Why do Sith Lords encourage apprentices to kill them?

[Supreme Evil]

Seriously, why do the Sith Masters encourage their students to try and kill them if they become weak? I never got this. If you're really evil, the first thing you do is change the damn rules so that the apprentice doesn't kill off the master. I mean, they'll probably turn on you eventually, but do you really want to encourage that sort of behavior? "Go ahead. Kill me. I want you to try!" If you're amoral, you shouldn't really have any problems changing the system so it benefits you and screws your underlings.

[snoopy13a]

And the Sith Apprentice would obey this rule?

The Sith Master is just acknowledging what the Apprentice would try to do anyway.

[Logic]

Seriously, why do the Sith Masters encourage their students to try and kill them if they become weak? I never got this. If you're really evil, the first thing you do is change the damn rules so that the apprentice doesn't kill off the master. I mean, they'll probably turn on you eventually, but do you really want to encourage that sort of behavior? "Go ahead. Kill me. I want you to try!" If you're amoral, you shouldn't really have any problems changing the system so it benefits you and screws your underlings.

Long story short: According to one interpretation in the Expanded Universe, The Dark Side of the Force is basically just insanity.

[Supreme Evil]

And the Sith Apprentice would obey this rule?

The Sith Master is just acknowledging what the Apprentice would try to do anyway.

If they're indoctrinated from birth into it? Why not? Indoctrination works wonders in the real world. Add a bit of highly invasive and illegal brain surgery and you're golden.

[Tragic_Comedian]

It completes their journey to the Dark Side.

[Maquise]

The point is to ensure that the only way the apprentice can become the master is to become more powerful than the master, thus ensuring that the Sith are always getting stronger.

[Trazoi]

I've only seen the movies and played some of the games, but my taking of it was that Sith believe in Rule By The Strongest. Keeping a powerful apprentice in check proves that the Sith Master is the strongest and only makes them stronger. Intentionally changing this would be a sign of weakness. (Although Sith Masters still tend to hobble their apprentices which is also a sign of weakness so frankly the "Sith are plain nuts" theory holds better).

[Supreme Evil]

The point is to ensure that the only way the apprentice can become the master is to become more powerful than the master, thus ensuring that the Sith are always getting stronger.

"Who the hell cares about other people? The Dark Side is about three people: me, myself, and I."

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I believe that the Rule of Two was instituted as a logical corollary to the fact that the Dark Side is self-destructive, with any group of Sith bound to eventually start infighting and possibly kill off the entire branch of them.

The immediate corollary is that there can only be one Sith Master; with no other Masters to challenge their dominance, the sole Sith Lord can maintain the Dark Side with strength. Of course, that Sith Lord needs someone to pass their mantle onto, thus the apprentice.

And then survival of the fittest. It's not a bad idea for the Sith, actually. If it continues on, they keep the Sith line strong and unified.

[Mikeavelli]

"Who the hell cares about other people? The Dark Side is about three people: me, myself, and I."

Yes, and you are constantly becoming stronger thanks to the push that comes from having a murderous apprentice.

Also, while force users are long-lived, they grow old and die eventually. You know you're going to die eventually, and it's an egotistical thing wanting to leave behind the greatest legacy you can.

This is also the reason why they stopped taking on multiple apprentices. It was not only possible, but probable, for the Apprentices to team up on their master and kill him, even though they were all individually weaker than he was. This actually resulted in a gradual weakening of the Sith.

[Supreme Evil]

Yes, and you are constantly becoming stronger thanks to the push that comes from having a murderous apprentice.

Also, while force users are long-lived, they grow old and die eventually. You know you're going to die eventually, and it's an egotistical thing wanting to leave behind the greatest legacy you can.

This is also the reason why they stopped taking on multiple apprentices. It was not only possible, but probable, for the Apprentices to team up on their master and kill him, even though they were all individually weaker than he was. This actually resulted in a gradual weakening of the Sith.

The whole point of the Dark Side is "do whatever you want, and screw everybody else". Why should a master want a lunatic trying to murder them to seize power, as opposed to a brainwashed minion? Legacies only matter to other people, and besides, you're going to live forever.

[NerdyKris]

The whole point of the Dark Side is "do whatever you want, and screw everybody else". Why should a master want a lunatic trying to murder them to seize power, as opposed to a brainwashed minion? Legacies only matter to other people, and besides, you're going to live forever.

No, it isn't. The point of the Dark Side is for the Dark Side to become stronger. One doesn't become a Sith to be the strongest. One becomes a Sith lord to ensure that the Sith regime prevails. If you just want to be powerful and live forever, you'd just be a regular old evil force user. If you're a Sith, your primary goal is to destroy the Jedi and ensure the dominance of the Sith, regardless of your own personal benefit.

