophesied chosen one, and you just let him walk out the door ? Why is the temptation of the dark side any less for an untrained force user of such power?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Dusk Eclipse
2012-08-16, 03:44 PM
Quite . The Jedi evolve. In the latest Revan novel, it is noted that the Jedi are accepting younger and younger people for training, and finally notes sarcastically that they'll wind up accepting none but infants, because anyone older isn't susceptible to brainwashing.

This , to my mind, is the greatest indictment of the clone-wars era Jedi order: It is a cult. They do not accept anyone above infancy because no one with a lick of sense and any exposure to normal life can accept the drivel they teach. The Jedi Order falls apart when exposed to reasonable people, normal sentients, and rational thought. So the Jedi aren't allowed rational thought.
They're taken as babies and indoctrinated and told to trust in the Wisdom of the Council and any non-approved teachings are locked away where only masters can get at them.

They're living in an artificial world, something that no human above the age of about 3 can possibly accept. And then they wonder why they're blind in the force. Well, of course. When you're cut off from life, how do you expect to have any understanding of what makes human life?

ETA: The Revan novel is why I described the Council as hounding Revan out. The novel discusses Revan's attempts to discuss the concept of love with the council and his relationship with Bastila. It doesn't go well.



Which to my mind is absurd. You bring in the person who may be a vergence in the force, the prophesied chosen one, and you just let him walk out the door ? Why is the temptation of the dark side any less for an untrained force user of such power?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

If I may derail for a bit, what novel is that? I've been meaning to read some of the EU stuff and the novels pertaining Revan sound really cool.

SmartAlec
2012-08-16, 04:29 PM
The Jedi Order falls apart when exposed to reasonable people, normal sentients, and rational thought. So the Jedi aren't allowed rational thought.

I'm not sure rational thought is going to be sufficient when dealing with a phenomenon like a semi-sentient, omnipresent energy field. In fact, I'm tempted to say that if you're confronted with something like that, the only rational response is to treat it religiously.

Those normal sentients and reasonable people... don't know what they're dealing with, basically.

pendell
2012-08-16, 05:18 PM
If I may derail for a bit, what novel is that? I've been meaning to read some of the EU stuff and the novels pertaining Revan sound really cool.

That would be this one (http://www.amazon.com/Revan-Star-Wars-Republic-Vol/dp/0345511344/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345155013&sr=8-1&keywords=revan). Be prepared for disappointment ; while there are some interesting things in here the book is essentially a prequel to the Old Republic MMORPG. Many of the events set up in this book are resolved in the game.



I'm not sure rational thought is going to be sufficient when dealing with a phenomenon like a semi-sentient, omnipresent energy field.


Rational thought works for quantum physics, works for DNA, works for software engineering, works for higher mathematics. While rational thought and logic has its limits, I still prefer it to the Jedi's idea of orthodoxy, which essentially says "we have all the answers. You must trust in us and not question our wisdom." Both books and films demonstrate emphatically they did NOT have all the answers. That shows up in Ep. III when Yoda humbles himself to learn from Qui-Gonn's ghost, and it shows up in Ep. 6 when Luke defies the received wisdom of both Jedi and Sith and gets away with it because he's right.

Orthodoxy is all very well and good when you have all the right answers. Orthodoxy is fine when you're dealing with arithmetic or with simple, well-defined problems that are understood and whose answers are repeatably, demonstrably true. When you're dealing with a subject of actual depth, be that biochemistry or climate research or modern physics, an open mind and rational inquiry will go further than orthodoxy. Orthodoxy shuts down questions. And that is only a good idea if you really do have all the answers.

My own read is that both Jedi and Sith have been interacting with the force for thousands of years and both sides are as blinded by their preconceptions as when they began. Ajunta Pall (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgOIYnR2YmU) laments this. "So much time and we have learned nothing ... nothing" (5:00 - 5:33).

ETA: Orthodoxy is most useful when you're dealing with the supernatural, something that cannot be discovered by experiment or rational work but must be revealed by some being or beings outside nature. But the Force is not a supernatural force -- it can be measured via midichlorian count, it can be manipulated to produce effects. It is repeatable and verifiable, at least with regards to telekinesis and things of that sort. So it seems much more amenable to scientific theory and experiment. The Jedi do not appear to be either scientific or even scholastic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism) -- they do not encourage critical thought. They are an orthodoxy, and a rigid one at that. Darth Plagueis (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darth_Plagueis), by contrast, DID take a scientific approach to the Force.



Respectfully,

Brian P.

SmartAlec
2012-08-16, 05:57 PM
While rational thought and logic has its limits, I still prefer it to the Jedi's idea of orthodoxy, which essentially says "we have all the answers. You must trust in us and not question our wisdom." Both books and films demonstrate emphatically they did NOT have all the answers. That shows up in Ep. III when Yoda humbles himself to learn from Qui-Gonn's ghost, and it shows up in Ep. 6 when Luke defies the received wisdom of both Jedi and Sith and gets away with it because he's right.

The Jedi take many things on faith. Most of the materials on Jedi Code etc points out that they know they don't have all the answers; but that they recognise that trying to get them all will likely take a very long time, which they could be spending helping people.

Kind of a utilitarian approach, maybe. What good would all the answers be?

Coidzor
2012-08-16, 07:25 PM
Kind of a utilitarian approach, maybe.

No, not really. A utilitarian approach would look to minimize the damage that the dark side does(what with the wars that span most of the known galaxy that it keeps causing), and in order to do so, would point out that they don't even when it comes to the dark side and people falling to it, so perhaps they should figure that out and work on it. Plus they're rather "schizophrenic" when it comes to whether they actually care about helping others.


What good would all the answers be?

I think Neil deGrasse Tyson and a number of other popular public figures in the sciences have produced a number of responses to that question when people ask it of science and our scientific investigation into the nature of our universe. IIRC, even NASA has a go-to statement on the subject.

MLai
2012-08-16, 09:15 PM
I mentioned Buddhism (and someone mentioned Mohism) not because I want to get into a IRL religion debate, but because all these things you're arguing about have all been addressed by these religions/philosophies for many many centuries.

You think you're the first person to walk up to a Buddhist/Mohist philosophy and question "Why would my love for my wife be bad?"

A humanistic argument centering on how your personal life with your family is great, therefore the Jedi (whose teachings are inspired by Buddhism, and Mohism which later became incorporated into Taoism) are all wrong, shows basic ignorance of what the major Eastern philosophies are about. So I name them so you can go Google. Once you know them, you can return to argue how the Jedi teachings are fundamentally different from Buddhism/Taoism, if you develop such an opinion.

Philistine
2012-08-17, 01:29 AM
I think it's more accurate to say that the teachings of the Jedi were meant to be based on Buddhist thought, but their creator's understanding of that thought was severely lacking. Because they've got a big, fat dollop of old-fashioned Western Good vs Evil dualistic absolute morality ladled in there, with the whole "Sith and the Dark Side are Pure Evil" thing.

And as already discussed, the prequel-era Jedi code is wrong about the way the setting actually works anyway, else Darth Vader would not have been redeemed at the end of Ep.VI.

Lord Raziere
2012-08-17, 03:46 AM
Heh, I already know Jedi is fundamentally different from the eastern Philosophies.

For one, the Jedi think evil actually exists.

what I know of such Eastern Philosophies- is that they don't think evil exists, that its just an absence of good, like how cold is an absence of warmth.

