Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Why? If the jedi are always getting betrayed why would he recreate it? Why not have a rule of 2 jedi, and only luke and leia are jedis, and they serve the new republic as generals that oversee military operations.

Because Jedi aren't supposed to serve the Republic, they are supposed to serve the will of the Force. While this most often coincide with the same thing, not always. The Rule of Two wasn't made because Sith always betray each other, it was made to create constantly stronger Sith, probably until the One Sith, and by this I mean Palpatine, could live on as an eternal Sith Emperor. Jedi were never trying to do this. Finally, why would the chance of betrayal stop Luke from remaking galactic peacekeepers. A group that require more than 2 people.

Also, Luke thinks that there should always be groups to keep the Force in check, now that the Children are gone. Something I agree with.

Originally posted by PTforthewin
Why? If the jedi are always getting betrayed why would he recreate it? Why not have a rule of 2 jedi, and only luke and leia are jedis, and they serve the new republic as generals that oversee military operations.

Having a rule of 2 Jedi doesn't completely prevent falling... and two really can't do all that much peacekeeping operation. They'd have very little effect on the Vong war for example.

Jedi need to exist in number because that's where they help. Even a minor Jedi can help diffuse a dozen minor conflicts.



Also, 'always getting betrayed' is a bit of an overstatement. Yoda was born after a century of peace and lived for 900 years, and the Jedi were dominant for 880 of it. Any betrayals during that period were small and easily dealt with

Before the New Sith Wars, there was a two-and-a-half thousand years of Jedi dominance with only one minor Sith conflict caused by a betrayal (Darth Desolous) that lasted a handful of years.

About 2,500 years between the Hundred Year Darkness and the next big schism...


The early post-Empire era had a high degree of dark side falls due to, basically, aftershocks of Palpatine's reign and all the dark siders around, but it's fairly atypical.

Originally posted by Q99
Having a rule of 2 Jedi doesn't completely prevent falling... and two really can't do all that much peacekeeping operation. They'd have very little effect on the Vong war for example.

Jedi need to exist in number because that's where they help. Even a minor Jedi can help diffuse a dozen minor conflicts.



Also, 'always getting betrayed' is a bit of an overstatement. Yoda was born after a century of peace and lived for 900 years, and the Jedi were dominant for 880 of it. Any betrayals during that period were small and easily dealt with

Before the New Sith Wars, there was a two-and-a-half thousand years of Jedi dominance with only one minor Sith conflict caused by a betrayal (Darth Desolous) that lasted a handful of years.

About 2,500 years between the Hundred Year Darkness and the next big schism...


The early post-Empire era had a high degree of dark side falls due to, basically, aftershocks of Palpatine's reign and all the dark siders around, but it's fairly atypical. I thought I was the only one who knew about darth desolous XD and yeah I see

Because having only 2 Jedi is idiotic in the grand scheme of things, especially when one of them wasn't even interested in being fully devoted.

Luke can't be everywhere at once.

The Rule of Two would definitely not work for the Jedi Order.

The Rule of Two is based on ambition, secrecy, lust for power, and betrayal. This definitely wouldn't work for a Jedi Order, particularly one devoted to keeping peace.

Also, the Ro2 is really just for setting up a long term plan. When the Sith had to *act*, they had to bring more people in anyway.

Originally posted by Q99
Also, the Ro2 is really just for setting up a long term plan. When the Sith had to *act*, they had to bring more people in anyway.
True but there were still only two true Sith.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
True but there were still only two true Sith.

Yea, but Jedi aren't going to go around and train people and say, "But you aren't a *true* Jedi, not unless you can take the place of one of us two."

The Jedi equivalents of Ventress and Opress would just be called Jedi.

Originally posted by Q99
Yea, but Jedi aren't going to go around and train people and say, "But you aren't a *true* Jedi, not unless you can take the place of one of us two."

The Jedi equivalents of Ventress and Opress would just be called Jedi.
I said it wouldn't work for the Jedi. It worked wonderfully for the Sith.

I don't feel too wonderfully, as by the time of the big plan being put into action, there were no less than 6 major dark siders of significant power involved (Sidious, Dooku, Maul, Ventress, Opress, Vader). More, if we go outside TV/movie canon (Sora Bulq).

Originally posted by Emperordmb
True but there were still only two true Sith.
I don't think that's necessarily true, with regards to Maul especially. I've always seen it as more of only two Sith can cooperate in anything, the master and the apprentice. Plagueis is the master, Sidious is the apprentice. Sidious is the master, Maul is the apprentice. But all three existed and all three are Sith at the same time. Really, it makes sense in a way, as the new master would most likely not waste time in trying to find the new apprentice when they should already have one on hand.

There should be a rule of 4, 2 jedi and 2 sith.

Originally posted by PTforthewin
There should be a rule of 4, 2 jedi and 2 sith. Awful.

Balance in the force my friend