Jump to content

Romance Allowed for the jedi classes?


RevanKnight

Recommended Posts

"Jedi are not forbidden to love, the Jedi should love, they should love everyone, including their enemies. The Jedi should love the Sith." -George Lucas, RotS DVD commentary.

 

Love has been shown, time and again, to be the single greatest weapon in the Jedi arsenal in the war against the dark.

 

I think this argument is suffering from a cultural bias. If I'm understanding you correctly (and I apologize I'm not), then you (alongside many others) are interpreting this using the western definition of love, i.e. romantic love. I don't think this definition fits.

 

Eastern cultures, by comparison, tend to have many different words for many different kinds of love. There is romantic love, true, but there is also universal love -- a love for everything that lives simply because it lives. This love is calm, abiding, and most importantly (for the Jedi) without attachment.

 

Given his phrasing stated "love everyone, including their enemies," and given the Jedi Order grew largely from eastern monasticism, I'd guess Lucas' words align much closer to this interpretation. Which would preclude this quote from supporting the idea that romance shouldn't give DS points.

Edited by Ryion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think this argument is suffering from a cultural bias. If I'm understanding you correctly (and I apologize I'm not), then you (alongside many others) are interpreting this using the western definition of love, i.e. romantic love. I don't think this definition fits.

 

Eastern cultures, by comparison, tend to have many different words for many different kinds of love. There is romantic love, true, but there is also universal love -- a love for everything that lives simply because it lives. This love is calm, abiding, and most importantly (for the Jedi) without attachment.

 

Given his phrasing stated "love everyone, including their enemies," and given the Jedi Order grew largely from eastern monasticism, I'd guess Lucas' words align much closer to this interpretation. Which would preclude this quote from supporting the idea that romance shouldn't give DS points.

 

The love mentioned is all-inclusive. The problem with the concept of "loving without attatchment," is that in Star Wars, it doesn't quite match up to a proper real world definition of the word. What the Jedi really mean is "obsessive behavior," or overriding attatchment. While romance is indeed secondary in this case, one cannot make a romance truly work without this kind of "true love," that Lucas and Stover are talking about, at least not in Star Wars. What people are hoping for, is a relationship that demonstrates this, and it would only be fitting with precidents that have already been set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The love mentioned is all-inclusive. The problem with the concept of "loving without attatchment," is that in Star Wars, it doesn't quite match up to a proper real world definition of the word. What the Jedi really mean is "obsessive behavior," or overriding attatchment. While romance is indeed secondary in this case, one cannot make a romance truly work without this kind of "true love," that Lucas and Stover are talking about, at least not in Star Wars. What people are hoping for, is a relationship that demonstrates this, and it would only be fitting with precidents that have already been set.

 

Very very good point. And that all encompassing love is theorized (mostly by greek philosophy) to be an over-arching love. In other words, selfless love or its flip opposite of selfish love are umbrellas under which all other forms of love can fall. (IE Romantic Love, Familial Love, and Ludicrous [or hilarious/comic] love).

 

The forms of love associated with the universal love thing the guy was talking about derive mostly from the Greeks and their two forms of love Agapao and Manos (I think that's the form's name....I do know it is called Manic love). Agapic love is discussed as being a salfless mindset that influences emotion though it in and of itself is not an emotion perse but a frame of mind. Manic love is the complete reverse.

 

The Greeks and their philosophy are the bridge between Eastern and Western cultures, and their culture took elements from both and mixed them together historically.

 

So the point that romance should not be exclusively darksided for the Jedi is valid from both a Western and an Eastern viewpoint.

 

IMO give us both options/paths to pursuing romance as both Nadia and Kira are strongly light-sided companions (Kira really did not like my killing people in the game and I usually lost like 34 affection points each time I did that.)

 

So, give me both options. That's my thoughts on the matter for whatever they are worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously not many people read the SW books. I'm a huge SW nerd. It wasn't until Luke Skywalker took over as grand master that he revised the Jedi ways concerning relationships.

 

He in fact married Mara Jade, who was a former assassin for Palpatine.

 

So basicly in the timeline love is still forbidden by the Jedi. Hence why it gives dark side points.

