Bezombia wrote:The Rich Port wrote:
It's amazing how both useful and stupid the Rule of Two is, though I suppose that's more the fault of Sith ideological practices in general as opposed to the Rules themselves. Maybe I understand it wrong? Can there be more than literally two Sith, or is it just that there can be only one master to one apprentice?
Ah, I was thinking of that one fucked-up corpse Darth from KOTOR 2, but I remember now he had a different name.
Jed-based as in based in lawful goodness? No wonder the Republic sucks afterwards.
Back before Ruusan, the Sith was a massive empire. This basically meant that the Jedi could declare war on them at any time.
Bane came up with the rule of two to make the Sith powerful but secret, so they could bide their time until the Jedi were weak enough to be destroyed.
That was Nihilus.
Jedi-based as in the Jedi pretty much controlled the Republic rather than being the Republic. The Reformations also founded the Senate and made the Chancellor a mostly arbitrary position.2
... Could they? I thought the Jedi were about peace. They wouldn't actively pursue war. Besides, in KOTOR, wasn't the war driven by the newly-Sith Revan and Malak? Sure, the Jedi can sever your connection to the Force, but that's if they catch you or if they find out, and that's a maybe. Maybe they could just leave like the Dark Jedi from before KOTOR did.
How would the Sith Lords regulate that? If Bane had opponents, would they have to abide by it? What if even his followers still wanted to be powerful?