My wife and I were having a discussion last night about the Jedi code. We started looking at how each Jedi Master had their own interpretation of that code and how it influenced the training of their apprentices.

Qui'Gon defied the council in Ep 1

Obi-Wan defied the council in Ep 2 and I think he had an emotional attachment to Anakin.

Anakin defied the council ALL THE TIME and allowed himself to have emotional attachments. He eventually went to the dark side.

Yoda seems to have made a lot of his decisions out of fear

Mace Windu supposedly dabbled with the dark side.

Asokah Tanno left the Jedi order and did her own thing.

Kanan & Ezra weren't very good Jedi either and abandoned the Order's teachings. (Haven't finished Rebels yet)

Luke was a terrible Jedi. He had emotional attachments to Han & Leia and he went over to the dark side in the EU.

Jacen Solo fell to the dark side.

Kylo Ren fell to the dark side.

I just couldn't point a finger at anyone and say, "There! That person is what a Jedi should be."

Actually, there were more than a few, mostly from the old EU. First, there was Jedi Master Odan Urr , best known for really codifying the Jedi Code and founding the Great Library on Ossus. Then there was Master Thon , and his greatest apprentice, Nomi Sunrider , who would eventually lead the Jedi order. It should be noted that all of these Jedi existed at a time when marriage was not forbidden to Jedi.

You have to remember, that a lot of that stuff is decades after the Jedi were founded by Lucas, and written by other people. Just like fan fiction, they can put their own spin on a lot of things.

I don't hold anything in the EU as canon, not just because Disney tossed it into a dumpster and set it on fire, but because a lot of it was utter trash anyway.

Plus, the way of the Jedi really doesn't hold up to "real world" sensibilities and morality, or even our basic understanding of human development and emotional stability. It's got lots of "heavy" mystic jargon that sounds really cool and stuff, but in reality they simply don't work.

We can't not have emotions, that's just biologically impossible. All we can do as a species, is try to make sure they don't rule our decisions and judgement. Having emotional attachments increases the likelihood of being emotionally compromised. But the idea of some Vulcan-esque being as how a "true Jedi" would behave? It's just not realistically possible.

Plus, you also have to remember, that people always like to have "conflicted" protagonists, to inject drama and tension into the narrative they are creating. And the easiest way to do that with Jedi, is to have them dabble in Dark Side stuff. Which is why, pretty much every single example you listed, of people who would be considered paragons of the Jedi Way, had a "dark side" to them. They aren't perfect. The Jedi Code is an ideal to strive for, it doesn't mean that anyone can actually achieve that state of no emotion oneness with the cosmos.

Also, the prequel examples are just terrible. Why? Because they were in the prequels, and those movies were shite. The acting, writing, delivery, everything was horrible, so I don't really count them on a personal level either. Simply because of the trope Lucas Is Bad At Writing (not really a trope, but I'm coining it here, copyright 2017!)

It's not like you have to achieve the goals of the Jedi Code before they let you enter. It's the motto that they live by, but it's always a struggle, even for the greatest of them. So you will probably never be able to find a squeaky clean, 100% pure Perfect Jedi, in any presentation of the franchise. Partly because that character would be super boring, and because it's just not as interesting as someone who has flaws, struggling to be better.

We cheer when our heroes overcome adversity and grow. We don't really cheer when they are already perfect and without flaw.

The idea of being a Jedi wasn't to not have emotions, but to not let them control your actions.

Obi-wan is probably the quintessential Jedi certainly after RotS giving over his life to watching over and protecting Luke for nearly 2 decades , you dont get much more selfless than that.

6 minutes ago, syrath said:

The idea of being a Jedi wasn't to not have emotions, but to not let them control your actions.

Obi-wan is probably the quintessential Jedi certainly after RotS giving over his life to watching over and protecting Luke for nearly 2 decades , you dont get much more selfless than that.

Syrath pretty much nailed it. Look at how the original version of the Jedi code was written:

Emotion yet peace

Ignorance yet knowledge

Passion yet serenity

Chaos yet harmony

Death yet the Force.

It is only later that the Jedi code evolved into

There is no emotion, only peace

There is no ignorance, only knowledge

There is no passion, only serenity

There is no chaos, only harmony

There is no death, only the Force

11 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

It's not like you have to achieve the goals of the Jedi Code before they let you enter. It's the motto that they live by, but it's always a struggle, even for the greatest of them. So you will probably never be able to find a squeaky clean, 100% pure Perfect Jedi, in any presentation of the franchise. Partly because that character would be super boring, and because it's just not as interesting as someone who has flaws, struggling to be better.

We cheer when our heroes overcome adversity and grow. We don't really cheer when they are already perfect and without flaw.

So the answer to your question "are any Jedi good at being Jedi" is all the Jedi in the background of the first three movies as they were too boring to get any screen time.