 

 

And much like the later posters are saying, ther ARE diffrent kinds of love. Platonic is what most of you are confusing for a relationship.

 

Being married WAS forbidden by the Jedi code.

Edited by Bravemonster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine it would be harder for a Jedi to love without being corrupted by the passion that it usually brings. You'd have to be able to love without allowing yourself to be jealous, or too protective. It's probably suggested that you not love, just so you can avoid such difficulties.

 

Being a Jedi in love would be something really complicated. I doubt most people would be able to do it without dabbling in the dark a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a thought. I've heard people arguing that the Jedi are supposed to be compassionate toward everyone including their enemies, however passion is frowned upon. Seems right? Actually it is a self contradictory statement here's why.

 

Etymological definition of the word Passion:

 

passion Look up passion at Dictionary.com

late 12c., "sufferings of Christ on the Cross," from O.Fr. passion, from L.L. passionem (nom. passio) "suffering, enduring," from stem of L. pati "to suffer, endure," from PIE base *pei- "to hurt" (cf. Skt. pijati "reviles, scorns," Gk. pema "suffering, misery, woe," O.E. feond "enemy, devil," Goth. faian "to blame"). Sense extended to sufferings of martyrs, and suffering generally, by early 13c.; meaning "strong emotion, desire" is attested from late 14c., from L.L. use of passio to render Gk. pathos. Replaced O.E. þolung (used in glosses to render L. passio), lit. "suffering," from þolian (v.) "to endure." Sense of "sexual love" first attested 1580s; that of "strong liking, enthusiasm, predilection" is from 1630s. The passion-flower so called from 1630s.

 

The name passionflower -- flos passionis -- arose from the supposed resemblance of the corona to the crown of thorns, and of the other parts of the flower to the nails, or wounds, while the five sepals and five petals were taken to symbolize the ten apostles -- Peter ... and Judas ... being left out of the reckoning. ["Encyclopedia Brittanica," 1885]

 

So far simple enough. Here's the Etymological definition of "compassion":

 

compassion Look up compassion at Dictionary.com

mid-14c., from O.Fr. compassion "sympathy, pity" (12c.), from L.L. compassionem (nom. compassio) "sympathy," noun of state from pp. stem of compati "to feel pity," from com- "together" (see com-) + pati "to suffer" (see passion). Latin compassio is an ecclesiastical loan-translation of Gk. sympatheia (see sympathy). An O.E. loan-translation of compassion was efenðrowung.

 

The upshot of this is, that compassion simply defined means "with passion" or "suffering together with"

 

IE you cannot be compassionate without being passionate. Compassion is another type of passion which involves emotion.

 

In other words, if someone is angry because they were hurt or wronged, and you feel compassionate toward that person. you will feel angry that the person was wronged and/or hurt. If they are happy, you are happy that they are happy. If they are sad, they you feel sorrow for their sadness.

 

The Jedi Code as was mentioned previously was re-written. the Original first line was EMOTION yet peace. In other words while you feel emotion on the behalf of another, that emotion does not supersede reason but is regulated by reason.

 

Such feeling can lead to romantic feelings between two parties, and indeed in order for a marriage or relationship to succeed, both people involved must have compassion toward one another.

 

The problem with Anakin is that he was only consumed with his feelings, and quite frankly didn't give a damn about whether or not he hurt Padme. He was all about what Padme did for him, and not what he could do for Padme, or how he could help her. This is evidenced by the fact that he thought (for lack of a better term) that she was cheating on him with Obi-Wan despite there being no proof of such an attachment. So, he killed her.

 

Yeah, you get my point.

 

So, for those who say that "passion is bad but compassion is good for a Jedi." remember this. You cannot have compassion without passion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a Jedi in love would be something really complicated. I doubt most people would be able to do it without dabbling in the dark a little.

 

Indeed. Unconditional love is loving someone or something, not for what they can give you, but merely because you wish them to be happy. One must desire this happiness even when the object of your love does things counter to your interests -- saying something hurtful, leaving you for another relationship, dying... It's a very rare thing. It's a very hard thing. But it's this deep and abiding love of all living things that give the Jedi their purpose.