Meaning the Eastern Philosophies, their logic leads to loving everyone for their good parts, as loving the good part of existence, because the bad parts aren't technically real, therefore you only love people for their good parts, because those are the parts that actually exist.

I dislike both philosophies though. they both are inhuman. one makes you into unfeeling robot, the other makes you an inhuman eternally happy person incapable of hatred who plugs their ears to the dark side of humanity, and pretends it doesn't exist.

I know better. All is Imperfect. To perfect the world, is to destroy it. Therefore I am happy, because if perfection existed, the world would be destroyed. I like imperfection. It keeps everything unique.

Coidzor
2012-08-17, 04:34 AM
I know better. All is Imperfect. To perfect the world, is to destroy it. Therefore I am happy, because if perfection existed, the world would be destroyed. I like imperfection. It keeps everything unique.

I dunno, being a destroyed reality sounds like a pretty big imperfection. :smallconfused:


And as already discussed, the prequel-era Jedi code is wrong about the way the setting actually works anyway, else Darth Vader would not have been redeemed at the end of Ep.VI.

...It's been too long since I read what that code actually was for me to remember the connection here. x.x What's the relevant portion?

Lord Raziere
2012-08-17, 05:58 AM
I dunno, being a destroyed reality sounds like a pretty big imperfection.


Exactly. Even the closest expression you could possibly come to perfection, is imperfect. which is why perfection will never exist.

Which means that technically I was wrong, perfection can never exist, there therefore the void is only the biggest possible imperfection ever, and to the improve is to break out the imperfections and make them into a thousand smaller ones spread out so far and wide, to such small sizes, that the imperfections can be dealt with daily without much hassle.

which means YES! I've made another philosophical leap! to improve the world is to break down big imperfections into smaller ones and spread them out!

pendell
2012-08-17, 07:37 AM
I know better. All is Imperfect. To perfect the world, is to destroy it. Therefore I am happy, because if perfection existed, the world would be destroyed. I like imperfection. It keeps everything unique.


I would say that 'perfection' only makes sense in the context of something that is static, unchanging.

For instance, if I wrote the perfect computer game in 1998, it would not be perfect in 2012. There's a pretty good chance it wouldn't even run, if I wrote it under Windows '95. The drivers are different and the software is different and the hardware is different.

Likewise -- a child who is a perfect child (assuming such a thing ever existed) isn't going to be a perfect adolescent, or a perfect adult, if he doesn't change. What is "perfect" before the inrush of hormones, physical change and greater responsibilities will no longer be "perfect" after these changes have occurred. And a perfect adult is not going to be perfect any more when they confront middle age, waning physical powers, grown-up children of his own.

So for me "perfection" only occurs for moments, seconds. The precise moment when a person or thing is exactly fitted to the circumstances they are in. And because we humans are constantly undergoing change, we must continue striving for perfection even if, wonder of wonders, we actually had it. Constantly changing surroundings require constant adaptation to maintain a state of perfection -- perhaps harmony is a better word? -- yes, harmony with oneself and those around one.

So perfection is not simply a state of rest, where one has achieved it and one can now never change again. Perfection is something to constantly pursue, something to constantly strive for.

Only when one will never change again is perfection a real possibility. I believe the term for this state is 'dead'.

That's why I have such trouble with the Jedi council. They claim a perfection they have not achieved, and their answers prove inadequate when faced with a crisis. If they were a little more flexible, possibly they could keep more Jedi like Revan going it alone and falling to the dark side.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

SmartAlec
2012-08-17, 08:51 AM
For one, the Jedi think evil actually exists.

Some Jedi do. The Jedi Code doesn't.


I know better. All is Imperfect. To perfect the world, is to destroy it. Therefore I am happy, because if perfection existed, the world would be destroyed. I like imperfection. It keeps everything unique.

The Jedi Code knows perfection does not exist. It simply asks that you keep trying anyway, and not feel too bad when you fail.


That's why I have such trouble with the Jedi council. They claim a perfection they have not achieved,

They don't.


No, not really. A utilitarian approach would look to minimize the damage that the dark side does(what with the wars that span most of the known galaxy that it keeps causing), and in order to do so, would point out that they don't even when it comes to the dark side and people falling to it, so perhaps they should figure that out and work on it.

Isn't that... exactly what the Prequel Jedi Order tries to do? Reinvent itself into a cult to ensure that dangerous Dark-siders never reappear?


I think Neil deGrasse Tyson and a number of other popular public figures in the sciences have produced a number of responses to that question when people ask it of science and our scientific investigation into the nature of our universe.

I'm unsure if this scientific principle applies so well to religious mysteries. Once you have thoroughly dissected a spiritual phenomenon, what's left?

pendell
2012-08-17, 10:00 AM
I'm unsure if this scientific principle applies so well to religious mysteries. Once you have thoroughly dissected a spiritual phenomenon, what's left?


The question is to what extent the "Force" in Star Wars is a religious mystery. It is a tangible thing that can be measured, quantified, and applied to do work. It is well understood how it relates to human emotions, and how it can be tapped into, both dark AND light side. So to my mind "religious mystery" is no more appropriate in discussing the Force than it would be when discussing the electromagnetic field -- another thing generated by all living things.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

MLai
2012-08-17, 11:10 AM
Can we kind of... ignore the existence of midichlorians the same way people ignore Catwoman exists? :smallconfused:

Edit: (the movie)

Coidzor
2012-08-17, 03:51 PM
Exactly. Even the closest expression you could possibly come to perfection, is imperfect. which is why perfection will never exist.

More that your idea just plain doesn't make sense, really.


Isn't that... exactly what the Prequel Jedi Order tries to do? Reinvent itself into a cult to ensure that dangerous Dark-siders never reappear?

No, because they don't know enough to actually do that so they just fumble around like blind fools.

Devonix
2012-08-17, 06:49 PM
Can we kind of... ignore the existence of midichlorians the same way people ignore Catwoman exists? :smallconfused:

Edit: (the movie)

Everything from the Prequels and most of the Clone Wars CGI series do not exist in my personal canon anyway.

Lord Raziere
2012-08-18, 02:51 AM
More that your idea just plain doesn't make sense, really.


Ah, but it makes a lot of sense to me! and that is what really matters. things making sense to some people and not to other people is how individuality is formed after all. so I'm glad you said that, you are asserting your individuality.

but don't worry, I'm not an advocate for total nonsense- pure chaos is just as destructive to individuality as pure order is.

try thinking upon my idea, maybe if you think upon long enough it might some day make sense to you. who knows? it might expand your horizons.

Coidzor
2012-08-18, 10:42 AM
Ah, but it makes a lot of sense to me! and that is what really matters.

Not when you're trying to communicate your idea to others or persuade them to see things your way, and if you did not intend to contribute something meaningful to the conversation at large rather than just talking to yourself, then why did you go on about it in this thread? :smallconfused:


try thinking upon my idea, maybe if you think upon long enough it might some day make sense to you. who knows? it might expand your horizons.

You... really need to work on your delivery.

Tergon
2012-08-18, 02:18 PM
Don't worry, I'm sure this will actually be a social experiment in which you've played right into his hands, and he was intending to confuse you all along, ho-ho.

Isn't that how the line usually goes?

Lord Raziere
2012-08-18, 03:40 PM
No, that is a philosophy that I actually believe. perfection is impossible after all.

it is a philosophy that has served me well. keeps me grounded in realistic thinking you see.