The Sith aren't cardboard cutout bad guys for the sake of bad guys. The rule of two was instituted for a reason, and the Sith ideology isn't simply "Get power, kill Jedi".

[MLai]

Yes, I was gonna add that when I was young, I skimmed thru a SW comic book where some evil woman was asking a Sith Lord to take her as his apprentice. My memory is hazy but I think when he asked her why she wants to be Sith, she said something like for power, for herself.

He then killed her while lecturing to her about how a Sith's true purpose is not for self-aggrandizement, but to serve the Dark Side. That was a mind-blower to me at the time, how a complete villain can also strive for something greater than himself.

[Zevox]

The whole point of the Dark Side is "do whatever you want, and screw everybody else".

For some it is. Not for the Sith who follow the Rule of Two, which is the branch you reference with regards to the tradition of the Apprentice being expected to kill the Master.

The Rule of Two branch of the Sith was founded by Darth Bane, who had seen from the Sith branch that taught him how self-destructive groups of Sith engaged in constant, selfish infighting are. He destroyed them and decided to rectify that by creating the rule that there should only ever be two Sith: the Master and the Apprentice, one to embody the power of the Dark Side and the other to crave it. The Apprentice would become the Master by one day killing him, and would then take up their own Apprentice, and so it would continue, with the Sith constantly becoming stronger through this process. The end goal was to destroy the Jedi and conquer the galaxy, which would be achieved through subterfuge and secrecy. Darth Sidious/Emperor Palpatine saw this goal to fruition, and he and Vader were the last of this line of Sith.

In most other branches of the Sith throughout history, things work more as you described. Apprentices are not encouraged to kill their teachers, but it is common for infighting of that sort to take place anyway. Bane's Rule of Two was crafted to take this reality of the Sith and turn it from a weakness into a strength.

Zevox

[Jayngfet]

I believe that the Rule of Two was instituted as a logical corollary to the fact that the Dark Side is self-destructive, with any group of Sith bound to eventually start infighting and possibly kill off the entire branch of them.

The immediate corollary is that there can only be one Sith Master; with no other Masters to challenge their dominance, the sole Sith Lord can maintain the Dark Side with strength. Of course, that Sith Lord needs someone to pass their mantle onto, thus the apprentice.

And then survival of the fittest. It's not a bad idea for the Sith, actually. If it continues on, they keep the Sith line strong and unified.

This. If you read the stuff set right before the rule of two it's clear the sith are a mess. Even with things like Family ties binding a good deal of them they're a complete mess who can't get anything done. Even with a dozen sith lords running around unless there's one all controlling warlike figure they can't even conquer a few star systems between all of them.

During the novel Knight Errant it's made painfully clear that their evil isn't even efficient, it's a kind of egotistical contest with everyone sniping at each other and burning limited resources for constant tributes to how great they are and arguing over who's way is the best. All their militaries are falling apart from a lack of infrastructure getting them new machines or even kinda decent parts to fix what they have, and the haphazard lolevil way they do things means even things that sound like they'd kinda work out in theory usually just results in their hypothetical super-weapon just being a bunch of starving engineers who can barely function pumping out ridiculous stuff that only works in very specific contexts.

Say what you like about it, but at least the rule of two meant that, for the first time in centuries, the sith got things done. Even when they didn't lead armies across the galaxies they experimented and learned and occasionally tried the shocking idea of not being total jerks(which tended to fail, but it's the thought that counts). It was the only time the sith ever really managed to full on conquer the entire known galaxy without huge amounts of dispute beyond rebellion(Which means admitting they'd lost to begin with), and the only time the sith had managed to hold onto any chunk of land while keeping it stable.

Life under Palpatine may have been kinda crap, but you didn't have children working 20 hours a day or raw recruits being forced to stand in the desert without moving for a straight week or any of the straight up senseless, or armies on the same side trying to kill each other because two sith lords had a personal dispute. I mean yeah, you had like, Vader going around choking anyone who failed him but that's like, one guy compared to about five dozen guys all choking all your generals and footsoldiers and stopping your entire war machine because some poor bastard spills his drink on the dark lords boots and it escalates into a bloodbath.

[MLai]

You mean Cobra Commander/ Skeletor type evil doesn't work in SW universe? LOLshock!

[Traab]

I believe that the Rule of Two was instituted as a logical corollary to the fact that the Dark Side is self-destructive, with any group of Sith bound to eventually start infighting and possibly kill off the entire branch of them.

