So I think this is a very troublesome thing that my players and I have been discussing from time to time and can't really figure out the answer. Warning: the stuff ahead is not all me, I have incorporated arguments I don't necessarily agree with so if you see something that disagrees with another post of mine that is why. So Jedi were first mentioned in ANH, and we learn that they were guardians of the republic. By ROTJ we see that Luke is now the only Jedi and he faces the Emperor and his Father, also a Sith. We don't really have any indication that Jedi need to be the cold, detached monks that we later have in the prequels, a detail that I feel was a creation of the paperback jockeys who filled up the EU in the long night between ROTJ and Episode I.

Prequels come about, and George has had copious amounts of the Kool Aid. The Jedi are now something that doesn't belong to him fully, and he has a story team from the novels and games advising him when he wants filler info. He has final say, which means he can say yes to anything he wants and is convenient to the story. 1999 The Jedi now have all these rules and codes of how they do things, some of them contradictory and failing to adapt to human nature. They cannot love but need to protect people and life sometimes. They suppress their feelings. That's a big one, they suppress their feelings. Have you ever tried to do that? We talked about this and everyone at the table had the same story, suppressing your feelings makes them more powerful.

The Sith can have passion, but in order to actually love anyone but yourself you have to have some ability to be selfless. So Sith cannot have love because it would make them weak. Does the Force have nothing to do with Love? If the Jedi cannot have it, and the Sith cannot have it, is the Force anti-love? Are these magical heroes and villains not supposed to be characters we can relate to, but just cartoons? Are the only real people the ones who don't use the Force? I kind of feel like this was a **** up on the part of George. He had to have a love story and it had to be forbidden, so why not have the order forbid it? How about because it makes them look like dicks for no good reason? There were a bunch of ways they could have forbidden that relationship (statutory for one) , but George was fond of his basket so his eggs went there. I have been trying to puzzle out why people think the Jedi were dopes in the prequels, and this seems to me to be the strongest thing. Imagine if the Jedi had told Anakin that they sense worry in him about his mother, perhaps you should go and get your mother and we will bring her here. What if he had been allowed to marry Padme, and what if she hadn't been his only girlfriend and he had a few relationships under his belt? I think George used the EU definition of Jedi to write his story, and the Jedi are worse for it because they have this giant nonsense contradiction built into their rules.

But what about all pain coming from attachments? Well that may be true, but hopefully by the time you are an adult you have some ability to cope with your pain and emotions enough that you don't kill yourself or others when you encounter that pain. I think the fallen knight is an old literary device, and the Jedi code functions like chivalry and a monastic oath all in one. It is like the Bushido code of the Samurai, but without seppuku, and without the realization that human psychology will not allow you to be a robot. How can they have not known this?

So if you have any thoughts on this matter I would love to have more opinions to think about. Thanks for any help

Jedi are certainly able to love, but the code of the late Jedi order tells them not to give in to it. They are not supposed to form strong personal attachments, so that they can be as selfless as is needed. Same with the Sith (even though not focus of the question).... they would be able to love, but the somewhat harsher philosophy of the sith (it is about being selfish afterall) tells them that that would be a weakness that makes them vulnerable and thus weak. Weak Sith need to be killed obviously.

Back to the Jedi... seeing romantic attachments as undesirable in a Jedi, is a development that has been made at several points of the Jedi order and as not part of every iteration of it. There have been times when Jedi had families, spouses etc. The Jedi order has become more dogmatic and restrictive over time, which was one of the weaknesses exploited by the Sith and leading to the orders downfall. Following rules without thought and context simply can not be good for someone as a Jedi.

I do agree about the point, that the trials should ultimately prepare a Jedi for the feeling of loss (and the whole other bandwagon) that such relations can cause. Facing loss is one of the major trials demanded on the way to knighthood. The Jedi order as we see it in the prequels is however not perfect and in fact very flawed - they have long since passed their zenith. This is also the way they are intended to be for the purpose of said trilogy, they are supposed to be flawed and are set up to fail. We should not see the Jedi order as it has been shown to us as rolemodel or guideline of how to be Jedi, but as a warning of how to fail at it.

Well one could discuss this many hours, but for now I got to go.

2 hours ago, Archlyte said:

So I think this is a very troublesome thing that my players and I have been discussing from time to time and can't really figure out the answer. Warning: the stuff ahead is not all me, I have incorporated arguments I don't necessarily agree with so if you see something that disagrees with another post of mine that is why. So Jedi were first mentioned in ANH, and we learn that they were guardians of the republic. By ROTJ we see that Luke is now the only Jedi and he faces the Emperor and his Father, also a Sith. We don't really have any indication that Jedi need to be the cold, detached monks that we later have in the prequels, a detail that I feel was a creation of the paperback jockeys who filled up the EU in the long night between ROTJ and Episode I.