 

Its "near enemy" is attachment. This attachment is what leads people to say "my relationship," "my wife," "my home," "my food." Those are all natural responses, but they indicate an attachment to something outside the Force. And if the Force requires you to give those up to make someone else happy? To be "loving?" How many who have developed such an attachment could readily obey? I guess a precious few.

 

Here's an amusing example:

In the South of India, people used to catch monkeys in a very special way. Actually, they let monkeys catch themselves. They would cut a small hole in a coconut, just large enough for a monkey to put its hand in. Next, you fix the coconut to a tree, and fill it with a sweet. The monkey smells the sweet, squeezes its hand into the coconut, grabs the sweet and ... finds that the fist does not fit through the hole. Now the last thing the monkey will think of is to let go of the sweet, so it holds itself prisoner. Nothing could be easier for a human being to come and catch it.

 

The Jedi must let go of their sweets so that they can be free from this coconut of a world and wander the beautiful beaches of the Force.

Edited by Ryion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Jedi must let go of their sweets so that they can be free from this coconut of a world and wander the beautiful beaches of the Force.

 

See, it's reasons like this why I think it would be fun and challenging to roleplay a Jedi. Not a half-assed Jedi that has boyfriends and girlfriends and bends the rules, but an actual Jedi who follows the code because they understand why that code exists.

Edited by DuchessOfDork
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, it's reasons like this why I think it would be fun and challenging to roleplay a Jedi. Not a half-assed Jedi that has boyfriends and girlfriends and bends the rules, but an actual Jedi who follows the code because they understand why that code exists.

 

I see, so what you're saying is that you're a better Jedi than those that have romances, because you don't "bend the rules." And following a code of rules determines whether or not you are a "good" person.

 

That's pride, and pride leads to the darkside...... You're more sith than the ones who have romances or "bend the rules" (man imposed rules I might add, not Force determined guidelines).

 

 

Lol. Sad, really quite sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was recently discussing this with my boyfriend actually while waiting for EGA. All I can remember on the topic in current Star Wars lore is the discussion in Star Wars episode 2 where anakin is falling in love with padme and explains (something along the lines of) how jedi are trained to be compassionate and how that in essence means they are encouraged to love. I however think that compassion is completely different from love and couldn't quite wrap my head around the idea of a jedi being allowed to be in love at all. I do believe that they understand the need for procreation in order for the galaxy to continue the circle of life, but it doesn't seem like they would condone such a strong emotion as love since it can "lead to the dark side". I mean anakin is the perfect example. The love for his mother was twisted after her death and led him to the dark side of the force through killing all those sand people, "even the women and the children, too". (sorry to quote one of the more hated star wars movies, but its the only one that I can remember talking about this issue in any detail in one of the movies)

 

I myself being a hot-blooded spanish women, in no way could follow the jedi code IRL so here I come Sith Empire lol!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, so what you're saying is that you're a better Jedi than those that have romances, because you don't "bend the rules." And following a code of rules determines whether or not you are a "good" person.

 

That's pride, and pride leads to the darkside...... You're more sith than the ones who have romances or "bend the rules" (man imposed rules I might add, not Force determined guidelines).

 

 

Lol. Sad, really quite sad.

 

Well, I'm not rolling a Jedi, so no what you're saying makes no sense. Of course I have pride.

 

I'm saying it would be a lot more challenging to NOT bend the rules and NOT have romances, or pride, or emotions. Would it be better? I don't know, but I think it would be harder. Kind of like playing a hardcore nun. I don't imagine I'll see many people who would follow the rules so strictly.

 

If I DID decide to roll a Jedi though, that's what I'd do. I think it would be fun to have such a challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm not rolling a Jedi, so no what you're saying makes no sense. Of course I have pride.

 

I'm saying it would be a lot more challenging to NOT bend the rules and NOT have romances, or pride, or emotions. Would it be better? I don't know, but I think it would be harder. Kind of like playing a hardcore nun. I don't imagine I'll see many people who would follow the rules so strictly.

 

If I DID decide to roll a Jedi though, that's what I'd do. I think it would be fun to have such a challenge.