Scowling Dragon
2012-08-18, 03:51 PM
Its because evil is only ever evil. It has to be EEEEEEEEEEVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL! Against common sense and logic.

pendell
2012-08-18, 04:22 PM
Exactly. Even the closest expression you could possibly come to perfection, is imperfect. which is why perfection will never exist.

More that your idea just plain doesn't make sense, really.




More that your idea just plain doesn't make sense, really.


Actually, Lord Raziere's ideas make perfect a great deal of sense, and to the best of my knowledge they were first formulated by Plato in the discussion of forms. He used the Allegory of the cave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave) to communicate that the ideal, the forms, do not exist in this world. You can find echoes of beauty but you cannot find Beauty. You can find good music but you cannot find Music. Depending on your viewpoint, these are things that exist on a plane of existence other than the mortal world or are simply a construct of the human imagination. Regardless, Plato would agree that we can only approximate "perfect" anything on earth.


The idea is not unique to Greek philosophy , either. If "The Tao that can be perceived is not the true Tao" means what I think it means. Lao Tzu independently came to the same conclusion on the other side of the world.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Coidzor
2012-08-18, 04:51 PM
Actually, Lord Raziere's ideas make perfect a great deal of sense, and to the best of my knowledge they were first formulated by Plato in the discussion of forms. He used the Allegory of the cave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave) to communicate that the ideal, the forms, do not exist in this world. You can find echoes of beauty but you cannot find Beauty. You can find good music but you cannot find Music. Depending on your viewpoint, these are things that exist on a plane of existence other than the mortal world or are simply a construct of the human imagination. Regardless, Plato would agree that we can only approximate "perfect" anything on earth.

From what I recall, he doesn't go on to say that perfection of something would be its destruction, either. I admit, it's been a while since I read Plato, but I'm pretty sure he didn't have anything to say on that front.

Which is the part I object to, the unfounded, out-of-left-field assertion that perfection = destruction. The idea that I saw expressed that since we can't achieve perfection we shouldn't try to be as good as we can get is problematic for different reasons and also doesn't make sense, but that's a separate issue to this particular point, and I suppose could just be my own interpretation of what was written. Since to say that I disapprove of self-defeating fatalism would be an understatement.

Lord Raziere
2012-08-18, 05:39 PM
From what I recall, he doesn't go on to say that perfection of something would be its destruction, either. I admit, it's been a while since I read Plato, but I'm pretty sure he didn't have anything to say on that front.

Which is the part I object to, the unfounded, out-of-left-field assertion that perfection = destruction. The idea that I saw expressed that since we can't achieve perfection we shouldn't try to be as good as we can get is problematic for different reasons and also doesn't make sense, but that's a separate issue to this particular point, and I suppose could just be my own interpretation of what was written. Since to say that I disapprove of self-defeating fatalism would be an understatement.

actually? perfection = destruction makes a lot of sense.

let me explain.

you see, the world is imperfect, because it is also impure.

in way, perfection is seeking purity, and purity is seeking perfection.

So to have something completely pure, is to have something completely perfect, because there is nothing making it impure, therefore is perfectly pure.

therefore to make reality, perfect, would also be to make reality pure. After all, if two perfect beings were to meet- there wouldn't be any difference between them. They would both be perfect, and therefore would be no different, and therefore pure.

Therefore, perfection cannot exist. The world, to be truly perfect, would have to become immaculately pure. You cannot simply make one thing perfect, because it is within a world that is inherently imperfect, and as long as an imperfection exists, nothing else in existence can be said to be perfect, because there is an imperfection there, and that single imperfection makes the rest of reality imperfect- because if a single thing was perfect, it would make all other things perfect as well, because it would be too perfect not to.

Therefore the only way for perfection to exist- is for perfection to be the only thing that exists, for all eternity. The only way to a perfect reality, is through purity, and to make reality pure, you must purge all things that make it impure. Therefore by doing so, you destroy all of reality, all that we know, and all that we ever achieved.

You could say that I start from a stance similar to Plato, but then go in the opposite direction; that imperfection is what is good, and perfection is what is bad.
improving yourself, however, isn't seeking perfection. quite the contrary. I see improvement as learning to accept the imperfections of the world, and willing to work with them and use them appropriately. self-defeating fatalism, is just as foolish a path towards perfection that will never be there, as is unerring optimism towards everything that blinds you to the bad things of the world.
fatalism while a sucky seeking of perfection, is still a seeking of it. a seeking of perfect, eternal failure. which will of course, never happen. they are after all, going to succeed at things like walking, eating, breathing….

the best way to live in this world, is be able to bend, to accept its imperfections, as well as bend the imperfections they you want them bent, to be flexible and flexibly modify the world around your flexibility. keep in mind though, I wouldn't want a world of perfect flexibility! Such a world would too easily bend your own identity and make individuality meaningless, there has to be a core that is an inflexible center of your being after all….

nedz
2012-08-18, 05:47 PM
From what I recall, he doesn't go on to say that perfection of something would be its destruction, either. I admit, it's been a while since I read Plato, but I'm pretty sure he didn't have anything to say on that front.

Its been a while since I read Plato also, but IIRC he stressed that the ideal was something one should aim for even knowing that you could never achieve it. Now this is a very simplistic philosophy, but he did write this quite a while ago.

VanBuren
2012-08-18, 06:11 PM
I don't see how "two perfect people would be exactly the same" follows. Perfection is a state of flawlessness, but just because two people would be different in some way doesn't mean that one of them is flawed. There is more than one way to skin a cat, as it were.

Lord Raziere
2012-08-18, 06:27 PM
I don't see how "two perfect people would be exactly the same" follows. Perfection is a state of flawlessness, but just because two people would be different in some way doesn't mean that one of them is flawed. There is more than one way to skin a cat, as it were.

ah, but one person not knowing how to do something is a flaw yes?

if person A can do 100% of everything, and Person B can only do 99% of everything, person B is flawed.

to me, nothing less the perfect omniscience, omnipotence and perfect wisdom is perfection. There is no lower standard of perfection, because perfection is by definition, the highest impossible standard, the standard that you cannot possibly reach no matter how hard you try, ever.

This is a good thing. if we reached it, all differences would be destroyed, because differences are imperfection! reality is inherently imperfect. and is better for it, the alternative being a state equivalent to not existing at all.

Coidzor
2012-08-18, 06:28 PM
if two perfect beings were to meet- there wouldn't be any difference between them.

That does not necessarily follow, unless your conception of perfect precludes the idea of a perfect circle as much as it precludes the idea of a perfect man or perfect woman. That would be so narrow that you'd find difficulty even getting agreement that you truly understand the idea of perfection.

Lord Raziere
2012-08-18, 06:38 PM
That does not necessarily follow, unless your conception of perfect precludes the idea of a perfect circle as much as it precludes the idea of a perfect man or perfect woman. That would be so narrow that you'd find difficulty even getting agreement that you truly understand the idea of perfection.

there is no such thing a perfect circle, man or woman. perfection doesn't exist!
the only way for perfection to exist, is for everything else to not. "perfect man" is an oxymoron, for a man is imperfect in that they are not also a woman, and a circle is not perfect, in that a circle is not also a square. perfection would be a shape that is both circle and square, as well triangle, rhombus and cucumber, as well as whatever else it could perfectly be, as well a perfect person not really needing anyone else- they are perfect, they are their own perfect man and woman both, and neither. and that is why perfection can't exist. its impossible.

