The question is a little ethnocentric imo. It's based on a human perspective and why it's a biological issue for us to endure celibacy. Given the large number of races in the galaxy, and present in the Jedi order, celibacy may not be as big an issue for the majority of races in the galaxy. Intimacy and attachment might not be conditional on how many races breed and raise their young, so one man's hardship is another races 'no big deal' so to speak.

I think that's kind of a stretch. I think it's more likely that many more species than not have biological attachment/sex urges, let alone "social attachment" urges/instincts.

Knassrell, you made two posts with really good and interesting following questions I'm following this posts.

The question is a little ethnocentric imo. It's based on a human perspective and why it's a biological issue for us to endure celibacy. Given the large number of races in the galaxy, and present in the Jedi order, celibacy may not be as big an issue for the majority of races in the galaxy. Intimacy and attachment might not be conditional on how many races breed and raise their young, so one man's hardship is another races 'no big deal' so to speak.

I think that's kind of a stretch. I think it's more likely that many more species than not have biological attachment/sex urges, let alone "social attachment" urges/instincts.

Many species in nature the male has nothing to do with rearing of the young and simply move on after the act of breeding with no attachment.

I think it's sort of foolish to not view aliens with kind of a humanocentric lens, considering what civilization, society, and especially the spark of sapience (which separates us from virtually all animals, and which would probably be the line of separation between aliens, even as "primitive" as Talz, and the wild beasts of their planets) does. I don't recall us seeing many races that are completely solitary and only get together to mate, as is the case with many IRL wild animals. Rodians and Hutts have mafia-style crime families but are very attached to them - even if they scheme against their family members, Trandoshans have clans, Togruta have packs, Wookiees have clans and marry, etc. I think they're a lot more "human" than apes or whales or gundarks or banthas or dewbacks - or even rancors, which operate in packs, IIRC.

EDIT: BTW, spoilers.

Okay, I'm here asking questions about the setting I admit, but I think even for me Luke and Leia being siblings doesn't need a spoiler warning.

Knassrell, you made two posts with really good and interesting following questions I'm following this posts.

I have an outsider's viewpoint. I've watched the films and I've started watching some TCW to get a bit more background, but I'm basically playing catch-up because I might be running this game. I guess that leads to odd questions. Particularly imagine if you come to Star Wars as someone in their thirties rather than as a kid, then a lot of things that you don't think about as a kid stick out: "wait - these jedi people with all this political power and who act as 'peace-keepers', they just appointed themselves, did they? I see now that it's Plato's Old Republic."

I think it's sort of foolish to not view aliens with kind of a humanocentric lens, considering what civilization, society, and especially the spark of sapience (which separates us from virtually all animals, and which would probably be the line of separation between aliens, even as "primitive" as Talz, and the wild beasts of their planets) does. I don't recall us seeing many races that are completely solitary and only get together to mate, as is the case with many IRL wild animals. Rodians and Hutts have mafia-style crime families but are very attached to them - even if they scheme against their family members, Trandoshans have clans, Togruta have packs, Wookiees have clans and marry, etc. I think they're a lot more "human" than apes or whales or gundarks or banthas or dewbacks - or even rancors, which operate in packs, IIRC.

I agree with this, but for the reason that Star Wars doesn't have that many alien aliens. A lot of them are humans with funny faces and pootle-tootle accents. I think it's reasonable to take a broadly human view of the aliens in Star Wars. A Peter Watts novel, this is not.

I just had to add because it's perfect timing, that the opening moral of the Clone Wars episode I just started watching right now, was "Attachment is not compassion".

I think one of the reasons why Anakin and Padme's relationship was kept secret had to do with the fact that she was a rather influential politician. The Jedi were suppose to remain neutral and being in bed (literally) with a senator would be in conflict with that neutrality.

I think it's sort of foolish to not view aliens with kind of a humanocentric lens, considering what civilization, society, and especially the spark of sapience (which separates us from virtually all animals, and which would probably be the line of separation between aliens, even as "primitive" as Talz, and the wild beasts of their planets) does. I don't recall us seeing many races that are completely solitary and only get together to mate, as is the case with many IRL wild animals. Rodians and Hutts have mafia-style crime families but are very attached to them - even if they scheme against their family members, Trandoshans have clans, Togruta have packs, Wookiees have clans and marry, etc. I think they're a lot more "human" than apes or whales or gundarks or banthas or dewbacks - or even rancors, which operate in packs, IIRC.

While that's true, there are indeed truly alien Aliens in the EU. For example, there are the Verpine, and I think there are Verpine Jedi. The Verpine are truly..buglike in that they have a Queen and lay eggs and a worker structure. Verpine don't have families, they have hives. Human emotions don't even factor in.