 

But calling someone "half-assed" for having romances means that you think they are less of a Jedi than you would be if you rigidly followed the rules. Therefore by natural process of logic, you are saying that you would be superior to the "half-assed" emotional attachment Jedi. That is pride, and the Jedi Code teaches that such thinking is wrong. No one is greater than the other.

 

So by eschewing pride and emotion (eschewing emotion is not taught by the Jedi code) you become a superior Jedi. That philosophy in and of itself is contradictory.

 

In short, you have no true understanding of the Jedi Code, but rather take a phrase (a mantra no less) completely out context and run on some wild, irrational tangent.

 

Anyone who says there is no emotion, there is peace means that any emotion is bad for a Jedi, really need to take a look at the light-side choices. Those are fraught with emotion and passion.

 

 

Basically I am saying that you think the greatest challenge would be to adhere to the rules rigidly, but you are wrong. The greatest Challenge for a Jedi would be to know when to show emotion and when not to, and to follow that judgment no matter the consequences that may result.

 

Seriously, stick to being a trooper. The Jedi Class is not for you.

 

Romance isn't necessarily light/dark, not even for Jedi and that fact should be reflected in game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the rest of the Jedi are as sensitive as you are, that much is clear.

 

And yet you do not argue my point about pride. That is why the Jedi Class is not for you, because you think that you can be a better Jedi than those who may make some "dark-side" choices along the way.

 

That shows a lack of understanding as to the true nature of emotions and romances and how such subjects are actually dealt with according to the code.

 

Obeying rules does not actually equal light-side. And most Jedi Master recognize that fact and while they may deplore some decisions, they do realize that it might turn out for the best in the long-run.

 

Emotional attachments or Romance falls into that category as well.

Edited by VanCarak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...man imposed rules I might add, not Force determined guidelines.

 

I'm curious to know why people so often make this assumption. It's always been my understanding that the Code was arrived-upon by venerable and experienced Jedi Masters meditating upon the will of the Force. "Man-imposed?" I'm skeptical. It's much more likely these guidelines are in fact "Force-determined" and merely "man-written." Sure, they could have misinterpreted what they saw, but millennia after millennia of successful application would seem to belie that.

 

The fact that following the Code in the game awards LS points while deviating awards DS would seem to support this theory.

 

Lol. Sad, really quite sad.

 

And might I suggest we refrain from personal attacks lest our "attachments" to our arguments show. Gotta keep those DS points at bay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious to know why people so often make this assumption. It's always been my understanding that the Code was arrived-upon by venerable and experienced Jedi Masters meditating upon the will of the Force. "Man-imposed?" I'm skeptical. It's much more likely these guidelines are in fact "Force-determined" and merely "man-written." Sure, they could have misinterpreted what they saw, but millennia after millennia of successful application would seem to belie that.

 

The fact that following the Code in the game awards LS points while deviating awards DS would seem to support this theory.

 

 

 

And might I suggest we refrain from personal attacks lest our "attachments" to our arguments show. Gotta keep those DS points at bay.

 

I do not understand why people automatically assume that the Jedi Council are automatically right when it comes to discerning whether or not an action is light-side or dark-side. Seeing as the Force judges things based off of both the intent of the person and the short and long-term consequences of the action.

 

The Jedi Council themselves admit many time that their judgement has been clouded by the Dark-side and that they frequently make mistakes. Therefore it is safe to theorize that though most rules are good, there is a possibility that in some instances the Council may be misguided and the Force may be leading another path for reasons that are as yet unclear.

 

Romance/attachments are among those subjects that the council has flip-flopped on for countless millennia. They may (and I do believe in this instance at least partially are) be wrong on emotional attachments.

 

And remember this, even if they are partially right they are not completely right and are consequently, wrong.

 

Unless something is 100% correct, it is not right at all. That is why I do not put complete faith in the Council's rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet you do not argue my point about pride. That is why the Jedi Class is not for you, because you think that you can be a better Jedi than those who may make some "dark-side" choices along the way.

 

I didn't say I'd make a better Jedi. Where are you getting this? I said it would be more challenging. I'd have more fun playing a character that adheres to the rules because it seems like, in real life, that would be very hard.