Tiki Snakes
2012-08-18, 06:51 PM
there is no such thing a perfect circle, man or woman. perfection doesn't exist!
the only way for perfection to exist, is for everything else to not. "perfect man" is an oxymoron, for a man is imperfect in that they are not also a woman, and a circle is not perfect, in that a circle is not also a square. perfection would be a shape that is both circle and square, as well triangle, rhombus and cucumber, as well as whatever else it could perfectly be, as well a perfect person not really needing anyone else- they are perfect, they are their own perfect man and woman both, and neither. and that is why perfection can't exist. its impossible.

Perfection does not equal singularity.
A Perfect Circle is a circle. It is nothing else. It can be describe mathematically and does not differ from what mathematics predicts at all, at any point.

A Perfect Man is an impossible but ideal man. He is the very essence of a man, in every way. He is not a woman, or a horse.

VanBuren
2012-08-18, 06:52 PM
ah, but one person not knowing how to do something is a flaw yes?

if person A can do 100% of everything, and Person B can only do 99% of everything, person B is flawed.

to me, nothing less the perfect omniscience, omnipotence and perfect wisdom is perfection. There is no lower standard of perfection, because perfection is by definition, the highest impossible standard, the standard that you cannot possibly reach no matter how hard you try, ever.

This is a good thing. if we reached it, all differences would be destroyed, because differences are imperfection! reality is inherently imperfect. and is better for it, the alternative being a state equivalent to not existing at all.

I have a sense of a humor. My friend has a completely different sense of humor. Why must they be flawed to be different?

Perfection can only exist in things that are objective. Subjective things are neither perfect nor imperfect, they are simply different. I don't accept your definition.

Lord Raziere
2012-08-18, 06:59 PM
@ Tiki Snakes: ok, but I'd refer to that definition as ideal, not perfect. ideal and perfect are two very different things in my mind.

@ Van Buren: So? no ones perfect. I accept that you won't accept my definition, that is just how the world works. in disagreeing with me, you prove me right once again, and I am happy for you that you did, because you are an individual, and if you simply took my definition like a doormat, then you wouldn't be a very good individual now would you? :smallamused:

nedz
2012-08-18, 07:12 PM
@ Tiki Snakes: ok, but I'd refer to that definition as ideal, not perfect. ideal and perfect are two very different things in my mind.

Yes,
I tend to view perfection as relative to an ideal.

Coidzor
2012-08-18, 07:28 PM
Yes,
I tend to view perfection as relative to an ideal.

That... does seem to be the usual definition used when discussed, rather than some kind of singularity.


@ Van Buren: So? no ones perfect. I accept that you won't accept my definition, that is just how the world works. in disagreeing with me, you prove me right once again, and I am happy for you that you did, because you are an individual, and if you simply took my definition like a doormat, then you wouldn't be a very good individual now would you? :smallamused:

Disagreeing with your use of terminology in trying to get your point across does not prove you right, it just proves that you're failing in attempting to converse persuasively and to get your point across as efficiently and concisely as should be within our grasp to discuss this sort of thing. Repeatedly declaring victory because your use of language is obtuse or obfuscating or in contradiction to the common way of using words without making this adequately true is, well, bad form. :smallconfused:

Tiki Snakes
2012-08-18, 07:50 PM
@ Tiki Snakes: ok, but I'd refer to that definition as ideal, not perfect. ideal and perfect are two very different things in my mind.


As the others above me here have said, yeah. Perfection is when a thing, thought, person or so on matches it's Ideal State, or something along those lines.
My definition isn't...perfect. ;)

I find your own concept of it to be more than a little strange. Almost puts me in mind of a villainous monologue.

If it was, it'd go like this;
say the hero is asking the Villain why he is trying to kill everyone else in the universe. He replies that he always saught perfection, only he realised that he could never be the perfect being because it was impossible. As good as he got, he would only ever be him and not anyone else. Whilst other people exist, the Villain argues, there are people that he isn't, he is limited and therefor imperfect. So he concludes that if he kills everyone else in the universe, there will be no-one left that isn't him, and he will therefor be the Perfect Being! Evil Laughter Ensues, villain is denounced as completely off his rocker, etc etc.

I'm not sure your definition of Perfection matches with anyone elses, to be honest. So in a sense, I guess you are right after all, and there really is no such thing. :smallwink:

Lord Raziere
2012-08-18, 08:09 PM
no, I see everyone else's definition of perfect as one that isn't thought through really. I just have to accept that you won't accept my definition, no matter how correct I think it is.

I prefer moderation, imperfection, balance to seeking some ideal of perfection that will never be realized, actually doing things that are useful and workable rather than trying for something completely impossible.

and why call it perfection, when its just ideal? you may call it perfection, I guess you can stretch the definition like that, but to me? thats just Ideal. and I'm not too fond of what is Ideal either. things are rarely, if ever, ideal.

MLai
2012-08-18, 09:02 PM
The reason ppl do not accept your definition of perfection is because you're taking an existing word that already has an accepted meaning, and trying to twist it into a new word.

If, instead of saying "perfect", you invent a new word, or give a descriptive name such as "The Highest" or "The Absolute" or "God", then ppl can absorb what you're saying.

You use "perfect" as a form/idea in itself. This form/idea is "The Perfect" and that's all it is. We are not using this word for that; we use "perfect" as an adjective to a noun, and that noun is our form/idea. Therefore, "the perfect circle", "the perfect square", "the perfect man". The circle/square/man does not have to be anything other than a circle/square/man.

VanBuren
2012-08-19, 12:13 AM
@ Van Buren: So? no ones perfect. I accept that you won't accept my definition, that is just how the world works. in disagreeing with me, you prove me right once again, and I am happy for you that you did, because you are an individual, and if you simply took my definition like a doormat, then you wouldn't be a very good individual now would you? :smallamused:

What? In disagreeing with you, I only prove that you and I disagree. You can't win an argument based on the fact that people don't agree with your argument.

pendell
2012-08-19, 09:01 AM
Which is the part I object to, the unfounded, out-of-left-field assertion that perfection = destruction. The idea that I saw expressed that since we can't achieve perfection we shouldn't try to be as good as we can get is problematic for different reasons and also doesn't make sense, but that's a separate issue to this particular point, and I suppose could just be my own interpretation of what was written.


Speaking as someone who struggles with perfectionism, pursuing the perfect too closely can lead to expecting things of yourself that no human can possibly do. The result is self-loathing and depression when you try , and try, and fail to do what no human can possibly do.

The problem with "perfection" as an ideal is that we humans don't even know what perfection means when it comes to complicated things. We can visualize a perfect circle, because it's a simple, abstract thing. But a perfect human -- does a perfect human not eat meat? But a human has canine teeth. Does a perfect human solve math problems without error ?But we're talking about a perfect human being, not a calculator. Is a perfect human able to paint the Sistine chapel? But we're talking about a perfect human, not a perfect artist.


Thing , too, is that a "human" is, in engineering terms, a swiss army knife. It is adaptable to almost any situation. A human can act as a soldier, as a husband, as a wife, as a farmer, as a teacher, as a doctor, with differing degrees of success.