The immediate corollary is that there can only be one Sith Master; with no other Masters to challenge their dominance, the sole Sith Lord can maintain the Dark Side with strength. Of course, that Sith Lord needs someone to pass their mantle onto, thus the apprentice.

And then survival of the fittest. It's not a bad idea for the Sith, actually. If it continues on, they keep the Sith line strong and unified.

How is it unified? There are only two sith according to those rules, and one is going to try and kill the other, while the other will kill the first if he tries and fails! What the hell kind of unity is that? To be a Sith Lord is to commit slow suicide. You intentionally pick an apprentice that is strong, and teach him everything you know. The entire time, you KNOW he is going to eventually try to kill you. When he does try he will either kill you, or fail and you kill him, making you start the whole thing over again, until you find an apprentice patient enough to wait till he has learned everything, and strong enough to beat you with it. The Dark Side of the Force should be renamed to The Stupid Side of the Force.

A Sith Lord is a gorram LEMMING, constantly searching for a cliff face to jump off of. At first I tried to compare it to Elans dad and his stance of, "Better to live great for 20 years and die a legend" but even though he knows that eventually a group of heroes will kill him, he isnt actively searching them out and daring them to do so. (Not counting elans revenge setup) Sith Lords are intentionally creating their own death.

[Fragenstein]

Inspector Clouseau approved...

Spoiler

Show

Not now Kato! You fool!

[Supreme Evil]

This. If you read the stuff set right before the rule of two it's clear the sith are a mess. Even with things like Family ties binding a good deal of them they're a complete mess who can't get anything done. Even with a dozen sith lords running around unless there's one all controlling warlike figure they can't even conquer a few star systems between all of them.

During the novel Knight Errant it's made painfully clear that their evil isn't even efficient, it's a kind of egotistical contest with everyone sniping at each other and burning limited resources for constant tributes to how great they are and arguing over who's way is the best. All their militaries are falling apart from a lack of infrastructure getting them new machines or even kinda decent parts to fix what they have, and the haphazard lolevil way they do things means even things that sound like they'd kinda work out in theory usually just results in their hypothetical super-weapon just being a bunch of starving engineers who can barely function pumping out ridiculous stuff that only works in very specific contexts.

Say what you like about it, but at least the rule of two meant that, for the first time in centuries, the sith got things done. Even when they didn't lead armies across the galaxies they experimented and learned and occasionally tried the shocking idea of not being total jerks(which tended to fail, but it's the thought that counts). It was the only time the sith ever really managed to full on conquer the entire known galaxy without huge amounts of dispute beyond rebellion(Which means admitting they'd lost to begin with), and the only time the sith had managed to hold onto any chunk of land while keeping it stable.

Life under Palpatine may have been kinda crap, but you didn't have children working 20 hours a day or raw recruits being forced to stand in the desert without moving for a straight week or any of the straight up senseless, or armies on the same side trying to kill each other because two sith lords had a personal dispute. I mean yeah, you had like, Vader going around choking anyone who failed him but that's like, one guy compared to about five dozen guys all choking all your generals and footsoldiers and stopping your entire war machine because some poor bastard spills his drink on the dark lords boots and it escalates into a bloodbath.

Again, this is only the case if you're unwilling to use heavy indoctrination from birth, which has made people ardently believe much more ridiculous things than "I must obey my master", and highly invasive brain surgery. No need to be ethical about it - just lobotomize what you can't brainwash.

[pendell]

I recently read the Darth Bane trilogy. Darth Bane explains it as a sort of evolution in action -- He is the Sith'ari, the ultimate Sith. He wants to raise up an apprentice who is even more powerful and more of a Sith than he is.

So his apprentice must grow in strength and ultimately challenge Darth Bane when they are both at the height of their powers and prevail. Then Darth Zinnah will choose her own apprentice who will in turn become stronger than she. Ultimately the Sith will be produced that is a godlike being in human form, overwhelmingly powerful in the force, who will subvert and corrupt the galaxy, then use it to exterminate the Jedi, as ultimately happened.

Darth Bane, in the story becomes concerned that Zinnah won't do this ... that she'll either wait for age to do her work for her, or wait to challenge him until he is old and feeble, unable to defend himself appropriately. And so Darth Bane goes in search of a new apprentice. It isn't enough that his apprentice kill him -- his apprentice must do it when they are both at the height of their powers. The apprentice must surpass the Master, not merely supplant him.