 

I do think some people are going to half-*** their Jedi, though. I don't see why you're so offended by that. If you're not half-assing your character, don't worry about it. I don't even know you or who you're playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say I'd make a better Jedi. Where are you getting this? I said it would be more challenging. I'd have more fun playing a character that adheres to the rules because it seems like, in real life, that would be very hard.

 

I do think some people are going to half-*** their Jedi, though. I don't see why you're so offended by that. If you're not half-assing your character, don't worry about it. I don't even know you or who you're playing.

 

By calling someone half-assed, you are saying that they are inferior to you who are not half-assed. That is the point at which you are being prideful, and therefore, are, ironically enough, a lesser jedi than those that want light-sided romances options.

 

Following rules is easy, you don't have to make any decisions on your own. It's been made for you. Making your own choices guided by the Force, and not rules imposed by the council, is the harder, more "challenging" course if you would.

 

I'm just saying you need to take a look at your arguments and realize that you are off base when trying to reason from the viewpoint and philosophy of a Jedi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following rules is easy,

 

If you say so. It doesn't seem very easy when so few people are willing to.

 

One might argue that your entire argument is so that you can justify your ability to have a girlfriend. If you wanna RP that you have a girlfriend, that's cool, but having a girlfriend and being a Jedi who follows all of the Jedi rules would be pretty hard. That's why I think it would be more interesting to reject romance as a Jedi.

Edited by DuchessOfDork
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you say so. It doesn't seem very easy when so few people are willing to.

 

That's not a valid argument. Whether or not someone else is doing something has little bearing upon whether or not you do what's right. It's still your choice to let others influence your decisions. Nobody puts a gun to your head and says go murder this person.

 

Oh, and if they do, you still can say 'no'. Sure, you lose your life, but at least you chose to do what was right, regardless of the consequences.

 

That, is the whole philosophy of the Jedi Code in summation. Do what is right (IE let the Force guide you) regardless of the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That, is the whole philosophy of the Jedi Code in summation. Do what is right (IE let the Force guide you) regardless of the consequences.

 

Yeah, I'm not arguing this from the point of view of a Jedi. I am not a Jedi, in real life. I'm a roleplayer. I'm saying that, from the point of view of a real human being who likes role playing, it would be harder and more challenging to roleplay a Jedi that follows all of the Jedi rules and doesn't have romance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand why people automatically assume that the Jedi Council are automatically right when it comes to discerning whether or not an action is light-side or dark-side. Seeing as the Force judges things based off of both the intent of the person and the short and long-term consequences of the action.

 

I'll get to the main thrust of your point in a second, but first I'd like to point out that I just suggested that I thought the Council was right when they wrote the Code. And I think this because I cannot call to mind a single Jedi that followed the Code and fell. Are there some who violated its tenets and did not fall? Sure. But every last one that fell broke it in some way. To me, that's an important data point.

 

As to your argument that the Council's judgement can be clouded where the Force is ever clear, I couldn't agree more. Where I take issue is your assertion that the Council determines what makes an action light or dark. They aren't making that decision. They're not out there with you, looking over your shoulder, adding and taking away points as you make your choices...

 

But the Force is.

 

Therefore, I'm left with no choice to assume that bedding that Twi'lek earned you DS points not because the Council thought it wrong, but because it ran counter to the will of the Force.

Edited by Ryion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm not arguing this from the point of view of a Jedi. I am not a Jedi, in real life. I'm a roleplayer. I'm saying that, from the point of view of a real human being who likes role playing, it would be harder and more challenging to roleplay a Jedi that follows all of the Jedi rules and doesn't have romance.

 

And I am saying that the harder choice would be to follow the Force's leading rather than the rules. The two are not mutually the same. Choosing to have romantic feelings while at the same time not letting them totally control them takes just as much effort (if not more) then deciding to castrate yourself and cutting off any emotional attachments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Choosing to have romantic feelings while at the same time not letting them totally control them takes just as much effort (if not more) then deciding to castrate yourself and cutting off any emotional attachments.

 

I'm not arguing with that, but I don't think that would be possible for most people. So I'm gonna wait to see someone prove me wrong and demonstrate a good Jedi romantic relationship that doesn't dip into the dark side.

 

That being said, I think I'd have more fun playing a self-castrated character. I don't see many of them in the roleplaying community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...