Basically, I read your post as to agree with me regarding attachments, at least for the children, but, you say, the Jedi Order does allow force-sensitive children and Jedi to form attachments. Am I correct in my interpretation?

I know I've probably been a bit confusing as it's a complicated issue. I'll see if I can break it down at all.

 

Realistically speaking there is no denying what you say: taking children from their parents unnecessarily is not going to have good effects. In the real world if a group of people were acting like the Jedi and saying, "don't worry, we'll make it all better with the power of magic and miracles", that would not fly for one second.

 

Now, bearing that in mind, we are talking about a world where magical and miraculous powers are real. So when the Jedi say "we can make things better", they may not be either insane or lying. Firstly, then: I believe that whatever isolation Jedi initiates do suffer is less harmful to them because they become less dependent on ordinary personal attachments and develop a relationship with the Force itself. What the Jedi want is for their members to trust the Force above all. They want their members to give themselves fully to the Force and thereby to become fulfilled. Worldly concerns, personal concerns, passions and desires, these get in the way. The Jedi teach transcendence from such things. Letting go of your family is part of letting go of everything.

 

By this understanding, there would be no problem with friendships, even family connections, as long as your responsibilities as a Jedi come first. If anything, cultivating such connections would be a crucial part of learning to let them go or set them aside when the time is right. Hence I also think that the Jedi do not operate a strict policy of "no family, no friends, no connections," as some sources suggest. And here we hit that big mire of inconsistency. You say I'm the first to suggest that the Jedi don't cut their trainees off from their families, except that I'm not the first - it was in a comic I read.

 

Now, this does clash with what we see from Anakin - he's taken from Tatooine and has no contact with his only living family member throughout his training. So was Zayne's experience exceptional, or was Anakin's? And is there a difference between Jedi policy in the Old Republic era and in that of the films? Anakin's case is filled with what seem to be exceptional circumstances, and while I would accept the argument that the Jedi should have found some way, any way, to free his mother as well - simply because nobody deserves to live as a slave - the scenario presented makes it nearly impossible for Anakin to remain in contact with her. I know I'm on difficult ground here but there is at least an argument for not reading too much into Anakin's individual case.

 

What does that mean?

 

My question stands, what is to forgive about bearing a child?

Well, I don't want to put words in Audoucet's mouth, this is just how I read it. Being "forgiving" doesn't necessarily mean that there is "crime" or somesuch to forgive; it can just be another way to say "lenient" or "understanding". I don't think that Dooku broke any rules at all simply by leaving the Order, and if he did, what would the punishment be? Kick him out? Unless a dark Jedi starts actually breaking the Republic's laws the Jedi have no other sanctions they can take against them. On the other hand, they could expel a Jedi for having an illicit relationship if indeed that is something they have a strict rule against.

 

Now, what's the difference between a rule and a strict rule in this context? Well, assuming I'm right about the Jedi view on relationships, then it might work like this: purely from a practical point of view, it's much easier to have a rule that says "don't do this" and enforce it situationally, than to have no rule but sometimes arbitrarily sanction people anyway. Better to "reserve the right" to take action in any case than to arbitrarily take action against those who've broken no rule. In the end I think the difference between Satele and Anakin is that the Jedi Council trusted Satele's judgement and detachment. They didn't trust Anakin's. They seem to have been right in both cases.

 

Audoucet seemed to be responding specifically to the suggestion that the Jedi are a totalitarian sect who harshly impose their rules. As he/she said, that's simply not true.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Joachimthbear

So when the Jedi say "we can make things better", they may not be either insane or lying.

They failed with Anakin, so obviously they can not 'make things better', they failed him in a way that makes it hard to believe this was just a mistake.

 

 

Now, bearing that in mind .... it was in a comic I read.

 

You're basically saying, ignore what you saw in the movies, the Jedi are not at all like they show. While I have little issue, for now, with your perspective, I do have issue with the source, because, frankly, there's a comic to be found for every statement one would want to make about Jedi and the Force.

