Totenkindly
@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 52,150
- MBTI Type
- BELF
- Enneagram
- 594
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
I agree. It seems like another Lucas bit of craziness to me, like midicholorians. Like, the Rule of Two is interesting, but then it should also be officially baked in that no one follows it and is constantly training others... so it could be amusing for all the people vying for Slot #2 to be fighting for that opening. (This is actually what happens in SWTOR for the Sith Juggernaut class story, you're constantly competing against your classmates for awhile to become Baras' apprentice.) But that's no different than in a corporate setting where people are vying for that sweet VP spot on the board, right?I'll get around to watching episode 4 and 5 of the Acolyte soon, but I just wanted to express my opinion that I don't like the Rule of Two (the idea that there can only be two Sith as a time). I think it's limiting and not really relevant to how evil seems to operate. The idea is that Sith can barely work together because they'll always try to overthrow or dispose of the other one for more power, so the most we can have is 2 (even though everyone always has secret apprentices on the side, which makes the concept even dumber because nobody can stick to it).
It's basically an idea that doesn't really reflect how things work in reality, but Lucas and his sycophants liked to shoehorn it in.
If there is an attrition rate, it's mostly because Sith are notorious for wiping out their competition. And there's a sense of pride, I suppose, over even if you are to be killed by your apprentice, you were able to empower your underlying enough so that they could become a stronger sith than you. Proud Mama/Papa syndrome?
Think of totalitarian regimes, though. They never could have arisen without people working together. Perhaps there might be jockeying for power and fighting to sit at the Big Dog's table, but to some extent there is working together to achieve an individual goal. The individual desire for power can be tempered by a shared hate or fear. I think having that in these stories would be more interesting, intimidating, and realistic.
It's a problem with certain portrayals of evil, and it shows up in alignment-style RPGs too. Like, just because you are Evil doesn't mean you are stupid or DON'T have some admirable goals. My lich was pragmatic evil, she actually valued learning for its own sake, her cult centers were storehouses of information and intelligence was an important asset, and she could work with people who didn't share her values if it ultimately served her own interests and/or a COMMON interest (like a danger that affected everyone).
The Jedi have rigid philosophy as well, and in fact I have to laugh about this in regards to Episode 5 (big spoiler):
Yord obeys Sol in fleeing the combat to take Osha to safety, because he was TOLD to do so by his master. ("A padawan always obeys.") Osha though wears him down over time and convinces him to take her back to the battle to help Sol and Jacki... and this actually is a pretty reasonable and heroic choice to make, strategically he should have done it.... whereupon he promptly is killed, thus punished for his disobedience. LOL.