Prequels come about, and George has had copious amounts of the Kool Aid. The Jedi are now something that doesn't belong to him fully, and he has a story team from the novels and games advising him when he wants filler info. He has final say, which means he can say yes to anything he wants and is convenient to the story. 1999 The Jedi now have all these rules and codes of how they do things, some of them contradictory and failing to adapt to human nature. They cannot love but need to protect people and life sometimes. They suppress their feelings. That's a big one, they suppress their feelings. Have you ever tried to do that? We talked about this and everyone at the table had the same story, suppressing your feelings makes them more powerful.

The Sith can have passion, but in order to actually love anyone but yourself you have to have some ability to be selfless. So Sith cannot have love because it would make them weak. Does the Force have nothing to do with Love? If the Jedi cannot have it, and the Sith cannot have it, is the Force anti-love? Are these magical heroes and villains not supposed to be characters we can relate to, but just cartoons? Are the only real people the ones who don't use the Force? I kind of feel like this was a **** up on the part of George. He had to have a love story and it had to be forbidden, so why not have the order forbid it? How about because it makes them look like dicks for no good reason? There were a bunch of ways they could have forbidden that relationship (statutory for one) , but George was fond of his basket so his eggs went there. I have been trying to puzzle out why people think the Jedi were dopes in the prequels, and this seems to me to be the strongest thing. Imagine if the Jedi had told Anakin that they sense worry in him about his mother, perhaps you should go and get your mother and we will bring her here. What if he had been allowed to marry Padme, and what if she hadn't been his only girlfriend and he had a few relationships under his belt? I think George used the EU definition of Jedi to write his story, and the Jedi are worse for it because they have this giant nonsense contradiction built into their rules.

But what about all pain coming from attachments? Well that may be true, but hopefully by the time you are an adult you have some ability to cope with your pain and emotions enough that you don't kill yourself or others when you encounter that pain. I think the fallen knight is an old literary device, and the Jedi code functions like chivalry and a monastic oath all in one. It is like the Bushido code of the Samurai, but without seppuku, and without the realization that human psychology will not allow you to be a robot. How can they have not known this?

So if you have any thoughts on this matter I would love to have more opinions to think about. Thanks for any help

For the record, the idea that the 'no love' thing came from the EU and not George Lucas is wrong. In the EU up until 1999, Jedi were allowed to love and form bonds. Luke married Mara Jade, after all. Lucas was the one who made up the rule that Jedi couldn't form attachments, as a means of explaining how Anakin fell to the Dark Side without making Anakin just seem like a power-hungry jerk.

1 minute ago, Underachiever599 said:

For the record, the idea that the 'no love' thing came from the EU and not George Lucas is wrong. In the EU up until 1999, Jedi were allowed to love and form bonds. Luke married Mara Jade, after all. Lucas was the one who made up the rule that Jedi couldn't form attachments, as a means of explaining how Anakin fell to the Dark Side without making Anakin just seem like a power-hungry jerk.

You have convinced me. I believe I was wrong about this.

3 hours ago, Archlyte said:

So I think this is a very troublesome thing that my players and I have been discussing from time to time and can't really figure out the answer. Warning: the stuff ahead is not all me, I have incorporated arguments I don't necessarily agree with so if you see something that disagrees with another post of mine that is why. So Jedi were first mentioned in ANH, and we learn that they were guardians of the republic. By ROTJ we see that Luke is now the only Jedi and he faces the Emperor and his Father, also a Sith. We don't really have any indication that Jedi need to be the cold, detached monks that we later have in the prequels, a detail that I feel was a creation of the paperback jockeys who filled up the EU in the long night between ROTJ and Episode I.

Prequels come about, and George has had copious amounts of the Kool Aid. The Jedi are now something that doesn't belong to him fully, and he has a story team from the novels and games advising him when he wants filler info. He has final say, which means he can say yes to anything he wants and is convenient to the story. 1999 The Jedi now have all these rules and codes of how they do things, some of them contradictory and failing to adapt to human nature. They cannot love but need to protect people and life sometimes. They suppress their feelings. That's a big one, they suppress their feelings. Have you ever tried to do that? We talked about this and everyone at the table had the same story, suppressing your feelings makes them more powerful.

The Sith can have passion, but in order to actually love anyone but yourself you have to have some ability to be selfless. So Sith cannot have love because it would make them weak. Does the Force have nothing to do with Love? If the Jedi cannot have it, and the Sith cannot have it, is the Force anti-love? Are these magical heroes and villains not supposed to be characters we can relate to, but just cartoons?

The order does not forbid love. He forbids attachment. And the sith in this regard are actually similar. They don't want you to give on on your personal goals just because some sentimental attachments. Whatever is in your way, you have to overcome it. Family, teachers, loved ones, doesn't matter. And most of the legends stories have force sensitives fall to the darkside out of love in the first place. A very selfish love which can not accept freedom nor loss.