 

Well, I don't want to put words in Audoucet's mouth, this is just how I read it. Being "forgiving" doesn't necessarily mean that there is "crime" or somesuch to forgive; it can just be another way to say "lenient" or "understanding".

Not a crime, but 'forgiving' does heavily imply there is some form of wrongdoing, a fault or an offense, to be forgiven for.

 

I don't think that Dooku broke any rules at all simply by leaving the Order, and if he did, what would the punishment be? Kick him out? Unless a dark Jedi starts actually breaking the Republic's laws the Jedi have no other sanctions they can take against them. On the other hand, they could expel a Jedi for having an illicit relationship if indeed that is something they have a strict rule against.

 

Makes you wonder, doesn't it

There's no gain for the Order to expel anyone, doing so risk loosing all influence on them ... Most SW fiction seems to miss this point.

 

Now, what's the difference between a rule and a strict rule in this context? Well, assuming I'm right about the Jedi view on relationships, then it might work like this: purely from a practical point of view, it's much easier to have a rule that says "don't do this" and enforce it situationally, than to have no rule but sometimes arbitrarily sanction people anyway Better to "reserve the right" to take action in any case than to arbitrarily take action against those who've broken no rule.

"Situational" does sound a bit like arbitrarily ... Anyway, the Jedi Order raises it's members, and if they decide that one Jedi is, and another isn't capable of engaging in a (romantic) attachment then the latter is essentially an indication of a failure in their raising (training) of that Jedi.

 

In the end I think the difference between Satele and Anakin is that the Jedi Council trusted Satele's judgement and detachment. They didn't trust Anakin's. They seem to have been right in both cases.

The Shan's have a history of birthing and raising children, don't they? Apparently allowing attachments worked out quite well .... Anakin never, afaik, confided with the council about his romantic interests, in my opinion because he didn't trust them. He didn't trust them because they failed to build that trust with him, which, I believe, points back to his attachment issues.

 

Audoucet seemed to be responding specifically to the suggestion that the Jedi are a totalitarian sect who harshly impose their rules. As he/she said, that's simply not true.

I never said that, did I? I critique some methods and idea's, I pointed out there was no wrongdoing to forgive, but don't see them as a totalitarian sect. That said, I do remember a quest on Tython where a student was about to be expelled for not quite understanding some force thing (I forgot the exact task). It seemed rather harsh to me.

Children in the order have safe attachments. Their masters. That being said, I think posters forget having those attachments mean nothing to the matters of trust.

 

Children don't tell adults everything. People don't tell friends everything. People don't generally tell one person all their insecurities.

 

As for Bastilla having a child. No, that was not wrong. It was however against the Jedi teachings to have such attachments.

 

These Jedi are adults, they can leave the order anytime they want. They can even break the rules of the order. That doesn't mean there can't be consequences for those actions.

 

Becoming a police officer and not reporting the marijuana dealer, because of your own beliefs on whether or not it should be legal (yes, it's now legal in some states...this is just an example) /can/ get you fired from your job. A job you may just love, even if you don't agree with all the rules.

 

Anakin had other options to him. He could have fought to change the order's rules. He could have quit the order. Once one is made a knight, one is generally out of the study with a teacher and into the train on your own area.

 

Anakin had other options, other than the Jedi Order, to do good and protect people. He wanted to be in the Jedi. He also wanted things way to much. "They didn't give me the title/rank I wanted. They're jealous of me!"

 

Anakin was a powerful force user who had issues he couldn't get past. Though, I often wonder why the Jedi didn't go back to get his mother or he himself before he was that old.

You're basically saying, ignore what you saw in the movies, the Jedi are not at all like they show.

What can I say? My memory may be faulty, my knowledge of the wider EU is terrible, but I think there's at least room for my interpretation, even taking the films into account. We see the story of one very unusual Jedi being recruited by an unconventional Master with non-standard Jedi beliefs. We don't see the ordinary practice or the general case.