14 hours ago, P-Dub663 said:

I just couldn't point a finger at anyone and say, "There! That person is what a Jedi should be."

Stop trying to look at any entire life and look at each moment. In those moments, there are many examples of exactly what a Jedi should be. The issue of course is that no being can live in that state eternally.

Perfection is an admirable goal to strive for, not something to ever reach.

Or in someone's else words "to strive to seek and not to yield". The jedi way is a way of self-improvement and learning. The failings of the jedi order was the assumption that they mostly reached the goal already, an assumption based on arrogance and they paid dearly for that arrogance.

3 hours ago, Leopardao said:

So the answer to your question "are any Jedi good at being Jedi" is all the Jedi in the background of the first three movies as they were too boring to get any screen time.

You could say that yes. We saw them do nothing really, so we can't really say they were "bad jedi". Even the members of the council could potentially qualify. As again, they don't really do anything but take up space. Maybe some of them got fleshed out in the CW cartoon, but I didn't finish that show, so I'm going to assume that at least some of them never got their 15 minutes of fame. But the ones that did, I'm sure were shown to have at least some kind of struggle or dilemma to deal with, because that's storytelling.

Now that I think about it, Plo Koon was in several episodes of the Clone Wars and I don't ever recall him having any dark side/emotional weakness shown. He maybe seemed a bit attached to Ahsoka because he was the one who initially brought her to the Jedi order but that's a stretch.

I'd say most of the Jedi were good at being a Jedi. But being a good Jedi is tough and no being is perfect. Like any religious order/organization perfectly living up to the philosophy and spiritual practices is basically impossible.

This is one of the more relatable and realistic aspects of the Star Wars universe - the Space Buddhist Paladins are flawed and struggling to live up to their ideals. And they managed to oversee 1000 generations of galactic peace and were pivotal in overthrowing an evil Empire. Sounds pretty good to me.

By the time of The Phantom Menace, I'd say only Qui-Gon truly lived up to the ideals of the Jedi. Rather than follow the Council, which he knew to basically be a pawn of the Senate, Qui-Gon did good deeds where he could, even if it meant disrupting the order of the world around him. Much of his idealism was passed on to Anakin and Obi-Wan, the former of whom also defied the Council to do good when he could get away with it while the latter mostly followed the will of the Council, only occasionally indulging in vigilantism.

During the Clone Wars, many Jedi rediscovered their purpose, taking it upon themselves to help and protect the innocent, though they were also forced to be warriors. By the time the Council fully realized the degradation that the Jedi had suffered at the hands of the Senate, Palpatine's plan was practically complete.

Skip ahead about 20 years and we meet Luke, an idealistic farm-boy who wants to do good but lacks the means to do so, until Obi-Wan shows up. Ben and Yoda instill Luke with the proper balance of *self-control* and *independence* (only the former of which the Jedi had before), helping him to become an even greater Jedi than either Ben or Yoda were.

This is why I think it makes sense for Luke to represent "the balance" in The Last Jedi, as he had both the Jedi's restraint and the Sith's passion.

19 hours ago, Nivrap said:

By the time of The Phantom Menace, I'd say only Qui-Gon truly lived up to the ideals of the Jedi. Rather than follow the Council, which he knew to basically be a pawn of the Senate, Qui-Gon did good deeds where he could, even if it meant disrupting the order of the world around him. Much of his idealism was passed on to Anakin and Obi-Wan, the former of whom also defied the Council to do good when he could get away with it while the latter mostly followed the will of the Council, only occasionally indulging in vigilantism.

During the Clone Wars, many Jedi rediscovered their purpose, taking it upon themselves to help and protect the innocent, though they were also forced to be warriors. By the time the Council fully realized the degradation that the Jedi had suffered at the hands of the Senate, Palpatine's plan was practically complete.

Skip ahead about 20 years and we meet Luke, an idealistic farm-boy who wants to do good but lacks the means to do so, until Obi-Wan shows up. Ben and Yoda instill Luke with the proper balance of *self-control* and *independence* (only the former of which the Jedi had before), helping him to become an even greater Jedi than either Ben or Yoda were.

This is why I think it makes sense for Luke to represent "the balance" in The Last Jedi, as he had both the Jedi's restraint and the Sith's passion.

please no spoilers, I am keeping myself deliberately ignorant of the new star wars films so I can come in without expectations and appreciate/judge them for what they are... there's a big difference between anticipation and expectation. People with expectations are frequently disappointed.

BTW I'd say Obiwan was the "ideal Jedi" according to prequel era standards. He fought Anakin in ROTS only because he *had* to (showing that while he felt emotions he kept his attachments in check) and was trying to talk him down up until the point where he cut off three of his limbs. Yes he left Anakin to burn in lava, but only because he couldn't bring himself to kill him.