Now the one thing the force certainly is not about is individuality. The sith twist the force, make it their own power to achieve and express individuality as force users, but the light side seems to be about being connected to the greater whole, giving up individuality to serve the will of the force instead. And will of the force is formed from the countless lifeforms in the galaxy, creating a fundamental force of the galaxy with their energies, giving it form, shape and will. So yeah, love is still big theme for the force and light side users, but not individual love, but rather a very christian or buddhist one with a surprisingly little concern for individual fates.

1 hour ago, [Arkas] said:

The Jedi order as we see it in the prequels is however not perfect and in fact very flawed - they have long since passed their zenith. This is also the way they are intended to be for the purpose of said trilogy, they are supposed to be flawed and are set up to fail. We should not see the Jedi order as it has been shown to us as rolemodel or guideline of how to be Jedi, but as a warning of how to fail at it.

QFT.
That is one of the things Lucas gets imho not enough credit for. The jedi order has a whole has failed and that is intentional. The jedi are not good at their job anymore and that is WHY the sith can rise to power. The sith undermine the jedi order for a 1000 years and finally it has rubbed off enough on the order, so the order fails the republic, fails it's own members and NEEDs to be burned to the ground even in the eyes of Yoda. Who gets past his attachments to his friends at the end of the war and accepts the will of the force … more or less. Can't hurt to fight Palpatine still. The jedi are not about fatalism. ;-)

I have trouble with the idea that the Jedi order as we saw it was vastly different from , well what time period was it doing really great? 10 years before? 100 years before? George made reference to us seeing the Jedi "in their prime" which doesn't sound like he was describing the order in a period of crapping out. I imagine most of this knowledge about how ineffective the Jedi order has become has to come from like comic books or something because none of it is apparent from the movies. Some of these confident summations sound like ordained fact that was just extrapolations from the movies. So like they show mace Windu in the movie with his hand near his mouth, and Joe Pulp writes the fifth book in the Sithsaber Shadowplot Series and says he's an ex-smoker. Then people who have their noses in that lore all the time give it a chapter and verse code so that it can be worked into sermons.

I don't mind if that is your opinion based on this extraneous lore, but I don't think it's established as fact any where that the Jedi just sucked at their jobs at that time. In the movies they seem to be doing ok until the plot is enacted. If the Sith cloud on the force or whatever is canon that makes the Jedi blind to dark side people doing bad crap, that's really all the plot armor that Palpatine needed. How were they supposed to get beyond that? Given the size of their overall job and situation.

1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

I don't mind if that is your opinion based on this extraneous lore, but I don't think it's established as fact any where that the Jedi just sucked at their jobs at that time. In the movies they seem to be doing ok until the plot is enacted. If the Sith cloud on the force or whatever is canon that makes the Jedi blind to dark side people doing bad crap, that's really all the plot armor that Palpatine needed. How were they supposed to get beyond that? Given the size of their overall job and situation.

We get very heavy signs that the Jedi Order is not functioning as intended during The Phantom Menace. The first half of the movie establishes that Qui-Gon is not only a good person, but also a shining example of what a Jedi should be. He doesn't really care about politics (as shown by his dismissive attitude aboard the Trade Federation ship), but rather does what he can to help people, regardless of what it takes. But while he was out rescuing queens and freeing slaves on backwater planets, the Jedi Order sat in their comfy chairs in the highest skyscraper on Coruscant, and saw fit to lecture him about right and wrong.

I personally don't put any weight in the "zero emotions" interpretation to the Code. It's just stupid, and has fueled this very debate for decades without any actual benefit to the storytelling. It's a pedantic nitpick detail, that is the kind of thing that gets Star Wars fans erect with debating passion, so they can spew their load all over a forum discussion about why X detail in Y story supports/refutes the entire thing, and blah blah when is lunch?

For one, it makes for some really boring a$$ characters to roleplay.

And 2, we actually NEVER see an example of a Jedi without emotion in the films. Yoda, Ben, Qui-Gon, etc, all express emotions at some point. Joy, anger, worry, shock/dismay/sadness, etc. Yoda gleefully messes with people's heads and tricks them because it amuses him. Sure it might teach them something, but it also apparently amuses the heck out of Yoda too. Ben teases Anakin in the elevator, showing sarcasm, and a bit of ribbing with his Padawan, even chuckles about the shared event. He gets furious with Anakin at Mustafar, the whole "You were the chose one anakin! You were supposed to save the Force, not cast it into darkness!" I'm sorry but if you try and tell me he wasn't angry/grief stricken/ashamed all at once, then you don't understand human emotions.

So forgetting canon, because honestly who gives a crap about canon, and look at it from a storytelling perspective, it makes for bland characters, with little to know emotional investment for the audience, or the player playing them.