 

For example - if Tatooine had its own Jedi Academy or Enclave (assuming such things exist; KOTOR had a regional academy on Dantooine) then Anakin could have been taken there, instead of all the way to Coruscant. Tatooine happens to be a barely habitable crime-ridden mess of a planet and outside Republic jurisdiction, and so that couldn't happen. Even making a holocall home from time to time doesn't seem to be an option in the Star Wars universe due to weird technology inconsistencies. Jedi policy or not, unless Anakin's mother was freed from slavery or Anakin was left in slavery, there weren't a lot of options for them to stay in touch.

 

While I have little issue, for now, with your perspective, I do have issue with the source, because, frankly, there's a comic to be found for every statement one would want to make about Jedi and the Force.

I fully get that. There's a lot of expanded universe and stuff contradicts other stuff. We end up being kind of selective in choosing what sources to believe over others.

 

There's no gain for the Order to expel anyone, doing so risk loosing all influence on them ... Most SW fiction seems to miss this point.

The only gain for the Order from kicking someone out is a matter of principle: a way of saying, "this person does not represent us". While it seems to be variable how much legal authority the Jedi have, their public regard and respect as peacekeepers and mediators is crucial. But expelling someone might be more for the sake of the person expelled than for the sake of the Order itself. If being a Jedi is not for you, if the life is too restrictive and demanding, then better to leave than to stay where you don't really want to be. That's the worst sanction Anakin faced, after all: being told he couldn't continue as a Jedi. Would that have been so terrible? He thought so.

 

"Situational" does sound a bit like arbitrarily ...

It is. In the sense that "arbitrarily" means "as a matter of judgement". The difference I was pointing out is psychological - a way to keep people from feeling victimised. However, this whole point is purely speculation on my part. The Jedi may in fact have a very precisely-worded rule on this matter rather than a flexible catch-all.

 

One way to word it might be, "no getting married". If you love someone and want to commit to spending your life with them, then you need to make a choice: step back from that relationship, or accept that the Jedi path is not for you anymore. But again, I can't say whether this is their actual rule.

 

Anyway, the Jedi Order raises it's members, and if they decide that one Jedi is, and another isn't capable of engaging in a (romantic) attachment then the latter is essentially an indication of a failure in their raising (training) of that Jedi.

That's fair. But it's also fair to say that being a Jedi isn't for everyone. Some are inevitably going to just not take to it. Not everyone who walks away does so for the sake of love, but it's just as good a reason as any.

 

The Shan's have a history of birthing and raising children, don't they? Apparently allowing attachments worked out quite well.

Seems that way, yep. Could be significant when you realise that Force sensitivity is implied to be a hereditary trait, so if the Jedi really are routinely cloistering people and denying them any relationships, they're effectively culling those genes from the galactic population.

 

Anakin never, afaik, confided with the council about his romantic interests, in my opinion because he didn't trust them. He didn't trust them because they failed to build that trust with him, which, I believe, points back to his attachment issues.

Well, remember that the Council actually rejected Anakin. They said he was too afraid of leaving his old life behind. They didn't want him to be trained. Neither Anakin nor the Council was ever going to forget that. You can still say the Council should have worked to build trust, but there was a division there before Anakin's training even started. There's a good argument for saying that that pre-existing fear of loss was the key to Anakin's fall, just as Yoda suspected from the start.

 

I never said that, did I?

I didn't mean that you had. Some people in this thread are arguing differently, is all.

Children in the order have safe attachments. Their masters.

I don't think that is possible if their masters can't form attachments .... They might let non-jedi take care of the children but then, why leave them with their families, provide some counseling them to give them the best possible start and train them at the academy when they're old enough and properly 'grounded'.

 

Anakin was a powerful force user who had issues he couldn't get past. Though, I often wonder why the Jedi didn't go back to get his mother or he himself before he was that old.

This, so very much.

Ya, the padawan on Tython was supposed to learn from failing to move a rock. But it seems to me that expelling folks from the order in TOR era would have been seen as having much more of a consequence than - theoretically - in Anakin's time.