Given this flexibility, a "perfect man" could be a very imperfect teacher, a very imperfect soldier, a very imperfect husband or father, and yet still be a "perfect human". Because a human is more than just a role. The perfect swiss army knife does not have to be the perfect combat knife, the perfect pair of scissors. It merely has to be able to do a multitude of roles instead of being specialized for only one.

A person who was truly perfect at everything would not be a perfect man -- they would be something bigger, something greater. Something super-human. But a super-human man is not a perfect man. A super-human man is someone who exceeds the normal human parameters because they can do things even perfect men cannot. A perfect man could not climb walls like a spider, for example. Spiderman can, but Spiderman is not a perfect human. Spiderman is superhuman. And as we've seen in the comic books, being superhuman does not imply perfection as a human first. Peter Parker should strive to be a perfect superhero, not a perfect human, because the standards of normal humans don't properly apply to him. If he lived as a perfect ordinary man, he'd be a very imperfect superhero, because he'd be letting his extraordinary talents and abilities go to waste.

Which is why I disagree that the 'perfect man' would be good at everything. It's not in the spec. That's like saying a perfect car should be able to fly to the moon -- that's not a perfect car, but a perfect rocket. You're putting expectations on the car that are not part of the ideal specification of a car, making it into something it is not.

A 'perfect man' would not have all skills, not have all knowledge. A 'perfect man' would instead properly and correctly answer all expectations of a man. That doesn't mean they never grow tired, never eat, never have to struggle with a test question. They would go through the entirety of normal human experience, but do it in such a way as to meet our highest ideals without shortcoming. That doesn't mean they'd pass every test with an A, especially if the 'perfect' person had a normal IQ. But it does mean they would apply themselves with diligence to their studies and not spend overmuch time partying and come in wasted.


Also: Other Greek thinkers agreed with Lord Raziere that perfection is not ultimately possible in an imperfect world, and they agreed that the world would have to be destroyed and made anew. But those ideas and solutions cross over from philosophy into theology, and thus are outside forum scope.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Infernally Clay
2012-08-19, 09:45 AM
"There is nothing in this world that is truly "perfect". Though it may be a rather large cliché, it is still the truth. It is the ordinary people who look up to "perfection" as an ideal and seek after it.

But in truth, what is this idea of "perfection" truly worth? Nothing. Not a single thing. I detest "perfection". To be "perfect" is to be unable to improve any further. There would be no scope for "creation", not a single gap in one's knowledge or one's ability.

Do you see now? To true scientists like you and I, "Perfection" is tantamount to "despair". We aspire to reach greater levels of brilliance than ever before, but never, NEVER, to reach perfection. That is the paradox through which we scientists must struggle.

Indeed, it is our duty to find pleasure in that struggle. In other words, the second you allowed yourself to spout a ridiculous word like "perfect", in truth, you had already been defeated. That is if you wish to be treated as a scientist."

I actually really liked that speech. It resonates so well, not just with scientists but with everyone and everything. Who wants to be perfect? The human life is best spent bettering ourselves, so perfection would simply leave us without anything to do.

Parra
2012-08-20, 04:58 AM
If a being reaches perfection then should it not be perfectly capable of entertaining itself, perfectly capable of finding things to do and perfectly capable of not despairing?
and if it couldn't then could it truly have been called perfect to begin with?

I think the idea of perfection resolves itself.... perfectly :smallcool:

VanBuren
2012-08-20, 03:05 PM
If a being reaches perfection then should it not be perfectly capable of entertaining itself, perfectly capable of finding things to do and perfectly capable of not despairing?
and if it couldn't then could it truly have been called perfect to begin with?

I think the idea of perfection resolves itself.... perfectly :smallcool:

Unless of course, perfection isn't something that can be obtained in solitude, but in community with others. Perhaps perfection isn't found by self-sufficiency but in loving others and being loved in return.

EDIT: It certainly isn't found in my spelling.

pendell
2012-08-21, 08:05 AM
Unless of course, perfection isn't something that can be obtained in solitude, but in community with others. Perhaps perfection isn't found by self-sufficiency but in loving others and being loved in return.

EDIT: It certainly isn't found in my spelling.

A good idea. The perfect internet browser is meaningless on a computer that isn't hooked up to the internet. The perfect light bulb is meaningless if it doesn't have a power source.


Come to think of it, very few things in this world make sense in and of themselves, without some larger context. Consider the perfect diamond : If it lies buried in the earth and not appreciated by human beings, has it really achieved it's full potential?

Thus it is, perhaps, with human beings. We aren't fulfilled only by ourselves, but in the relationships we make with those around us. Not that we should gain all our self-worth from others -- that would be imperfect in another way -- but that 'perfection', at least in human beings, can't exist in isolation. We are herd creatures, after all.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Osiris_Shadowblade
2012-08-21, 10:14 AM
Wasn't this thread about Star Wars?

Yora
2012-08-21, 10:24 AM
That was like a week ago.

The Glyphstone
2012-08-21, 10:34 AM
GitP: The only place where a thread can start at Star Wars and go off-topic into philosophical debates on the nature of perfection.:smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2012-08-21, 10:56 AM
Sidious had a few things to say about the hazards of picking apprentices, that might suggest that Bane's notion of the apprentice slaying the master in a straight fight was the exception rather than the rule:

The Essential Guide to the Force:

Choose someone as a successor and you will inevitably be succeeded.

Choose someone hungrier and you will be devoured.

Choose someone quicker and you won't dodge the blade at your back.

Choose someone with more patience and you won't block the blade at your throat.

Choose someone more devious and you'll hold the blade that kills you.

Choose someone more clever and you'll never know your end.

Despite these cautions, an apprentice is essential. A Master without an apprentice is a Master of nothing.

Tyndmyr
2012-08-21, 03:47 PM
I don't think that's really what the movies attempt to communicate. It's just that the script and directing is so terribly bad that you can't really follow what the chain of causation Lucas attempts to show.

The only "chain of causation" he had was "man, I'll make this movie for the kiddos, which will lead to merchandising, which leads to more piles of money for me to roll in".

Tyndmyr
2012-08-21, 04:02 PM
no, I see everyone else's definition of perfect as one that isn't thought through really. I just have to accept that you won't accept my definition, no matter how correct I think it is.

I prefer moderation, imperfection, balance to seeking some ideal of perfection that will never be realized, actually doing things that are useful and workable rather than trying for something completely impossible.

and why call it perfection, when its just ideal? you may call it perfection, I guess you can stretch the definition like that, but to me? thats just Ideal. and I'm not too fond of what is Ideal either. things are rarely, if ever, ideal.

Using existing words in non-standard ways renders you incapable of communicating your idea effectively.

You need to define what you're talking about. Describing the earth as impure, for instance. Impure in what way? What is the desired element, and what are the contaminants. If you can't define your goal in actual concrete language, how can you ever hope to accomplish it?

Caewil
2012-08-22, 08:10 AM
I actually really liked that speech. It resonates so well, not just with scientists but with everyone and everything. Who wants to be perfect? The human life is best spent bettering ourselves, so perfection would simply leave us without anything to do.
Reminds me of that book by Camus about the myth of Sisyphus, that dude who had to roll a boulder up a mountain and it would roll back down every time. According to the myth, it was supposed to be torture, but Camus reinterpreted it as liberating.

Kato
2012-08-22, 05:51 PM
GitP: The only place where a thread can start at Star Wars and go off-topic into philosophical debates on the nature of perfection.:smallbiggrin:

And we love it!


