Hunger Games… In Space?

Maybe we'll learn that at some point in history, the Sith were more in the open. The rule of two wasn't adopted until Darth Plageus, correct? He was Palpatine's master so that would have been in more recent time than The Acolyte setting.

 

Wasn't Darth Bane the founder ?
(if this is still canon)

 

I'm not entirely sure about much of the Sith and their history to be honest, or The High Republic. I thought I read something that the Rule of Two was established toward the end or after The High Republic and speculation that the Acolyte may be centered around that.
What is some good canon material on this era? And history of the Sith?

 

I don't know if Darth Bane is still consistent in the new canon. I'm afraid its story has been wiped, like many stories in the EU.

 

Yoda met Darth Bane(season 6, episode 13 CW). He is the founder of The Rule of Two.

 

Thank you @The dinh

 

The SW Galaxy is a nasty place, a battle royal would be great set in the old republic with young Sith or similar!

 

Writers tend to prefer not being bound by narrow story points, so I think it's entirely possible we'll see some kind of deviation or softening of the dogma down the road. And besides, the Sith don't strike me as people who play by the rules, any rules, and I completely buy that some Sith Lords (possibly even Sidious) might tweak or disregard the overly narrow Rule of Two.

From a story point of view, it makes for a stronger and more varied setting to answer the question, "do any Sith break the Rule of Two?" with a resounding "Yes!", or even a "No, but..." complication, rather than a stubborn "No, never!"

 

I always found the rule of two, of a clan of... two warriors, a bit silly.
Jedi also had the rule of a master an apprentice, but inside the order.
I want to believe, before this Sith rule, there was a period when there were a lot of Sith out there.

Maybe this "Hunger Games thing" is to establish the rule. Who wins, will be the apprentice of the new order to rule the galaxy. Still a bit silly, but here we are.
Maybe could work if Sith were killing each other for power and there was a time it was impossible to control all of them. And the master chef could say: "ok, let's finish this #@&*. Let's be 2 and control this mess".

 

As for the Hunger Games thing: Despite casting correlations, I haven't seen anything to indicate a HG style story here. What we HAVE got are indications that it might skirt the popular Stranger Things wave (kids maneuvering through an incomprehensible and very inconsiderate adult world) and Goonies-in-space (the actual pitch for Skeleton Crew).

 

Darth Bane was the founder of the current Sith Order and creator of the Rule of Two.

 

From listening to the audio book, of the first novel. I got the impression that the Rule of 2 was instituted because there were too many chefs and not enough cooks in the kitchen and Sith which lead to too much infighting and things not getting done. So there was one head boss and their lieutenant. Everyone else was a foot soldier.

 

The "rule of two" is just George's excuse for having to deal with writing for no more than two, in fact only ever one, bad guy with a sword in the story and on screen at any one time.

The rationale for it is weak too. It basically amounts to saying that Sith simply prefer there to be only two Sith Lord's trying to betray each other. Rather than lots of Sith and some or most of them trying to betray others. There's no logic that dictates that a large number of like minded but competing people is weaker than a small number of like minded people who are focused on trying to betray one another. It's just an arbitrary rule.

Unless you consider the Sith out of context. I.e. just assume that the hole galaxy is Sith. It would make sense, if they personally whish to remain in power, for a Sith ruler to eliminate any competition to themselves personally. And then forbid anyone to move into their place as potential competition. This is exactly what kings of old did. Once a monarch took control and wished to strengthen their claim, pretty much all the nobility that might contest them would be killed as well as their offspring. Leaving only the ruling monarch and their heir or heirs the only ones left with any legitimate claim. That was the idea. But even doing so was no guarantee of security.

And that was when claims to the throne were not secret. It didn't mean that all peoples subject to monarchial rule, whether they had a hand in that power or not, agreed and honoured a principle that the King must slaughter anyone that might possibly replace him. This was the politics of the time and a useful policy for anyone wanting to remain in rule. And doesn't resemble the master/apprentice dynamic of the Sith. Unless a Sith is ruler of the galaxy, the rule of two is virtually of no use in the acquisition of that power. Palpatine was the effective ruler already by the first episode of the saga. But the idea that the Sith "always" come in twos, in any context or circumstance, is really hard to swallow.

Much more credible, is the idea that the Jedi, or some of them, are full of it sometimes. And their wisdom falls well short. The Sith have been extinct since before Yoda as born. Yet he talks like a Gen Z adopting borrowed nostalgia for 80s/90s video games that they never played until about five years ago.

TLDR? Darth Bane just killed all his competition bar his favourite and then excused it by explaining that he was only following the "rules" that he just made up.

 

"The Sith are extinct! They have been for nearly a millenium" quote from TPM is one of those PT lines that should have thought more carefully before saying it. And with more reason if we know that Yoda has 800 years.
Sometimes you can play with characters (Inquisitors) but sometimes you have to manage how to understand the whole thing, like Plagueis era or now The Acolyte events. Let's see how the new show manages this.