In TOR, you have an enemy group of force users <SITH> ready and willing to accept former Jedi - if they survive the Sith trials on Korriban - as cannon fodder for the war effort.

By Anakin's time - the Jedi thought <erroneously as it turns out > that the Sith were long-gone and forgotten - until Maul shows up ...It would be similar to someone from todays world being in "danger" of joining the Spartans of 3000 years ago...

When looking at the movies, you only see it's the choices characters make that turn them to dark side, not the powers they use. Though we do have an expression, I think, stating that 'power corrupts' ...

 

It's not a question of how they use their power, it's a question of where does the power come from. You do know that "dark side", doesn't mean "wearing dark robes" ? You did notice that half a day after choosing the dark side to save his love and her children, he killed her, tens of children, and his boss ? And tried to kill his former master/dad ? And his eyes went red ?

 

You notice how Jango Fett doesn't go red eyed serial killer family molester, even though he is basically a space assassin, killing to protect his child or his money ? That is because he is a normal human, without a strong connection to the force, which means a strong connection to the dark side. The Force takes out your basic human free will, you can't just be "normal".

 

Forgiving? What's there to forgive about bearing child?

 

It's FORBIDDEN. For good reasons. Half the Jedis succumbing to romance, they go crazy. Because of the frikking Dark Side, which amplifies and corrupts emotions. And because you end up most of the time crazy and killing said romance. And trying to kill your own children because reasons.

 

Yeah, Vader killed millions of people, including his own brother and his wife, his own wife, and tried to kill his own son a bunch of time ! The only reasons he changed in the end, is because he is the frikking chosen one of the Force itself, and fathered by the Force itself.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Audoucet

I don't think that is possible if their masters can't form attachments .... They might let non-jedi take care of the children but then, why leave them with their families, provide some counseling them to give them the best possible start and train them at the academy when they're old enough and properly 'grounded'.

 

This, so very much.

 

Friendship is a form of attachment. A consular asking the right question in their very first mission shows the Jedi know it's going to happen.

 

What the Jedi want to do, is train the Jedi to put the good of the many over the needs of the few.

 

Could you make the choice to stop the bomb that saves a planet but will kill the love of your life? Let's say the love of your life is an extreme example. Could you do it for a best friend? Could you sacrifice your child to save a planet? You can your child can walk away alive, but it will cost the lives of many, because you had a terrible choice to make.

 

After said choice was made, with all that power at your finger tips, what would you do? Left to his own thoughts, Anakin proved he could never leave Padme to her own devices. He could never leave her to certain doom, even if it meant the death of billions.

 

Anakin would let a Moff blow up Alderaan if it meant saving Padme

 

Of course, Leia was more than willing to let the Death Star go blow up Dantoonine over blowing up Alderaan.

No. You don't see any traces of (effective) training or counseling to help him deal with his past, the logical conclusion is that he received none. The Jedi took Anakin from his mother, with all good intentions and we all agree with their cause of action at that point. We do not see what was done to mend his trauma's, but we do know that whatever was done, or not, was ineffective.

 

Assuming otherwise is making assumption that do not respect what we're shown.

 

We don't see the Jedis eating either, but whatever, your point doesn't stand anyway, Because the Jedis didn't want Anakin, in the first place ! They said no, no, and again no, but one Jedi wouldn't listen, of course, and took him anyway, against the wishes of the council.

 

Would Quigon have obeyed, Darth Vader wouldn't exist. And would the Order be tyrannic, they'd have sent Hayden back to his planet.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Audoucet

You notice how Jango Fett doesn't go red eyed serial killer family molester, even though he is basically a space assassin, killing to protect his child or his money ? That is because he is a normal human, without a strong connection to the force, which means a strong connection to the dark side. The Force takes out your basic human free will, you can't just be "normal".

 

^This. This right here. People keep seeming to forget this part right here. Force users are not normal people. They're powerful individuals.