You'll have to read the book to find out how it all works out. :)

At any rate, Darth Bane made two fundamental changes to the Sith Order as traced in the books -- the first is to institute the Rule of Two. The second is to renounce military conquest of the galaxy in favor of its subversion. Sith ultimately cannot form a military power because that requires banding together, and Sith don't band together any more than cats do. The attempt to do so resulted, in Bane's time, in the Sith becoming an imitation of the Jedi Order in darker clothing. They could no longer access the limitless potential of the Dark Side but could only play in the shallows, like children in a pool. So Bane did away with the ethos of cooperation and subordination in favor of pure self-exaltation. Thus, there would be only two Sith -- one to embody ultimate power, the other to crave it. To gain the galaxy by subverting it and ruling as a power behind the throne, rather than openly as a military dictator.

It is my belief that Palpatine fell away from this vision through his own megalomania. Had he continued to rule the Republic from behind the throne, not even taking the position of chancellor but simply serving as an advisor, he and his apprentice could have been a blight on the galaxy for generations. As it was, Sith rule, which took a thousand years to achieve, was wiped out after less than a generation.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Supreme Evil]

I recently read the Darth Bane trilogy. Darth Bane explains it as a sort of evolution in action -- He is the Sith'ari, the ultimate Sith. He wants to raise up an apprentice who is even more powerful and more of a Sith than he is.

So his apprentice must grow in strength and ultimately challenge Darth Bane when they are both at the height of their powers and prevail. Then Darth Zinnah will choose her own apprentice who will in turn become stronger than she. Ultimately the Sith will be produced that is a godlike being in human form, overwhelmingly powerful in the force, who will subvert and corrupt the galaxy, then use it to exterminate the Jedi, as ultimately happened.

Darth Bane, in the story becomes concerned that Zinnah won't do this ... that she'll either wait for age to do her work for her, or wait to challenge him until he is old and feeble, unable to defend himself appropriately. And so Darth Bane goes in search of a new apprentice. It isn't enough that his apprentice kill him -- his apprentice must do it when they are both at the height of their powers. The apprentice must surpass the Master, not merely supplant him.

You'll have to read the book to find out how it all works out. :)

At any rate, Darth Bane made two fundamental changes to the Sith Order as traced in the books -- the first is to institute the Rule of Two. The second is to renounce military conquest of the galaxy in favor of its subversion. Sith ultimately cannot form a military power because that requires banding together, and Sith don't band together any more than cats do. The attempt to do so resulted, in Bane's time, in the Sith becoming an imitation of the Jedi Order in darker clothing. They could no longer access the limitless potential of the Dark Side but could only play in the shallows, like children in a pool. So Bane did away with the ethos of cooperation and subordination in favor of pure self-exaltation. Thus, there would be only two Sith -- one to embody ultimate power, the other to crave it. To gain the galaxy by subverting it and ruling as a power behind the throne, rather than openly as a military dictator.

It is my belief that Palpatine fell away from this vision through his own megalomania. Had he continued to rule the Republic from behind the throne, not even taking the position of chancellor but simply serving as an advisor, he and his apprentice could have been a blight on the galaxy for generations. As it was, Sith rule, which took a thousand years to achieve, was wiped out after less than a generation.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

That (what I bolded) is exactly the point I've been trying to make. The Dark Side isn't about some sissy ideals or some such. It's about letting loose, ignoring all restraints put on you by the feeble-minded Jedi, and doing whatever you want to do. Why on earth should you then want an apprentice trying to kill ou as opposed to a thoroughly brainwashed minion who worships the ground you walk on?

[Philistine]

Dude. Look. You clearly have some very strong preconceived ideas about what the Dark Side of the Force is and isn't - not to mention notions of where Sith apprentices come from - that don't appear, AFAIK, in any source at any level of canon. In universe, though, it. Does. Not. Work. That. Way. So maybe the thing to do is recite the MST3K mantra to yourself and not worry about it?

[Tiki Snakes]

The answer is simple really.
Because the only thing dumber than a Sith is an EU Sith.

[pendell]

Why on earth should you then want an apprentice trying to kill ou as opposed to a thoroughly brainwashed minion who worships the ground you walk on?

Because unless you discover the secret of immortality, you're going to die. And what , then? Do the Sith die with you?

If not, to whom will you entrust this priceless legacy? If you're Darth Bane, the answer can only be: To the One person in the galaxy worthy to inherit the mantle.

Of course, Darth Bane sets this up before he learns that Sith immortality IS technically possible ... but again, how that works and what he does about it, would be spoiler material.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Yora]

That (what I bolded) is exactly the point I've been trying to make. The Dark Side isn't about some sissy ideals or some such. It's about letting loose, ignoring all restraints put on you by the feeble-minded Jedi, and doing whatever you want to do. Why on earth should you then want an apprentice trying to kill ou as opposed to a thoroughly brainwashed minion who worships the ground you walk on?