So I've always read the "There is no emotion, there is only peace" line as saying "Don't let your emotions guide your actions. Don't let that momentary flash of anger/embarrassment from that jerk at work mocking you cause you to decide the best course of action is to pick up the stapler and start braining him right there on the floor." Because THAT'S what the Dark Side tells you to do. To indulge that base impulse, and feel the power it gives you. The Light Side says "Yeah, but now you have an injured, possibly dead person from your actions, a criminal record, and a ruined life, all for 15 seconds of emotional gratification....was it worth it?" Hence the No Emotion, Only Peace thing.

It's cautioning people to think before they act. To look at the situation logically, without the filtering of emotions clouding your judgement. Take a breath, step back, relax, and THINK, then decide the best course of action.

You've ALL had a moment like that. Where something happened to trigger your fight/flight response, and a part of your brain was saying "Do this bad thing, you will enjoy it, it will make you feel vindicated, it will be cathartic!" And then you go "Uh...hmm....no, maybe shiving that guy isn't the best course of action. He's just an *******, the world is full of them. Just ignore what he said and go about your day. Don't let him ruin your life because he was trying to push your buttons. Be better than that, you ARE better than that." Just look at all of the bad choices that Anakin made in the films, that led him to the darkside. It's not that he had emotions, it's that he indulged those emotions without considering the ramifications of his actions. When he kills Dooku, you even see Palps goading him, trying to keep him from thinking about it too long, to urge him to do as his emotions wanted him to. He even tries this again with Luke in Return, BUT, Luke doesn't just indulge his emotions (at that point). Before he steps over the point of no return. He stops, literally takes a deep breath, looks at his father, looks at his own hand, and THINKS. And realizes what's going on, and refuses to indulge his emotions. And poof, he maintains the spirit of the Jedi Code, and himself becomes a Jedi in the process.

That's my take on it. People might try and refute it with canon, but as I stated above, I don't give a sh** about canon when it comes to my own understanding of the setting and intent of a very important aspect of the Jedi philosophy, especially when all it does is detract from the potential for good storytelling.

It's not love that is generally wrong according to the Jedi code. It's the attachments that form from said love that can corrupt you. Love is ok, attachments that prevent you from accepting injury and death isn't.

That's what brought down Anakin and many other Jedi, their inability to accept death as part of the will of the force and submiting to said will. Jedi aren't supposed to try to bend the force to their will, they're supposed to submit to the force and go with the flow of the cosmic force.

Submission and surrender to something higher is a pretty big part of the Jedi thing, all the way back to the start of the series. Obi-Wan surrenders to death and submits to the will of the force. Luke doesn't win against the Emperor until he stops fighting and puts his fate into the hands of the Emperor. Sttachments stand in the way of the ability to make and accept these sacrifices.

1 hour ago, Darth Revenant said:

Jedi aren't supposed to try to bend the force to their will

While I agree with your points, this one statement I think is incorrect. The Jedi very much do bend the Force to their will. On a purely technical level, they say "Hey Force! Pick up that object and float it over here!" and the Force goes "Well, it was happy just sitting where it was, but since it's you asking, OK!"

I mean, Ben flat out says in New Hope "It obeys your commands." That is, in essence, bending the Force to one's will.

Again, I know what you are trying to say here, but the wording is a bit unfortunate, given the nature of what the Jedi train to be able to do.

3 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

I mean, Ben flat out says in New Hope "It obeys your commands." That is, in essence, bending the Force to one's will.

That from the mouth of a man who also tells Luke his father is dead... "from a certain point of view". Who's to say that the Will of the Force isn't for you to want to use the Force to lift an object or influence a mind left and right?

I really like all the (sometimes very heated) discussions about the Jedi Code and the Force and such. As long as it stays civil. I actually used such discussions and the arguments people gave in one of my own campaigns, set after about a generation Return of the Jedi, where a new generation of Jedi was to be trained, and two player characters wanted to go that way. It gave me the opportinuty to roleplay with the players about their character's thoughts and 'feelings' on the Force, the Jedi Code, and other 'rules'.

For example, if the Jedi Order forbade all attachments, why does the Order exist at all? Shouldn't one be attached to the Order? How about the Padawan-Master coupling? Isn't that a form of attachment on ots own? Does a remark like "your weapon is your life" imply attachment to a physical object?

When even Vulcans have (very repressed) emotions, how can we expect a Force-Sensitive person of any species from the Star Wars galaxy (that has nothing to do with the Star Trek Universe, but which serves as a good example anyways) to not have emotions, feelings? We see, on-screen, how Obi-Wan has feelings. He loved Anakin like a brother, he is grief-stricken when he actually must use his high-ground advantage to chop some limbs. However, he doesn't follow up on his anger and grief (there is no emotion, there is peace) after he incapacitated Anakin. Obi-Wan could have easily performed a coup-de-grace then and there. One lightsaber thrust through that Anakin head. He didn't. No vengeance, no anger, no acting out of emotions.