 

Ensign Temple was weak in the force (I'll say weak anyways, though maybe it was less being weak and instead a father who didn't want to risk his daughter dying in trials and is now just untrained) and in one cut scene when in distraught, she walks into a room and takes out all the opposition.

 

A powerful Hunter goes nuts, they can send in swat. A powerful Force User goes nuts, they send in swat and the special forces.

 

A hunter goes nuts, she's armed and extremely dangerous. A force user goes nuts and she's a walking, talking, weapon of mass destruction!

 

Sith teach you to "lash out at those weaker than you, because it fuels your powers with the darkside." The Jedi, while the rules may seem impossible but for the most ardent of followers, at least attempt it, to avoid a force users from lashing out.

 

Then there's also the idea that SW was written in a different time, before there was more knowledge on the human psyche.

 

Back then, one wasn't deranged because they had mommy issues and a sense of abandonment. One was just deranged.

It's not a question of how they use their power, it's a question of where does the power come from. You do know that "dark side", doesn't mean "wearing dark robes" ? You did notice that half a day after choosing the dark side to save his love and her children, he killed her, tens of children, and his boss ? And tried to kill his former master/dad ? And his eyes went red ?

 

He didn't get his eyes from abundant use of dark side powers, he got them because of his choices. He didn't make his choices because the dark side made him do so. He did those things because he choose to.

 

You notice how Jango Fett doesn't go red eyed serial killer family molester, even though he is basically a space assassin, killing to protect his child or his money ?

He's not a force user with an above average connection to the force. That force-sensitives get yellow/red glowing eyes from doing evil things is not contradicted by non-sensitves not getting them when doing evil things. The distinction between the two types doesn't prove anything about a "Dark Side" corrupting things.

 

That is because he is a normal human, without a strong connection to the force, which means a strong connection to the dark side. The Force takes out your basic human free will, you can't just be "normal".

No, it does not take out your free will. Every action committed by force users was out of their own choosing. Every evil act done by Anakin was completely his own choosing. There is not even a hint in the movies of the Force taking away his ability to choose or the responsibility for his actions. On the contrary, it painstakingly shows a chain of decisions that leads to his fall.

 

It's FORBIDDEN. For good reasons. Half the Jedis succumbing to romance, they go crazy.

By whom? And with which sanction?

 

You're obviously missing the absurdity of it, so I'll say it more clearly, it's absurd, even insane, that anyone should somehow require forgiveness for giving birth to a child. If you are trying to convince anyone that the Jedi Order is not a totalitarian sect then you are not making a compelling argument.

 

I've just been discussing the thing with someone on the complete opposite side of the spectrum. Obviously both can;t be right at the same time.

I've just been discussing the thing with someone on the complete opposite side of the spectrum. Obviously both can;t be right at the same time.

 

Yeah but actually I am the only one right, no discussion needed, because I'm not stating my opinion, but the opinion of George Lucas. And if you disagree with him, you're axiomatically wrong. Buy an official encyclopedia.

^This. This right here. People keep seeming to forget this part right here. Force users are not normal people. They're powerful individuals.

They don't have a free will, they can not choose their actions like the 'normal' people?

 

Sith teach you to "lash out at those weaker than you, because it fuels your powers with the darkside." The Jedi, while the rules may seem impossible but for the most ardent of followers, at least attempt it, to avoid a force users from lashing out.

We all have a dark side, and it's stronger in those who do not feel remorse when striking those weaker then us.

 

Then there's also the idea that SW was written in a different time, before there was more knowledge on the human psyche.

It's not that old

Yeah but actually I am the only one right, no discussion needed, because I'm not stating my opinion, but the opinion of George Lucas.

Then watch the movies, the ones George Lucas directed, with all those scenes where Anakin choose his own actions. Or are you saying he's a terrible director who couldn't really get his idea's on screen as he wanted to? Edited November 12, 2015 by nimmerstil

Then watch the movies, the ones George Lucas directed, with all those scenes where Anakin choose his own actions.

