Ultimate Vader Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 Well, we all have our opinion. It's okay. But the point is, I don't like Vrook!
CommanderQ Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 Well, we can all agree on that to a point.
Ultimate Vader Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 He's like my former teacher in the junior high school, yikes.....
Chevron 7 locke Posted December 8, 2008 Author Posted December 8, 2008 I think Sion and Nihilus were the basis of the sith of taday, the sith that strike from the shadows and kill by assasination What do you guys think?
Litofsky Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 I disagree: did not Darth Bane establish the Rule of Two, one of the most prolific guidelines of the Sith? In my opinion, he would've had more of an influence on the Sith than either of the previously mentioned.
CommanderQ Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 True, Darth Bane was the commander of one of the largest "true" Sith armies. Malak couldn't be considered of the Bloodline of Bane because of the former Jedi-ness. Bane was indeed the most powerful and most influential Sith. "The Bloodline of Bane" "the Rule of Two," all of these were Bane's creations, and the Sith stuck to it for, oh, several thousand years or less.
Darth_Yuthura Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 I think that Darth Nihilus had the potential to be one of the greatest Sith in the Star Wars Universe, but they made him into something much less in the game. The thought of a Sith that could feed upon Force users was much more dangerous than Palpatine or Exar Kun ever were. But at the same time, his hunger was nothing more than a liability to himself and his power was his weakness. That would have deviated much more than any other Sith. Instead, he and Sion were just overruled by Trayus... really the standard Force-user villain.
Chevron 7 locke Posted December 9, 2008 Author Posted December 9, 2008 I disagree. Palpatine was a master of manipulation and most of the time he managed to get his enemies to destroy each other, that makes him alot more dangerous them nihilus. Nihilus would die if he didn't get to a force sensitive world in time to feed, palpatine...could eat whenever he wanted to
Darth_Yuthura Posted December 9, 2008 Posted December 9, 2008 Nihilus vs. Palpatine... who would win? The obvious answer is Nihilus, but as Kreia pointed out, his 'strength' was his hunger and a weakness. He was an enemy that could not be defeated by any normal means... not before all Jedi and Sith have already been consumed that is. Palpatine was just like Malak, Revan, Exar Kun, Vader, and Bane in terms of their abilities to use the Force. The Yussag-Vong I believe they are called were simply immune to the Force... they were different from those on this list as was Nihilus.
Chevron 7 locke Posted December 9, 2008 Author Posted December 9, 2008 Back to Sith Lords. Revan came up with the rule of two but Bane was the one who started the process. Why do you think this is?
Darth_Yuthura Posted December 9, 2008 Posted December 9, 2008 Bane was foolish? Please explain what makes the 'rule of two' so brilliant. I really don't know... I'm not just being snarky.
Chevron 7 locke Posted December 9, 2008 Author Posted December 9, 2008 I didn't say Bane was foolish. The rule of two allowed the sith to continue their legacy without fear of being killed by their apprentices before their time. If an apprentice was foolish enough to strike down their master before they learned everything from them, then the sith legacy would suffer a sever drawback or possibly die out. the postivies about the rule of two was that the jedi almost never found them, they did not have to fear death by jedi who would take every bit of knowledge that they had aquired over the years.
TKA-001 Posted December 9, 2008 Posted December 9, 2008 Please explain what makes the 'rule of two' so brilliant The fact that it actually worked.
Chevron 7 locke Posted December 9, 2008 Author Posted December 9, 2008 TKA-001 summed it up perfectly. it worked until Palpatine screwed it all up
Darth_Yuthura Posted December 9, 2008 Posted December 9, 2008 The fact that it actually worked. "Explain" How does it work? What comes from it that did not come from a Sith Empire? One thing brought up was they remain hidden, but the sacrifice is that they are much weaker because of the lack of numbers. How does this compare to what Revan had built up? It doesn't.
Chevron 7 locke Posted December 9, 2008 Author Posted December 9, 2008 Revan's empire fell and he had many sith lords, Kun's empire fell, every sith who had a large army fell. The rule of two passes on Knowledge and holocrons and other such things instead of hogging them. this helps each new generation of sith grow stronger
Darth_Yuthura Posted December 9, 2008 Posted December 9, 2008 Empires NEVER last long. This doesn't change the fact that during Revan's lifetime, he had become more powerful with an Empire behind him than almost every other Sith Lord under the rule of two. Just because an empire falls doesn't mean that two sith lords were more powerful than all of that. Don't forget that Sith Lords die. I don't think that if you have to hide, you really have much power. Malak was an utter fool, but with an Empire behind him, even he was more capable than any 2 Sith Lords by far.
Chevron 7 locke Posted December 9, 2008 Author Posted December 9, 2008 The Sith that used the rule of two were more likly to survive. large numbers of sith draw jedi, jedi kill sith, end of the sith. now two sith isn't really going to draw the attention of the jedi unless they do something really stupid like kill a knight or a padawan, as long as the sith using the rule of two kept quiet and directed their activites from the shadows, they had a much smaller chance of attracting the jedi
Darth_Yuthura Posted December 9, 2008 Posted December 9, 2008 So they decided to stop striving to become the strongest and dominate everyone... that makes sense.
Chevron 7 locke Posted December 9, 2008 Author Posted December 9, 2008 Palpatine broke the rule of two and caused the virtual downfall of the sith, he is the reason the sith nearly fell yet again
JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan Posted December 9, 2008 Posted December 9, 2008 unless they do something really stupid like kill a knight or a padawan, actually, 'rule of two sith' killed jedi a lot.
Ultimate Vader Posted December 9, 2008 Posted December 9, 2008 Yes. Rule of two allows the sith to become more powerful, altough ridiculously few in number. Edit: Revan's empire fell and he had many sith lords, Kun's empire fell, every sith who had a large army fell. The rule of two passes on Knowledge and holocrons and other such things instead of hogging them. this helps each new generation of sith grow stronger Good point.
Darth_Yuthura Posted December 9, 2008 Posted December 9, 2008 Don't forget just how close Palpatine came to wiping out all Jedi. I would say he was the most successful single Sith there was... and he broke the rule of two. Can't argue with that, can you?
Chevron 7 locke Posted December 9, 2008 Author Posted December 9, 2008 And look what happended after Palpatine did what he did. His empire fell, the jedi order rose yet again, palpatine himself was killed, It was not a good idea to break the rule of two.
Astor Posted December 9, 2008 Posted December 9, 2008 Don't forget just how close Palpatine came to wiping out all Jedi. I would say he was the most successful single Sith there was... and he broke the rule of two. Can't argue with that, can you? How did he break the rule of two?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.