Which brings us to Jedi not being able to love. Bullocks! They can, and do love. They love their jobs. They love their lightsabers. They love their Order. They love their brothers and sisters. They are all emotionally inclined living persons after all. But the Jedi ways try prevent their followers, the Jedi, to act upon that love and any other emotions that flow forth from it. A Jedi should help his brothers and sisters because it is the right thing to do, not because he loves one more than the other. If one of the brothers or sisters of the Order is killed, the 'true' Jedi shouldn't go all batshit-crazy with anger and hatred and vengeance. he could right that wrong by capturing the killer and bringing that killer to justice, locally or on a grander galactic scheme. Emotions aren't evil, overreacting through emotional detriment is evil.

Which is all just one interpretation of matters, of course. Feel free to interpret things differently.

16 minutes ago, Xcapobl said:

That from the mouth of a man who also tells Luke his father is dead... "from a certain point of view". Who's to say that the Will of the Force isn't for you to want to use the Force to lift an object or influence a mind left and right?

Well now you are getting into the debate of free will vs determinism, and that's such a loaded ball of trouble that I don't even feel like touching it with someone else's 10ft pole. If "It's all as the Force wills it", then the Force is a bipolar a$$hole who apparently likes toying with beings in an eternal argument with itself (light vs dark), and is willing to let bajillions die on a regular basis because of some internal morality debate with itself. And to me at least, that's just a terrible premise to try and tell a story in, as it removes ALL agency on the part of the players, and turns what most consider to be a somewhat neutral energy with some awareness, into this all powerful puppet master, that sways all actions to it's whims, good and bad.

19 minutes ago, Xcapobl said:

When even Vulcans have (very repressed) emotions, how can we expect a Force-Sensitive person of any species from the Star Wars galaxy (that has nothing to do with the Star Trek Universe, but which serves as a good example anyways) to not have emotions, feelings? We see, on-screen, how Obi-Wan has feelings. He loved Anakin like a brother, he is grief-stricken when he actually must use his high-ground advantage to chop some limbs. However, he doesn't follow up on his anger and grief (there is no emotion, there is peace) after he incapacitated Anakin. Obi-Wan could have easily performed a coup-de-grace then and there. One lightsaber thrust through that Anakin head. He didn't. No vengeance, no anger, no acting out of emotions.

Eh, the Obi-Wan / Anakin "high ground" scene is one that I consider very muddy about the actual morality of what happens. Somehow, leaving someone in excruciating agony, to be slowly consumed by fire (we even see it on screen), instead of either getting him medical help, or at least giving him a clean death, is somehow the "Moral" choice in that scene. I personally disagree that Ben took the....moral high ground (I'm not sorry for that pun!) in that scene, and think the more Jedi thing to do would be to do...well ANYTHING other than just leaving him there to slowly die in again and simmering hatred. But that's just me, and that is technically another thread subject all it's own, and I don't care to derail this one with that tired debate yet again.

23 minutes ago, Xcapobl said:

Which brings us to Jedi not being able to love. Bullocks! They can, and do love. They love their jobs. They love their lightsabers.

Indeed, a few google image searches with safe mode off can confirm they very much... love their lightsabers

24 minutes ago, Xcapobl said:

Which brings us to Jedi not being able to love. Bullocks! They can, and do love. They love their jobs. They love their lightsabers. They love their Order. They love their brothers and sisters. They are all emotionally inclined living persons after all. But the Jedi ways try prevent their followers, the Jedi, to act upon that love and any other emotions that flow forth from it. A Jedi should help his brothers and sisters because it is the right thing to do, not because he loves one more than the other. If one of the brothers or sisters of the Order is killed, the 'true' Jedi shouldn't go all batshit-crazy with anger and hatred and vengeance. he could right that wrong by capturing the killer and bringing that killer to justice, locally or on a grander galactic scheme. Emotions aren't evil, overreacting through emotional detriment is evil.

Which is all just one interpretation of matters, of course. Feel free to interpret things differently.

Which is pretty much in line with my view on the Code about emotions. It's just biologically impossible to divorce a living being from emotions, not without invasive surgery or medication. And it's generally considered a Bad Thing for the being to live like that, as it's quite literally not how they were designed to exist, biologically. Those emotions do serve a purpose, from an evolutionary standpoint, and survival standpoint. Allowing them to totally control your life, and dictate your every action however, isn't good. It's an extreme, a very dangerous extreme, as evidenced by thousands of years of narrative storytelling of characters who lose control and make bad choices due to emotions, and real world examples of the same.

But being a Vulcan isn't good either. Don't let the emotions dictate how you react in the immediate nature, use reason and logic to make sure you are finding the best course of action, as much as is humanly possible for any person to do.

You mean my character’s emotional strengths and weakness lead to the darkside

I agree it’s a doctrine image vs force presences guiding actions discussion. I think Sidious covers the dualism mentioning the two are similar in nearly every way. One just views the use of their will as selfless, acting on a image of something higher. The other uses it all to bend towards whatever arises, primarily their own self serving will.