I'm fairly new to the franchise (in more depth than the movies) but isn't it a rather simple question of forcing themselves to stay on guard and constantly challenging their own (and their pupils) abilities to get stronger and stronger what is what a Sith strives for?

Scowling Dragon
2012-08-23, 09:13 PM
I'm fairly new to the franchise (in more depth than the movies) but isn't it a rather simple question of forcing themselves to stay on guard and constantly challenging their own (and their pupils) abilities to get stronger and stronger what is what a Sith strives for?

Imagine if thats how it worked in any other form of tutoring. Once you beat your teacher ONCE. A single time (Possibly by luck) he could never teach you anything again.

That is idiotic. But so is 95% of everything in the prequels (No matter how the Novels try to hammer the garbage into decent shapes). :smallsigh:

Devonix
2012-08-23, 09:22 PM
Imagine if thats how it worked in any other form of tutoring. Once you beat your teacher ONCE. A single time (Possibly by luck) he could never teach you anything again.

That is idiotic. But so is 95% of everything in the prequels (No matter how the Novels try to hammer the garbage into decent shapes). :smallsigh:

Actually the Rule of two thing is one of the manythings that started in EU and then was added to the movies. Like the whole Sith thing itself.

There was no Rule of two until the books.
There were no Sith, in the OT untill EU retroactively changed it.
In the OT Vader was just a fallen Jedi and Sith wasn't even used onscreen once.

JCarter426
2012-08-23, 09:36 PM
Imagine if thats how it worked in any other form of tutoring. Once you beat your teacher ONCE. A single time (Possibly by luck) he could never teach you anything again.

That is idiotic. But so is 95% of everything in the prequels (No matter how the Novels try to hammer the garbage into decent shapes). :smallsigh:
It's not like it's beating them at checkers. It's killing them. What other kind of succession do you expect? If you've just murdered your mentor, supposedly the most evil powerful megalomaniac in existence, is your first thought "gee, I better find a new teacher"?

Actually the Rule of two thing is one of the manythings that started in EU and then was added to the movies. Like the whole Sith thing itself.

There was no Rule of two until the books.
There were no Sith, in the OT untill EU retroactively changed it.
In the OT Vader was just a fallen Jedi and Sith wasn't even used onscreen once.
That's not true. The Sith date as far back as early drafts of Star Wars. They never got mentioned in the final films for some reason. The Rule of Two was made up by Lucas as background info for Phantom Menace... in fact much of the portrayal of the Sith in the prequels conflicts with the expanded universe stuff because Lucas pretty much ignored it. And a lot of Clone Wars stuff that's supposedly of higher canon than the regular EU ignores the Rule of Two! Star Wars canon is messed

Of course you also have the prequels ignoring the original trilogy - for example, Palpatine not having a lightsaber in Return of the Jedi, going so far as to call it a Jedi weapon, and then having one (actually, TWO, as I recall) in Revenge of the Sith. That I might attribute to EU Sith having lightsabers, but it could just be Lucas throwing as many duels as he could into a film with nothing else to stand on. In any case, that's not so much messed up canon as it is bad continuity or lack of trying/caring.

snoopy13a
2012-08-23, 10:10 PM
Actually the Rule of two thing is one of the manythings that started in EU and then was added to the movies. Like the whole Sith thing itself.

There was no Rule of two until the books.
There were no Sith, in the OT untill EU retroactively changed it.
In the OT Vader was just a fallen Jedi and Sith wasn't even used onscreen once.

Vader was called "Lord" in the OT because he was a lord of the sith. Granted, nobody actually knew what a "lord of the sith" was. For all most fans knew, it was just a generic noble title.

Scowling Dragon
2012-08-23, 10:19 PM
It's not like it's beating them at checkers. It's killing them.

Thats my point. The world doesn't work like magic fairy land where once you beat your teacher once, you are automatically better then your teacher. :smallannoyed:

And luck can factor into this a hundred times! What if a lucky sith killed his master during the first year of training? Oh ****, now the secrets of the sith are all gone. Good luck rediscovering them bucko. :smallmad:

Or on a smaller scale! How many techniques had to be rediscovered by later sith over and over because they kill their aging master before they can teach them them!

The Sith in the original trilogy where not balanced villians. But it felt like they just happened to be that way through life. Not because all sith a headbanginly dumb. Like Vader chocked his subordinates because he was an aggressive monster through years of hate. Not because he was taught that way.

JCarter426
2012-08-23, 10:35 PM
Well, not like it matters either way once your teacher is dead. Besides, when your teacher is an evil demigod, maybe it does.

I agree the Rule of Two isn't a bright idea, though. The Sith always beat the Jedi because of infighting amongst the Sith, so the solution is to only have two Sith at a time? So two Sith, one merely an apprentice, are supposed to take on hundreds of Jedi? Ok, so they work in secret for a thousand years. But what if the Jedi uncover the Sith at a bad time, like after the apprentice has killed his master but has yet to take on an apprentice? Or what if they kill the apprentice? You know, like they did. Twice. Do the Sith really think they're that much smarter than the Jedi? Maybe some bad guys are that arrogant, but I wouldn't pin such arrogance on bad guys who think "the Jedi always beat us because we keep killing each other". I guess in the prequels the Sith really are that much smarter than the Jedi, but only because the Jedi are so much dumber. And to make matters worse, Palpatine treats his apprentices like pawns and most certainly isn't training them to replace him; if every Sith Lord had done the same, they'd all surely be dead by now. And how do the Jedi know about the Rule of Two anyway? If it was instigated so the Sith could hide from the Jedi, after the Jedi thought they wiped them all out, then how do they know?

It's not entirely a bad concept. Secret Force using assassins, always two of them so if one dies the other can replace them... not bad. It just wasn't explained enough or... well... done right... at all.

DaedalusMkV
2012-08-24, 01:41 AM
Thats my point. The world doesn't work like magic fairy land where once you beat your teacher once, you are automatically better then your teacher. :smallannoyed:

And luck can factor into this a hundred times! What if a lucky sith killed his master during the first year of training? Oh ****, now the secrets of the sith are all gone. Good luck rediscovering them bucko. :smallmad:


Exactly. Which is why apprentices would not try to kill their Master in the first year of their apprenticeship. Because that would be stupid, counter to the Sith creed and totally suicidal. You don't try to kill your master until you have nothing more to gain from him and are confident that you've set up the playing field in your favour. Did Vader try to kill the Emperor immediately after getting roboticized? No, he stuck around to learn as much as he could, became the public face of the Galactic Empire and generally built up his influence in the military. He wasn't willing to go for a kill on the Emperor until he was sure he could win, which in this case meant trying to turn Luke to gain a decisive advantage. That's the beauty of the system; the Master needs to keep teaching his apprentice lest the apprentice feel he's learned all he can and go for the kill early, while the apprentice doesn't want to kill the Master until the teaching is finished.

Once again, the entire system seems to me to be designed to encourage long-term planning, patience and subterfuge in a group that is primarily inclined to suicidal overconfidence and acting first and thinking never. How do you get a Sith to act the way you want them to? Appeal to their self-interest. That's what the Rule of Two does, and once again it seems to be very successful at it considering the fact that it eventually evolved the sith from stupid evil to... Well, Palpatine. The Rule of Two Sith have not been exterminated. They pop up several times in the EU as the result of planted Holocrons and Dark Side users passing on their teachings, up to the latest printed EU material. I really don't see what's so stupid about it.