 

Well you watch, BUT WITH LUCAS' AUDIO COMMENTARYS.

Well you watch, BUT WITH LUCAS' AUDIO COMMENTARYS.

I don't really care about his commentaries, there were no commentaries in the cinema, but if they're different from what the movies show, he's a terrible director. But most likely, you didn'r understand him well enough. Edited November 12, 2015 by nimmerstil

They don't have a free will, they can not choose their actions like the 'normal' people?

 

We all have a dark side, and it's stronger in those who do not feel remorse when striking those weaker then us.

 

It's not that old

 

I was thinking the original trilogy. The prequal trilogies are all forced into making the original trilogy happen. Then there's George looking back at it all and saying "You know what, I think I would like to change things."

I was thinking the original trilogy.

Me too

The prequal trilogies are all forced into making the original trilogy happen. Then there's George looking back at it all and saying "You know what, I think I would like to change things."

No doubt, I think we all 'would like to chance things' looking 20 or 30 years back, sometimes I want to change things looking two days back Edited November 12, 2015 by nimmerstil

Me too

No doubt, I think we all 'would like to chance things' looking 20 or 30 years back, sometimes I want to change things looking two days back

 

Of course! However, it then makes things tend to go the way of "matter of opinion" when it comes to discussions on SW Pretty sure even George has contradicted himself in interviews and in his own ideas.

And if you disagree with him, you're axiomatically wrong.

I prefer to think of myself as "right from a certain point of view".

I have no care what Lucas says. My opinion is that the Sith are not good, but the Jedi no better. What Lucas said doesn't matter- he is an advisor now but lost all creative control when he sold to Disney. He doesn't even have control over Episodes 1-6 now. If Disney released a remastered version where the Jedi slaughtered little kids, that would be Canon. And Jedi would be evil. Because, as I am trying to say- Lucas no longer controls Canon and never will again. The EU (somewhat sadly, somewhat thankfully) was thrown out. All that matters is what DISNEY says and even then it's open to interpretation.

My opinion is that the Sith are not good, but the Jedi no better.

What do the Jedi routinely do that's remotely as bad as murder?

What do the Jedi routinely do that's remotely as bad as murder?

 

Jedi are totalitarian Lawful Good.

What do the Jedi routinely do that's remotely as bad as murder?

 

No one ever seems to point out exactly what makes the Jedi as bad as the Sith other than "*whine* They don't let you love"

 

Seriously, that seems to be it. Sith may kill on a whim, but they let you be who you want to be. They just forget that means they'll kill you for being a nice sith unless you happen to be to powerful, but you still need a ruthless side.

 

Jedi talk a big game about no attachments, but they all get sad when they lose friends. Obi Wan was hurt when Anakin fell. Yoda was saddened when the Republic fell.

 

People don't like groups with ideals that are harder to live up. Sith on the other hand are easy to live up to. "Do as you please. Gain power or die trying." is pretty easy to live up to...plus they get to love, except, not really. It's not love when it's "I'll love you unless I need to sacrifice you for myself or for a bigger powerbase, in which case, I might miss you."

Jedi are totalitarian Lawful Good.

 

Jedi do not force other's to do live their life. You want to remain part of the order, generally you have to follow the rules of the order, but you don't see them going to normal people and saying "Oh hey! Your child is ours now." They don't do that. or go to normal people and say "You are not allowed to love."

 

Their rules pertain only to those who join their order. Which is why we have such things as Fallen and Ex and Dark Jedi.

 

Let's take a simple rule "No love." and see how it's shown on Tython. Two padawans have fallen in love. First they keep it a secret. Okay. No real issue there. But what do they do as soon as they're found out? A bit of physical threat then they come to their senses and try to bribe you.

 

If they wanted to prove the Jedi wrong, they should have come forward from the start, then took their chances with being expelled from the order. They either wouldn't have and could prove themselves or they would have and then they could have proven themselves. Yet they both wanted to be part of the Jedi.