If it gives her a chance to become the Dark Lord, why wouldn’t Zannah enlist Set’s help? Power as the Sith see it isn’t just about physical strength or fighting skills, it’s also about cunning (case in point: Darth Sidious, who proves to be the most successful Sith). This makes a certain amount of philosophical, big-picture sense, but it makes no logical sense from the point of view of individual characters. If I am unworthy, then I will fall … but the Order will remain strong under his leadership.” If I am to become the Dark Lord of the Sith, I must prove myself by facing my Master alone. This goes against everything the Rule of Two stands for. Lesser followers would unite their inferior skills to bring down a strong leader, weakening the Order. You think it’s time to challenge your Master. Consider this exchange between Set, a Dark Sider whom Zannah (Bane’s apprentice) is recruiting as a possible apprentice of her own. When characters discuss the seemingly illogical Rule of Two, I can sense the author trying to work things out for himself. However, this is case where George Lucas wrote one aspect of his mythology into a corner, and Karpyshyn can’t quite write his way out of it. The Rule of Two didn’t make much logical sense to me when I first heard about it, and that’s why the exploration of its origins should be fascinating. The legacy of the Rule of Two - as outlined by Yoda’s statement - is explored in “Star Wars: Darth Bane: Dynasty of Evil” (2009), the third book in a Bane trilogy by Drew Karpyshyn that takes place 1,000 years before the prequels.

Yoda (later in the same movie): “Two there are always, a master and an apprentice.” Ki Adi-Mundi (in “The Phantom Menace”): “The Sith have been extinct for a millennium.”

Bane the rule of two