Regarding mating once every X years, the Issori from the X-Wing novels are one such species that does this. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Issori

And let's not forget the idea that marriage==attachment/love is a very modern Western idea. In many cultures marriage (particularly the Middle East) is still very much a financial transaction used to secure alliances or make money off of children. The institution of marriage began very much as a Game Of Thrones style thing.

I have a feeling that marriage was banned precisely because during the Old and New Sith Wars Jedi were creating lordships and holding systems through feudal connections. (EG Lord Hoth). They didn't want the Jedi Order to become a Game of Thrones type feudal system- the Sith had that and that is precisely why they lost the New Sith Wars.

And let's not forget the idea that marriage==attachment/love is a very modern Western idea. In many cultures marriage (particularly the Middle East) is still very much a financial transaction used to secure alliances or make money off of children. The institution of marriage began very much as a Game Of Thrones style thing.

I'm aware, and I'm sure that it's the same even "currently" in many alien cultures. But even arranged marriages created passion and social attachment even when initially unwanted or not "ideal" for the participants. Natural impulses that the Jedi Code seeks to deny in order to maintain a particular attitude towards the Force.

And yes, many alien cultures in Star Wars are truly alien. Personally I think this is awesome and much more interesting than the ones that are very Star Trek (obviously just some dude in green face paint, but otherwise human in most customs). We have tons of near-Human species who probably derived original cultural ideals from humanity, and also other cultures that are not near-Human, but express attachment in manners that humans can relate to. Then we have hive-mind insects and giant brains that breathe poison gas.

I have a feeling that marriage was banned precisely because during the Old and New Sith Wars Jedi were creating lordships and holding systems through feudal connections. (EG Lord Hoth). They didn't want the Jedi Order to become a Game of Thrones type feudal system- the Sith had that and that is precisely why they lost the New Sith Wars.

Probably very true. The Jedi Lords of the pre-Ruusan era were effectively feudal lords who controlled territory, had vassals, and were deeply involved in regional and galactic politics. Part of the Reformation was intended to disarm the formal Jedi Army of Light and remove them from direct governance (for good or ill, really, I can't help but believe the Jedi would have done things better if they were in charge but who knows, territory wars prosecuted by Force-users would have been quite terrible indeed).

Part of the fun of Edge of the Empire is that you can Force-sensitive characters who have no guidance in the use of their abilities. There aren't exactly a lot of people around who can warn such a character about the dangers of combining passion, possessions, attachments etc. with Force powers.

Such ungoverned power could be pretty dangerous, I would think. Does such a character have to practice considerable self-discipline? Or does he or she simply give in to that power and use it in whatever way passion dictates?

I realize the subject of this post refers specifically to Jedi, but since this is also an Edge of the Empire forum and the Jedi really are not around in this setting, I think it's worth keeping the bigger picture in mind as well.

I would agree that ungoverned power could be dangerous, but at the same time. Fully trained Jedi were all but crushed. An untrained force user who got out of control with emotions could still easily be taken out by bounty hunters or anyone skilled enough in combat.

In a galaxy with tractor beams and gravity control, telekinetics isn't so impressive.

I like Star Wars in that it is unique that many of the feats done by 'magic-users' is overshadowed by the capabilities of technology.

In a galaxy with tractor beams and gravity control, telekinetics isn't so impressive.

I like Star Wars in that it is unique that many of the feats done by 'magic-users' is overshadowed by the capabilities of technology.

On the other hand, one night stands are completely devoid of attachments. Both parties are in the transaction for one thing: half an hour of woo-hoo. So a Jedi maintaining a little black book? Against the rules. A Jedi just crusing the strip looking for a Zipless F - that's A-OK!

[squelch, squelch, squelch]

"Can't get mad, Yoda! We ain't breaking no code!"

"No- Code!"

"[grumble]"

Attachments to the troops you command will lead to rage if they are slaughtered. We can't fight a war for you

I won't reiterate what has already been stated. I am just going to point out that society over time changes and that is true even for the Jedi Order. There are other exceptions to the rule of no commitment in the Jedi Order. The example I am thinking of is the Halycon line which is Corran Horn's family line. The reason there is an exception here is due to the fact that Halycon's are Corellian Sector. So it would seem that even the human humans have exceptions to the rules as well as the alien aliens. Basically the rule on celibacy in the Prequels was dependent on where you were from and who you are. The rule after the OT was that because there was a limited number of Force Sensitives. Also Luke could of seen it from a psychological point of view as the fact that he didn't have a family no one should be denied one. Just an observation on this matter.

There are two different explanations given for the Nejaa Halcyon issue, The novel Jedi Trial in which Nejaa appears says his marriage was secret like the one between Anakin and Padme. The later Essential Guide to Warfare however explained that many Jedi who disagreed with the post-Ruusan reformation changes which turned the main order into its pre-Clone Wars form left to start splinter orders and the Halcyon line was part of one of those splinter groups.