Lord Raziere
2012-08-24, 02:17 AM
Using existing words in non-standard ways renders you incapable of communicating your idea effectively.

You need to define what you're talking about. Describing the earth as impure, for instance. Impure in what way? What is the desired element, and what are the contaminants. If you can't define your goal in actual concrete language, how can you ever hope to accomplish it?

It does not matter *how* it is impure. It is always impure, and nothing can change that. That is just how the world is. If its not impure one way, its impure in another.

and to think that I have a goal in mind when making this philosophy is have it entirely backwards. I first observed the world, and saw what I know to be true. Then formed conclusions and explanations from it and formed purpose from it. my current conclusion is that one should be balanced and moderate, and that no one path is the best to take, not in every situation. there is a best path for ONE situation, but it does not mean the same path applies in another.
It is not a philosophy developed for a purpose, it is a philosophy developed to find a purpose, and from what I have observed- is the purpose I found from this philosophy is to work towards ones own goals, while being flexible, adaptable and moderate enough not to fall into staleness, extremeness, uselessly seeking something that will never come, irrationality- etc.

But if you wish, I will rename my concept "The Absolute": A pure singularity of perfection that can only exist if nothing else does.

However that does not mean that your definition of perfection is good. The concept of perfection, while more narrow and specific than The Absolute, is still not really a thing that can exist. You will never achieve such ideal conditions, because conditions will keep changing. Even if it was possible, the odds of achieving such narrow ideal conditions, would be astronomical beyond calculation. Furthermore the variables at work are exponentially increasing in number as time goes by and society and the universe becomes more and more complex, or at least what we discover of the universe.

Why then, seek it? perfection is just a pale shadow of The Absolute, you might as well be seeking to emulate a giants left toe nail, when you could be seeking to become the giant itself. and becoming the giant is out the question, because that destroys all impurity, and therefore everything we will ever know. its not even an ambitious form of useless perfection-seeking. perfection is after all, often one-note, one-dimensional, a caricature, a stereotype, a cardboard cut out on such a small scale.

Reality however, is anything but perfect or The Absolute. Its alive. its three-dimensional. its flawed. its impure. and that is what I like about it.

Yora
2012-08-24, 03:10 AM
I agree the Rule of Two isn't a bright idea, though. The Sith always beat the Jedi because of infighting amongst the Sith, so the solution is to only have two Sith at a time? So two Sith, one merely an apprentice, are supposed to take on hundreds of Jedi?
They do seem to have always a horde of dozens or even hundreds of other Dark Jedi in their service. Though that leaves the question what difference it makes if they can call themselves Sith or not.

JCarter426
2012-08-24, 03:14 AM
Well, those are always supposedly violations of the Rule of Two (e.g. Mara Jade, Lumiya, Starkiller) or "not technically Sith" (e.g. Ventress), or from before it's in effect (e.g. Tales of the Jedi and Knights of the Old Republic series).

And I submit that all of the above fall under my previous point, the desire to throw as many lightsaber duels into it the damn thing as possible. :smalltongue: At least some of them have the decency to set it when there aren't only two Sith in existence (or predate the rule out-of-universe).

MLai
2012-08-24, 04:29 AM
Well, technically not Sith means just that, they're *not* Sith.

A Sith's proper designation is Dark Lord Of The Sith, Sith being the people/planet that they originally conquered and became dark lords of. Not everyone can be a Dark Lord. But there's no limit placed on the number of Dark Side adepts you can employ and train, as a Dark Lord.

hamishspence
2012-08-24, 06:18 AM
Exactly. Which is why apprentices would not try to kill their Master in the first year of their apprenticeship. Because that would be stupid, counter to the Sith creed and totally suicidal. You don't try to kill your master until you have nothing more to gain from him and are confident that you've set up the playing field in your favour.

Or your Master is provoking you, to find out what you're made of. In the short book Star Wars Journal: Darth Maul- that's what Sidious does with Maul- and it takes a lot of provocation to get him to try and kill his master.

That was what got him the title of Dark Lord, in fact

VanBuren
2012-08-24, 06:24 AM
Thats my point. The world doesn't work like magic fairy land where once you beat your teacher once, you are automatically better then your teacher. :smallannoyed:

Though with all the crazy shenanigans that go on, the Star Wars universe would probably be closer to magic fairy land than the real world if we were to plot it on a line.


And luck can factor into this a hundred times! What if a lucky sith killed his master during the first year of training? Oh ****, now the secrets of the sith are all gone. Good luck rediscovering them bucko. :smallmad:

Or on a smaller scale! How many techniques had to be rediscovered by later sith over and over because they kill their aging master before they can teach them them!

The Sith in the original trilogy where not balanced villians. But it felt like they just happened to be that way through life. Not because all sith a headbanginly dumb. Like Vader chocked his subordinates because he was an aggressive monster through years of hate. Not because he was taught that way.

The Force > luck.

Actually, does luck even exist in the Star Wars universe? If we take Obi-Wan as an authority, "luck" would really just be the Force. Which Sith tend to be good at using.

MLai
2012-08-24, 08:31 AM
I think even Yoda refuted the idea of luck, in ESB.
When Luke said "I'll try", and Yoda said "Do, or do not. There is no try."
Yoda is basically denying the existence of luck, or chance. The whole reason Luke said he'll try, is because chance/luck may help him succeed. Yoda is saying there is no chance/luck, only the Force.

Yeah I'm talking out of my ass. :smalltongue:

pendell
2012-08-24, 08:55 AM
Why then, seek it? perfection is just a pale shadow of The Absolute, you might as well be seeking to emulate a giants left toe nail, when you could be seeking to become the giant itself. and becoming the giant is out the question, because that destroys all impurity, and therefore everything we will ever know. its not even an ambitious form of useless perfection-seeking. perfection is after all, often one-note, one-dimensional, a caricature, a stereotype, a cardboard cut out on such a small scale.

Reality however, is anything but perfect or The Absolute. Its alive. its three-dimensional. its flawed. its impure. and that is what I like about it.

In all my forty-one years, no one has answered it better than Rob Balder in his erfworld comic (http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F141.jpg).


"Striving for the impossible" doesn't mean "toiling in vain". It means "growth in the direction of your ideals." The fact that you can never actually achieve your ideal doesn't mean that striving in that direction is a bad thing. You may aim at the stars, and never get beyond lunar orbit. But you're still further off the ground than you would be if you just gave it up as hopeless and never so much as climbed a tree.

And the few steps you take blaze a trail that others may use to go still further.

It's a madness, to dream the impossible dream and to fight the unfightable foe. But it's a human thing, and I for one prefer mad hope to rational despair. it is a good thing to dare mad things and bring about tangible benefits. So long as you don't beat yourself too much for not actually reaching perfection, and so long as what you're doing makes life better for other people and not worse.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Fragenstein
2012-08-24, 09:02 AM
I think even Yoda refuted the idea of luck, in ESB.
When Luke said "I'll try", and Yoda said "Do, or do not. There is no try."
Yoda is basically denying the existence of luck, or chance. The whole reason Luke said he'll try, is because chance/luck may help him succeed. Yoda is saying there is no chance/luck, only the Force.

Yeah I'm talking out of my ass. :smalltongue:

Maybe. I always saw that as any shred of doubt will allow you to fail. The certainty of self-confidence allows for a more pure connection to the force and a corresponding ability to accomplish things through it. Once doubt comes into your mind, you lack the conviction to actually be effective.