While I don't think being emotionless is a good character trait, I do believe that it's the logical conclusion of the Jedi religion. In my own view of the Force, the Light and Dark Sides represent stability and instability respectively. This is why I believe the Jedi Order fell, because they failed to acknowledge the natural instability that exists in life. They were willing to support a corrupt government as long as it meant the Galaxy would be stable, even if they had to fight a war for it (this was the major philosophical focus of the Lurmen arc of The Clone Wars). The Order also failed to provide a healthy outlet for the stability that exists within people in the form of emotion.

As far as love goes, I think the Jedi have a very unhealthy view on love. As Anakin states in Attack of the Clones, the Jedi are essentially encouraged to love unconditionally and selflessly as part of their job, with no thought of being loved in return or having an exclusive relationship for fear that those things would lead to jealousy. But exclusive love only leads to jealousy if it is stifled, as it was among the Jedi. If Anakin had been allowed to have his marriage without fear of discovery by the Council, then he wouldn't have been afraid to ask for their help when he saw visions of Padme's death.

20 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Somehow, leaving someone in excruciating agony, to be slowly consumed by fire (we even see it on screen), instead of either getting him medical help, or at least giving him a clean death, is somehow the "Moral" choice in that scene.

I account for this by assuming that even in his pain Anakin would have been impossible to get to. A Force Move to pull him up out of the fire would have been rejected "forcefully", as would a physical attempt to retrieve him. We spend too much time parsing every detail for meaning, when the entire story has to take place in 2 hours and shortcuts must be made.

9 hours ago, Archlyte said:

I have trouble with the idea that the Jedi order as we saw it was vastly different from , well what time period was it doing really great? 10 years before? 100 years before? George made reference to us seeing the Jedi "in their prime" which doesn't sound like he was describing the order in a period of crapping out. I imagine most of this knowledge about how ineffective the Jedi order has become has to come from like comic books or something …

Nah, more or less directly from GL, has the idea for the TCW episodes for "Voices", "Destiny" and "Sacrifice" were a special wish from GL and the whole TCW team was freaking out a little how they could create a literal force planet, a source of the living force and midichlorians in the whole galaxy as something cool and interesting in the show. I think it worked out fine and gave great insights into Yoda's perspective and into his own flaws and nightmares.

And imho anyone who wants to discuss the force its nature and its will or the ideal of the Jedi, which yoda only becomes when the clone wars are basically over … well, anyone who want to have an informed discussion about this should first watch the season 6 final of "The Clone Wars", 3 episode arc. Dark Bane's shadow on Morriband included.

40 minutes ago, whafrog said:

I account for this by assuming that even in his pain Anakin would have been impossible to get to. A Force Move to pull him up out of the fire would have been rejected "forcefully", as would a physical attempt to retrieve him. We spend too much time parsing every detail for meaning, when the entire story has to take place in 2 hours and shortcuts must be made.

Oh I'm fine with his actions from a narrative standpoint, prequels by their nature are shackled by the fact that they have to end at a pre-determined point, just like Rogue One. This requirement of the story can lead to some unfortunate choices that don't hold up under scrutiny. My issue is in the ever present debates on these forums about how he made the "right choice" by doing that. When there are dozens of story examples of the "mercy kill" being the act that the Noble Hero does, and it's portrayed as a good thing.

I mean, in most movies, the person standing there giving a monologue, while a helpless person is writhing in agony, is the Arch Villain But since he's Vader, and he therefore can't die due to Plot Armor, we have to leave him there, with the hero pulling a real jerk move .

And I'm not sure how effective Anakin would've been at rejecting the Move check, seeing as he has no limbs. And the movies have established that everyone who Moves an object has to stick out an arm to do so. Maybe a bloody stump would be sufficient, I don't know, but I think the contested check, with all those dice penalties that Anakin had, would've likely ended in Ben's favor.

This may have been talked about or covered, but I always saw the Jedi code as being there not to make Jedi more powerful, but to try to make the jedi more Responsible. The Jedi are a few thousand super power beings in a galaxy with Quadrillions of people. They are, in essence, the "Supermen" of their world and as such need to be held to a higher standard than your average everyday folk. Having a corrupt politician is normal, having a corrupt cop is bad, having a corrupt super powered being that can control peoples minds and dodge and block bullets that is horrible. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely no matter how much GOOD the jedi may desire to do if they are not taught to control their emotions and taught compassion for all beings than their view of "good" can be twisted. Looking at how many racist groups we have out there, they think they are doing good, they think wiping out the "evil Muslims" will save the poor innocent good christian folk. The no attachment aspect just goes further into this.

What happens when Superman loses Lois Lane..... you have the Injustice comics in which superman becomes an evil dictator. Now you have an entire order of Supermen, sure if one goes off the wagon on a revenge hike the others can try to stop him, but that isn't easy to do and how many are going to die before the other is stopped, and not just ANY other another YOU trained, another YOU got attached to, another who has superman friends that may back him up or may ALSO seek revenge because to stop their friend you had to kill them because NONE of the jedi have been trained not to form attachments.