20 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

please no spoilers, I am keeping myself deliberately ignorant of the new star wars films so I can come in without expectations and appreciate/judge them for what they are... there's a big difference between anticipation and expectation. People with expectations are frequently disappointed.

BTW I'd say Obiwan was the "ideal Jedi" according to prequel era standards. He fought Anakin in ROTS only because he *had* to (showing that while he felt emotions he kept his attachments in check) and was trying to talk him down up until the point where he cut off three of his limbs. Yes he left Anakin to burn in lava, but only because he couldn't bring himself to kill him.

In game terms, Obi-wan didn't want the 10 conflict for murder, and instead took a few for leaving Anakin to die by Obi-wan's inaction. I'd give him 3... and 3 more for looting Anakin's lightsaber.

And remember: Killing the helpless is one of the defined-in-rules flavors of murder for conflict purposes. A helpless foe is still helpless .

Many objectively bad decisions can be driven by avoiding conflict - both in the stories, and in the game mechanics.

On 6/8/2017 at 1:02 PM, Jedi Ronin said:

I'd say most of the Jedi were good at being a Jedi. But being a good Jedi is tough and no being is perfect. Like any religious order/organization perfectly living up to the philosophy and spiritual practices is basically impossible.

This is one of the more relatable and realistic aspects of the Star Wars universe - the Space Buddhist Paladins are flawed and struggling to live up to their ideals. And they managed to oversee 1000 generations of galactic peace and were pivotal in overthrowing an evil Empire. Sounds pretty good to me.

Pretty much this! We can't really relate to a Jedi lifestyle or judge it because it's something way beyond us! Having a magical power in your blood, feeling life around you, knowing your emotions could legit kill someone and learning how to temper that is something that we as normal humans could never truly understand.

And that's pretty rad!

To say that there were no good Jedi would definitely be a misnomer. Obi-Wan and Qui Gon were both very good examples of what a "good Jedi" looked like. Importantly enough, both were this in different ways. However, the Jedi Code itself is so deeply flawed that it drives many good Jedi to the equally deeply flawed (but in the opposite direction as the Jedi) Dark Side.

On 6/10/2017 at 0:20 PM, AK_Aramis said:

In game terms, Obi-wan didn't want the 10 conflict for murder, and instead took a few for leaving Anakin to die by Obi-wan's inaction. I'd give him 3... and 3 more for looting Anakin's lightsaber.

And remember: Killing the helpless is one of the defined-in-rules flavors of murder for conflict purposes. A helpless foe is still helpless .

Many objectively bad decisions can be driven by avoiding conflict - both in the stories, and in the game mechanics.

Yeah but see, this is where things get fuzzy. Because you could argue, that in the end, he lets his emotions for Anakin (his love for him), cloud his judgement and not do the right action. Leaving him to slowly be consumed in flaming agony, while he's monologuing at him is kind of a jerk move in my opinion. I mean, I don't think he expected him to survive, so he was just letting him die slow and painfully . I think putting him out of his misery is probably just as valid of an action. Especially if it's the choice that isn't clouded by his personal feelings for the person in question.

Hence why morality is a murky subject, in this game, and never has a right answer.

Wow. I am still impressed with the concept that leaving a man brunt to a crisp with no quality of life is somehow worth less conflict then ending his extreme suffering. Conflict is more about your mindset behind the actions then what the actions ential and for Obi-Wan, the choice of whether to not slay Anakin for helping destroy his entire order and everyone he knew meant that he would be extremely conflicted regardless.

I would hope that any PC put in the same situation would choice to embrace the conflict in this particular example, just in sheer grief and anger at the tragedy that had unfolded, and immense anger at one's self for letting it happen. I would likely assign at least 10 conflict either way because of the immense emotion felt at the scene and that Obi-Wan's failure effectively crushed the entire order. Ultimately he failed him and the entire order; a true paragon however would find some other way to redeem their soul; just like obligation morality should be forever changing and sometimes every player just needs to take a gigantic morality hit as a matter of narrative, if their choices lead to this conclusion through neglect then they should be tormented with the members who are treading on the theshold of the darkside being made to fall as an artifact of this.

Now, if my player proceeded not to feel anything, I would probably simply reward him no exp for not buying into what is meant to be an emotional moment. XD Personally I can be ruffless when it comes to narrative systems, but this isn't dungeons and Dragons where morality is just another resource. It is a tightrope and should be treated as such.