He was saying that 'thinking you can fail' will lead to failure. 'Knowing you will succeed' will lead to success.

mangosta71
2012-08-24, 09:10 AM
I really don't see what's so stupid about it.
That's because you're looking at how a bunch of authors strongarmed the system and forced it to work instead of considering how things would develop in anything approximating reality.

It's also nonsensical to say that there's no such thing as luck in SW. Suppose a Jedi and a Sith, exactly equal in their command of the Force, are dueling. Which one wins? The one who gets lucky (or is the author's favorite, but that's basically the same thing).

pendell
2012-08-24, 10:05 AM
It's also nonsensical to say that there's no such thing as luck in SW. Suppose a Jedi and a Sith, exactly equal in their command of the Force, are dueling. Which one wins? The one who gets lucky (or is the author's favorite, but that's basically the same thing).

The one wins who is predestined to win, the one the Force has chosen.

If you believe in such things as a fate and destiny, then that means you also have to believe that fate and destiny shape the course of events. So in the star wars universe if you are walking down the road and you spot a penny on the ground, it's not that you are lucky ... it's that the force meant you to find the penny. "Coincidence" is simply an Unseen hand governing the affairs of mortal men from behind the scenes .. and if you're a Sith Lord, your manipulation of the force is the unseen hand.

A pure force duel between dark lords of the sith might be two force-using children on different planets. But, like the flapping of a moth's wings that starts the thunderstorms, one properly manipulated action in the force here results in the other "coincidentally" stepping in front of a garbage truck.

To touch the force is to interact with the mysterious power that the unlearned and ignorant call "luck". If you're a Jedi, it means submitting to such a thing and allowing yourself to be the tool of destiny. If a sith, it means taking control of such a thing and shaping the destiny -- of yourself, of worlds, of galaxies -- to your whim. And for those truly powerful in the force, to do so from a mud hut on Dagobah without need for starships or armies.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

VanBuren
2012-08-24, 02:20 PM
That's because you're looking at how a bunch of authors strongarmed the system and forced it to work instead of considering how things would develop in anything approximating reality.

It's also nonsensical to say that there's no such thing as luck in SW. Suppose a Jedi and a Sith, exactly equal in their command of the Force, are dueling. Which one wins? The one who gets lucky (or is the author's favorite, but that's basically the same thing).

What pendell said. Luck is just the Force.

hamishspence
2012-08-24, 02:27 PM
Some Jedi don't believe in luck- but others do- owning "good luck charms":

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Luck

Scowling Dragon
2012-08-24, 02:32 PM
I guess I just don't understand why killing your master is a good idea.

Under the same logic killing your henchman is also genius.

Its just idiotic. On a basic 1+1=/=macaroni level. If you think this is smart then I can't argue with you just as much as I can't argue with a wall.

Like everything else in the prequels all it causes is more plot holes.

Now suddenly Force>Luck (Thats not how luck works), now sudden;y this hole causes even MORE plot holes.

hamishspence
2012-08-24, 02:37 PM
Could be that they had to work with the problem of Dark Side producing huge amounts of ambition and a desire to become top of the heap.

The Rule of Two helps keep the Sith in check- forcing them to stay hidden until they've done enough over the generations for their plan to work.

Without a Rule of Two- they'd come to the Jedi's attention pretty rapidly.

Reverent-One
2012-08-24, 02:40 PM
I guess I just don't understand why killing your master is a good idea.

It's less that killing your master is a good idea, and more that a single apprentice killing their master once they surpasses him/her is better than continious infighting. And throw in a little bit of "might make right" mentality and the apprentice beating his master is proof that he deserves to be master.

mangosta71
2012-08-24, 03:14 PM
Luck, destiny, the Force... What do all these things have in common? If you said "They're the ways bad authors justify ridiculous plot armor" you're correct.

If luck is the Force, and destiny is the Force, then a Sith should NEVER beat a Jedi, because the Jedi serves the Force while the Sith, by definition, can't. Unless the Force, in addition to being omnipresent and omnipotent, is also omniscient (which it would have to be to play a long game like the purge and subsequent resurgence of Jedi). Of course, if the Force is so benevolent that it's deeply hurt by millions of deaths, and has the power to allow or disallow any action (through "luck") I have to wonder about the necessity of allowing the Death Star to blow Alderaan into tiny little Alderaan-shaped bits.

So, no, I'm not buying the "luck is the Force" line. It's not internally consistent. Luck is a manifestation of the laws of probability. The Force is a manifestation of the laws of deus ex machina.

Could be that they had to work with the problem of Dark Side producing huge amounts of ambition and a desire to become top of the heap.

The Rule of Two helps keep the Sith in check- forcing them to stay hidden until they've done enough over the generations for their plan to work.

Without a Rule of Two- they'd come to the Jedi's attention pretty rapidly.

It's less that killing your master is a good idea, and more that a single apprentice killing their master once they surpasses him/her is better than continious infighting. And throw in a little bit of "might make right" mentality and the apprentice beating his master is proof that he deserves to be master.
And this comes back to the "evil makes people too stupid to work together against a common threat" idea that pervades so many fictional settings. Without the Rule of Two, they could train enough Sith to meet the Jedi and overcome them on the field of battle (especially since they don't have that ridiculous "we only train people we kidnap straight out of the cradle" thing that the Jedi have going on severely limiting their pool of candidates). Ya know, if their two brain cells weren't too busy with managing the action of twirling their mustaches to rub up against each other.

Palpatine and Vader overthrew the galaxy and seized control in spite of the RoT; not because of it.

DaedalusMkV
2012-08-24, 03:20 PM
It's less that killing your master is a good idea, and more that a single apprentice killing their master once they surpasses him/her is better than continious infighting. And throw in a little bit of "might make right" mentality and the apprentice beating his master is proof that he deserves to be master.

Exactly. Rule of Two isn't a sane system for normal people. There's no reason to encourage people to kill you when those people will have no inclination to do so in the first place. The Rule of Two is a smart system for the Sith because it harnesses their natural inclinations into desired pathways. If you get two or more Sith together for a sustained period of time, they will start infighting. Being Dark Side at all guarantees that eventually you're going to wind up wanting to dominate and impose your will on everything around you. That's what the Dark Side is. The Rule of Two is designed to take that urge to blow up your ally's battleship because he refused to acknowledge your manifest superiority and turn it into long-term planning and relatively effective alliances based on mutual personal interests.

I'm not trying to say that the Rule of Two Sith have a good system that we should try to emulate. I'm saying that the Rule of Two is a good system for Sith. If they were capable of operating effectively in conventional society they wouldn't be Sith to begin with.

hamishspence
2012-08-24, 03:38 PM
And this comes back to the "evil makes people too stupid to work together against a common threat" idea that pervades so many fictional settings.

There's plenty of smart, evil people in the Star Wars EU setting- they generally aren't wielders of the Force though.

mangosta71
2012-08-24, 03:54 PM
So you're saying that wielding the Force turns one into a blithering idiot.

Well, I suppose that does explain the Jedi Council...

hamishspence
2012-08-24, 04:01 PM
Wielding the Dark Side sometimes does- Legacy of the Force in particular seems to suggest this.

TV Tropes has a few examples- The Dark Side, Drunk on the Dark Side, The Dark Side Will Make You Forget, and so forth.