Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
Both Plagueis and Sidious rejected Bane's Rule of Two.
Doesn’t matter though, this isn’t about the rule of two, secondly Sidious was molded by the principles of the rule of two, finding the best apprentice
Also Sidious did not fully reject the rule of two as maul was never a true apprentice. And plagues never took a second apprentice
Originally posted by NewGuy01
You're confused. Ajunta Pall was one of several dark Jedi that were exiled to Korriban at the end of the Hundred Year Darkness. Even if he were not there, the dark Jedi would have still discovered the Sith species, come to rule them as Lords, and died out due to infighting. Ajunta didn't contribute anything special to the process, he was just the strongest of them, and was thus deemed the leader for a time.I'd actually say his shadow hands Sorzus Syn and Karness Muur both had much more of a long-term impact than he did.
What?
Ajunta Pall killed their Sith King: Hakagram Graush. It's because of him that those people revered him as the Sith'ari and the other Dark Jedi as "mini-gods". You just said Ajunta was the strongest of the Jedi Exiles. Makes sense.
I don't know why is this so complicated. You don't want to give Ajunta Pall credit for what he did, didn't you?
DarthPlaguis12Doesn’t matter though, this isn’t about the rule of two, secondly Sidious was molded by the principles of the rule of two, finding the best apprentice
Also Sidious did not fully reject the rule of two as maul was never a true apprentice. And plagues never took a second apprentice
You are right. Maul, Vader, Dooku - were never his apprentices, merely puppets.
Although officially it resembled Darth Bane's Rule of Two in terms of apprentices and the punishment thereof regarding rule violation, the Rule of One was, in reality, completely different, as there was no chance of succession for his apprentices
Frankly can any of the villains in Star Wars be said to have had much of an impact? When the Jedi and Republic are in power they tend to rule for thousands of years- every time a Sith gets control of the galaxy his or her reign lasts for a couple decades max and then their Empire is overthrown.
In the grand scheme of things the only thing the Sith ever seem to consistently do is fail. It kind of makes one wonder what the allure of the religion even is.
Originally posted by ares834
Why would they have died without Ajunta?
Because Ajunta Pall was the strongest of them. He was the only one able to defeat Hakagram Graush. Remember that these Dark Jedi Exiles started to combine their DNA with theirs via Sith magic to grow stronger in the Dark Side of the Force. And even bred with Sith.
Originally posted by TzeentchTbh the Sith the rule of the Galaxy with Jedi for thousand of years, from 3681BBY to 1000BBY. And before that too, but they were kind of confined to a smaller region compared to the Republic. It’s just Palpatine’s and later Krayt’s empires that lasted mere decades
Frankly can any of the villains in Star Wars be said to have had much of an impact? When the Jedi and Republic are in power they tend to rule for thousands of years- every time a Sith gets control of the galaxy his or her reign lasts for a couple decades max and then their Empire is overthrown.In the grand scheme of things the only thing the Sith ever seem to consistently do is fail. It kind of makes one wonder what the allure of the religion even is.