Morality is a mechanic for the conflict between light and dark, between your dark side and the light within you. It is not a mechanic that covers ALL mental conflict and distress. I think you are projecting too much into a one dimensional value.

what Obiwan "SHOULD HAVE DONE" (as in the only NO CONFLICT course of action) IMO is saved Anakin from the lava and taken him "prisoner" (it's not like he could run away), and try to talk sense into him over the next 5 to 15 years. Anakin's grief over killing Padme, while also having an infant son and daughter (who he also ALMOST killed but didn't thanks to Obiwan), when Obiwan spared his life, I think would have been enough to redeem Anakin almost instantly, But then we would never have had the original trilogy.

hyperbole: Maybe it could have been a star trek time travel reboot of the franchise with of a new "original trilogy", I could see George Lucas dong that sort of revisionist history

Possibly, but it makes more sense then throwing numbers around. The fall of the order is likely their darkest day. Personally the aftermath of that fight was all kinds of stupid that could only happen if there was a sequel trilogy. I would have felt more inspired if obi was speaking to himself having shoved his apprentice to his appreamt doom.

3 hours ago, LordBritish said:

Possibly, but it makes more sense then throwing numbers around. The fall of the order is likely their darkest day. Personally the aftermath of that fight was all kinds of stupid that could only happen if there was a sequel trilogy. I would have felt more inspired if obi was speaking to himself having shoved his apprentice to his appreamt doom.

With that particular moment, Obi-Wan showed a moment of human weakness.

In the (non-canon but still excellent) novelization of RotS, Matt Stover takes us into the minds of various individuals at key moments from the film, and one of those moments was Kenobi watching Anakin burn.

In that moment, Kenobi can sense something ominous coming (which we the audience know is Sidious), knows that Padme is badly injured (possibly dying) from being Force choked by Anakin, and after everything that's happened... he really isn't feeling very merciful, and so decides to leave Anakin to his fate, much as it pains him to do so. And that decision probably haunts Kenobi for a great many years to come, since he probably blames himself for having failed Anakin so badly as a teacher/mentor/friend.

11 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

what Obiwan "SHOULD HAVE DONE" (as in the only NO CONFLICT course of action) IMO is saved Anakin from the lava and taken him "prisoner" (it's not like he could run away), and try to talk sense into him over the next 5 to 15 years. Anakin's grief over killing Padme, while also having an infant son and daughter (who he also ALMOST killed but didn't thanks to Obiwan), when Obiwan spared his life, I think would have been enough to redeem Anakin almost instantly, But then we would never have had the original trilogy.

Sounds about right to me.

22 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

Yeah but see, this is where things get fuzzy. Because you could argue, that in the end, he lets his emotions for Anakin (his love for him), cloud his judgement and not do the right action. Leaving him to slowly be consumed in flaming agony, while he's monologuing at him is kind of a jerk move in my opinion. I mean, I don't think he expected him to survive, so he was just letting him die slow and painfully . I think putting him out of his misery is probably just as valid of an action. Especially if it's the choice that isn't clouded by his personal feelings for the person in question.

Hence why morality is a murky subject, in this game, and never has a right answer.

Not fuzzy at all - killing is wrong. Killing the helpless, no matter why, is a 10 point morality hit. The force can heal most anything short of amputations, and normal medicine can make up for those.

The only conflict free ways I can see are a quick kill in self-defense while Anakin can still defend himself (and then, no Vader, and the OT looks different), or taking the broken and battered Anakin and trying to save his life.

The Jedi Code is essentially a parallele of Buddhism's approach. Lucas has even said this in interviews.

The Jedi are essentially Space-Buddhist Sohei. Individuals who willingly risk their own elightenment to help others progress towards it.

There are "3 Poisons" in Buddhism: Anger, Ignorance, and Attachment. They are to be cured and/or avoided at all costs.
There are 5 rules to live by in Buddhism:

1. "Do not kill." (Unintentional killing is considered less offensive)
2. "Do not steal." (Including misappropriating someone's property)
3. "Do not engage in improper sexual conduct." (e.g. sexual contact not sanctioned by secular laws, the Buddhist monastic code, or by one's parents and guardians)
4. "Do not make false statements." (Also includes pretending to know something one doesn't)
5. "Do not drink alcohol." (Also applies to other intoxicants.)

These 8 principles are pretty much at the heart of the Jedi Code:

There is no emotion, there is peace.

There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.

There is no passion, there is serenity.

There is no chaos, there is harmony.

There is no death, there is the Force. ^[4]

I am aware of what the Jedi are, but to say that killing is always wrong, is just silly. Even the Jedi don't believe that. And considering how many people died at Vader's hands, to say without any doubt that the "best" option was to just let him lay there and burn to death, instead of putting him down, is simply not true. Sure we can say with retro glasses, knowing how things turn out, but in the moment, Obi-Wan had no idea how things would play out. It's possible that the Emperor wouldn't have been able to maintain control as long as he did if Vader was never created. Any number of "what ifs" that call into question the moral correctness of killing/not killing.