This is why training to not form attachments is a MUST the Jedi are trained and powerful super beings with a responsibility to that power, they all have the potential to be Superman or the potential to be Zod. Either they need to be like our greatest super heroes and be trained specifically to be BETTER than a normal person to show compassion to all, to not allow greed to be a motivating factor whether that greed be for money, power, fame or love or the dangers of training them are to great and they should not be trained at all.

Edit: ultimately it's not about having no emotions at all after all "compassion is considered ESSENTIAL for a Jedi's life" it's simply possession and attachment that are forbidden because the dangers associated with them and because the Jedi MUST be held to a higher standard.

9 hours ago, Nivrap said:

We get very heavy signs that the Jedi Order is not functioning as intended during The Phantom Menace. The first half of the movie establishes that Qui-Gon is not only a good person, but also a shining example of what a Jedi should be. He doesn't really care about politics (as shown by his dismissive attitude aboard the Trade Federation ship), but rather does what he can to help people, regardless of what it takes. But while he was out rescuing queens and freeing slaves on backwater planets, the Jedi Order sat in their comfy chairs in the highest skyscraper on Coruscant, and saw fit to lecture him about right and wrong.

Wait, we get an idea that Qui Gon is a Jedi we can relate to and like, but that doesn't mean he is a good Jedi. He might be the Jedi that you and I think makes sense, but the source material kind of makes him look like a trouble maker. I don't think you can predicate your answer to that based on the fact that Palpatine took over. Give the Devil some credit here after all lol.

2 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

Nah, more or less directly from GL, has the idea for the TCW episodes for "Voices", "Destiny" and "Sacrifice" were a special wish from GL and the whole TCW team was freaking out a little how they could create a literal force planet, a source of the living force and midichlorians in the whole galaxy as something cool and interesting in the show. I think it worked out fine and gave great insights into Yoda's perspective and into his own flaws and nightmares.

And imho anyone who wants to discuss the force its nature and its will or the ideal of the Jedi, which yoda only becomes when the clone wars are basically over … well, anyone who want to have an informed discussion about this should first watch the season 6 final of "The Clone Wars", 3 episode arc. Dark Bane's shadow on Morriband included.

I have to watch the cartoon to get the concept? hmm

1 hour ago, tunewalker said:

SNIP

My problem with the "if they have attachments they will all end up like Superman if Lois dies" theory is that, well that's just not how everyone works. For one, to say Superman is that emotionally unstable, that having one person die would suddenly make him go crazypants, and enslave the entire planet, is just sensationalistic writing. I know they've done it, but it doesn't mean it's actually how it would play out. What about all those good, upstanding morals that the Kents instilled in Clark? You know, the very ones that have made him be the paragon of virtue and morality for an entire planet for like 70ish years? That he wouldn't be able to handle losing a loved one, and that the ONLY response he's capable of, is a Scorched Earth policy, just seems like lazy writing to me. It's a quick, easy way to justify completely flipping the standard morality of an iconic character.

And remember, you have the polar opposite example of this scenario too. Batman lost his loved ones, and it's what turned him INTO a hero.

So I personally dislike the "Jedi can't have attachments, because if they do, when those attachments inevitably break, they will all go Sith, put on black clothing and eyeliner, and become Murder Hobos" just feels hollow to me. It doesn't take into consideration individuality and personal resilience.

I mean that same logic can be said for several priesthoods, that by severing their mortal connections, they attain a higher understanding of their god. The reality is, that they hardly ever actually DO sever those connections, and the attempt to suppress those connections, lead to a lot of unpleasant and illegal activity, and frequently lead to an abandonment of the order entirely.

If we're trying to use real knowledge about these things in a fantasy setting, then the reality is, that this kind of self-isolation, and refutation of personal desires and urges doesn't work and isn't healthy .

Plus, it just makes for some very boring characters. I mean, Vulcans are great characters, but what makes them compelling, is the conflict with their emotions. All of the most famous stories about the Vulcans, usually involve them being confronted with their emotions, or losing control of them because of Ponfar, or some other reason to remove that emotional block. That's where the storytelling comes into play, and makes for a good story.

So why try and have a character who removes them? I think it's much more enjoyable personally, to have them have the goal of living a life, where they don't let their emotions control their actions. Something we struggle to do in the real world every day.

24 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

My problem with the "if they have attachments they will all end up like Superman if Lois dies" theory is that, well that's just not how everyone works. For one, to say Superman is that emotionally unstable, that having one person die would suddenly make him go crazypants, and enslave the entire planet, is just sensationalistic writing. I know they've done it, but it doesn't mean it's actually how it would play out. What about all those good, upstanding morals that the Kents instilled in Clark? You know, the very ones that have made him be the paragon of virtue and morality for an entire planet for like 70ish years? That he wouldn't be able to handle losing a loved one, and that the ONLY response he's capable of, is a Scorched Earth policy, just seems like lazy writing to me. It's a quick, easy way to justify completely flipping the standard morality of an iconic character.

