Mentions
How exactly are indirect and regular mentions of the Rule of Two being handled? Pre Viszla, in "Eminence," says, "I thought there could only be two Sith, a master and an apprentice." The Rule of Two is counted as a regular, direct mention for "Eminence." In The Phantom Menace, Yoda basically says the exact same thing, however it's counted as an indirect mention. Cevan (talk) 19:38, September 26, 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say it's only direct if it's identified by name. Imperators II(Talk) 19:41, September 26, 2015 (UTC)
Logical Consistency
This article doesn't seem to be logically consistant - how can Yoda mention the rule of two in The Phantom Menace, if the Jedi believe the Sith to be destroyed, and the rule of Two was created after the Jedi thought to have destroyed the Sith? How could he know about a rule created by someone he believes to not exist??? Demallien 07:57, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
- Uh, well that hasnt been explained yet... just because they havent explained it, does not mean it is the articles fault... But it is implied the Jedi knew that darth bane survived, and established the Rule of Two, and that after Bane established hte Rule of Two... was when the Jedi believed that the sith were destroyed. Obviously they did notbelieve the Sith were destroyed until after they learned the Rule of Two. ralok (talk) 09:10, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
Rise of Skywalker
The reveal from Rise of Skywalker that Sidious embodied all the Sith, and that by killing him, Rey would receive his -- and every other Sith Master's -- essence into herself, seems to suggest that the Rule of Two was more than previously stated. It seems to me that, in fact, ever since Darth Bane, it has been standard procedure for the Sith Master to patiently await the day that their apprentice will authentically defeat them, and then immediately transfer their own Essence, along with all their predecessors', into their apprentice, creating the new Sith Master, containing hundreds -- or, in Sidious' case, thousands -- of years of Sith wisdom, knowledge and skill. --Finnicks (talk) 20:23, December 20, 2019 (UTC)
Does the apprentice have to kill the master to become the new master, or does the master just need to die?
The article states that the apprentice must kill the master, but Vectivus died of natural causes, which conflicts with the Wookieepedia article. What does the rule actually require? DarthJarJar27 (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- The Rule of Two can't stop people from dying of external causes; it says the apprentice must kill the master to take their place, but of course an apprentice would take the place of the master if the master dies prematurely. Also, Vectivus is a character who only exists in Legends, and this is the Canon article. OOM 224 (he/him) 19:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Jedi knowledge of the Rule of Two in 32 BBY
According to the article, Yoda and Windu are talking about the Rule of Two at the end of Episode I. However, this couldn't be the case if, according to Ki-Adi-Mundi, the Sith have been extinct for a millennium. How could the Jedi Council know about the Rule of Two, created by Darth Bane specifically for the Sith to survive in secret? I feel that what Yoda and Windu say can be interpreted as their general understanding of the Sith, not an explicit reference to the Rule of Two. What do you think? ZethGonk (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- According to the old Encyclopedia on StarWars.com (and several other canon reference books IIRC), the Jedi did know about Bane's Rule of Two but they falsely believed he was defeated before he could carry out his plan.
AnilSerifoglu (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Sidious and Maul Clarification
"While training under Plagueis, Sidious acquired a Dathomirian Zabrak named Maul as his pupil. He had initially considered Mother Talzin, Maul's mother, to be his Sith apprentice, but took Maul upon realizing his potential. Seeing no further use for his master, Sidious betrayed Plagueis by killing him in his sleep. However, Sidious always saw him as not quite good enough, which he saw as the essential quality that defined Maul's life."
In the bolded section, who is 'him'? It seems as though the sentence prior regarding Sidious betraying Plagueis was thrown in, but the following sentence was not updated with proper grammatical context.
Sidious saw WHOM as not quite good enough? Plagueis? Maul? I realize Maul is brought up as the subject at the end of the last sentence, but it reads messy to me and others might find it confusing as well. —Unsigned comment by 107.133.105.38 (talk • contribs)