Because a brainwashed minionlacks a spine and is not worth much.
And how can think of yourself as a great master when you don't dare having an apprentice that will try to kill you.

The point is not, that a sith master is supposed to arrange his own death. Rather the opposite. He is supposed to survive the attack as the victor. Having to start all over again with a new apprentice is a lot of work, but the idea is that it is worth it for a sith master to always be allert and on the guard. Not about a threat that might exist, but one that he knows exist and which he doesn't want to simply "nuke it from orbit".
And of course, the apprentice needs to show that he is planning something, or the master does not have any benefit from having an apprentice as at.
It's like training with sharp weapons and life ammo. Some things you only can really learn when there is real danger and it's not just a simulation.

[Parra]

One thing I always thought was a flaw with the Rule of Two was what happens if both die?
Say they are meeting together on a ship and it gets blown up some how.
Or the apprentice tries to kill the master, fails, but mortaly wounds the master before dying himself.
Or if the Master kills his apprentice (for whatever reason) and dies before finding a replacement.
Or dozens of other potenial hazards that breaks the flow

I find it odd that in a galaxy of trillions (quadrillions?) that there are only 2 Sith, it just seems like a fairly frail and flawed system to me

[Gamer Girl]

Seriously, why do the Sith Masters encourage their students to try and kill them if they become weak? I never got this. If you're really evil, the first thing you do is change the damn rules so that the apprentice doesn't kill off the master. I mean, they'll probably turn on you eventually, but do you really want to encourage that sort of behavior? "Go ahead. Kill me. I want you to try!" If you're amoral, you shouldn't really have any problems changing the system so it benefits you and screws your underlings.

I think this is a great idea myself.

Say I'm an Evil Powerful Sith Lady. Well, I want to stay just as I am. And the best way to do that is to stay on my toes. I should spend a chunk of everyday watching out for foes and my student. The day I take off and relax in a pool some where is the day I deserve to die.

And encouraging behavior is sneaky. Then the student knows that you know they are coming. That alone might even scare them into doing nothing. After all Darth Vader stayed a pawn of the Emperor for decades and did nothing, just as Darth Tryanius did before him

[snoopy13a]

One thing I always thought was a flaw with the Rule of Two was what happens if both die?
Say they are meeting together on a ship and it gets blown up some how.
Or the apprentice tries to kill the master, fails, but mortaly wounds the master before dying himself.
Or if the Master kills his apprentice (for whatever reason) and dies before finding a replacement.
Or dozens of other potenial hazards that breaks the flow

I find it odd that in a galaxy of trillions (quadrillions?) that there are only 2 Sith, it just seems like a fairly frail and flawed system to me

Some jedi would turn to the dark side sooner or later and recreate the order.

[SmartAlec]

Darth Bane was possibly the first Darth to believe so deeply that the way of the Sith was right that he was prepared to sacrifice his life to ensure that one day, a Sith somewhere in the future would become strong enough to prove it.

The Sith were a cult, with all the religion and belief and not-necessarily-logical thinking that implies. The Rule-of-Two Sith were 'puritan' fanatics, beyond 'regular' Sith. Why do you want to train an apprentice that one day will kill you? Well, perhaps you don't. But if you were brought up in the tradition of the Rule of Two, then you do it because you believe.

[Bulldog Psion]

I like the "Sith are the fanatic element of the Dark Jedi" slant myself. There have be a lot of force-users who aren't part of either order. Some lean a bit light, some lean a bit dark, some are just neutral.

Heck, Count Dooku is proof that there are force users outside the Jedi and Sith even without looking at the Expanded Universe. The Jedi knew he was a former Jedi, IIRC, yet they let him alone until they had proof he'd gone to the Dark Side.

(That's why I always thought that Anakin's best move would have been to take Padme and head off into the galaxy as an independent force user, saying something along the lines of "I'm not going to be your Chosen One, it's a lousy job, and I don't want anything to do with your factions. If I sense any of you approaching me with hostile intent, I won't hesitate to kill you, but I'm not interested in interfering, either. You leave me alone, I leave you alone." But that's another discussion.)

So, the Sith are the few from the independent ones who make the Dark Side a cult. I don't want to bring up anything real world, but we have ample evidence that a certain segment of humanity is willing to die for their beliefs.

And honestly, aren't the Sith a bit more interesting as complex, conflicted humans trying to stay alive yet also training up someone they know will kill them because they believe in that, rather than just "bwahaha, bow useless minions" villains with lobotomized mooks?