And remember, you have the polar opposite example of this scenario too. Batman lost his loved ones, and it's what turned him INTO a hero.

So I personally dislike the "Jedi can't have attachments, because if they do, when those attachments inevitably break, they will all go Sith, put on black clothing and eyeliner, and become Murder Hobos" just feels hollow to me. It doesn't take into consideration individuality and personal resilience.

I mean that same logic can be said for several priesthoods, that by severing their mortal connections, they attain a higher understanding of their god. The reality is, that they hardly ever actually DO sever those connections, and the attempt to suppress those connections, lead to a lot of unpleasant and illegal activity, and frequently lead to an abandonment of the order entirely.

If we're trying to use real knowledge about these things in a fantasy setting, then the reality is, that this kind of self-isolation, and refutation of personal desires and urges doesn't work and isn't healthy .

Plus, it just makes for some very boring characters. I mean, Vulcans are great characters, but what makes them compelling, is the conflict with their emotions. All of the most famous stories about the Vulcans, usually involve them being confronted with their emotions, or losing control of them because of Ponfar, or some other reason to remove that emotional block. That's where the storytelling comes into play, and makes for a good story.

So why try and have a character who removes them? I think it's much more enjoyable personally, to have them have the goal of living a life, where they don't let their emotions control their actions. Something we struggle to do in the real world every day.

Well again I don't think the jedi completely rid themselves of emotion however the code tries to put them in the situation least likely for this to be problematic. In this case no loved one means 0% chance of losing loved one and going "temporarily insane" because of it. Obi-wan LOVES anakin but has trained himself to let go of him, it hurts him to do so, but he does so for the republic and the greater of the galaxy because as a super powered being that is his responsibility. The point isn't that everyone will have that happen to them, the point is SOMEONE will have that happen to them. The point is if they ALL have family units and the Hutts find out about the entity they can AND WILL use that against them. Even Batman avoids serious long term relationships because of this fact, he can't afford his enemies getting to him through the people he loves, and neither can the Jedi. Simply put the rules are there because they are training super people, these super people are a real threat if they go off the rails or become corrupt so the rules have been put in place to reduce the risk of such a thing happening to as close to 0 as possible. Allowing loved ones simply increases the risk, both of having the Jedi being corrupted by black mail and of the Jedi being involved in a crime of Passion. The Vulcan point is actually perfect here, because the Jedi DO have emotions they are people, but the training is to dim those emotions, the training is to be compassionate without forming attachments the Jedi are unworldly strong thus they should have unworldly wisdom as well and attachments are just to big of a risk.

Edit: that last sentence of yours is exactly what the jedi do. They HAVE emotions, they are human after all but they train themselves to let go of things they fear to lose, they train themselves to not let their hate or their anger or their fear drive them. they are not without emotion simply they train themselves to not be controlled by their emotions, attachments and possession are forbidden as they are risky to that goal by their very nature.

25 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

My problem with the "if they have attachments they will all end up like Superman if Lois dies" theory is that, well that's just not how everyone works. For one, to say Superman is that emotionally unstable, that having one person die would suddenly make him go crazypants, and enslave the entire planet, is just sensationalistic writing. I know they've done it, but it doesn't mean it's actually how it would play out. What about all those good, upstanding morals that the Kents instilled in Clark? You know, the very ones that have made him be the paragon of virtue and morality for an entire planet for like 70ish years? That he wouldn't be able to handle losing a loved one, and that the ONLY response he's capable of, is a Scorched Earth policy, just seems like lazy writing to me. It's a quick, easy way to justify completely flipping the standard morality of an iconic character.

And remember, you have the polar opposite example of this scenario too. Batman lost his loved ones, and it's what turned him INTO a hero.

So I personally dislike the "Jedi can't have attachments, because if they do, when those attachments inevitably break, they will all go Sith, put on black clothing and eyeliner, and become Murder Hobos" just feels hollow to me. It doesn't take into consideration individuality and personal resilience.

I mean that same logic can be said for several priesthoods, that by severing their mortal connections, they attain a higher understanding of their god. The reality is, that they hardly ever actually DO sever those connections, and the attempt to suppress those connections, lead to a lot of unpleasant and illegal activity, and frequently lead to an abandonment of the order entirely.

If we're trying to use real knowledge about these things in a fantasy setting, then the reality is, that this kind of self-isolation, and refutation of personal desires and urges doesn't work and isn't healthy .

Plus, it just makes for some very boring characters. I mean, Vulcans are great characters, but what makes them compelling, is the conflict with their emotions. All of the most famous stories about the Vulcans, usually involve them being confronted with their emotions, or losing control of them because of Ponfar, or some other reason to remove that emotional block. That's where the storytelling comes into play, and makes for a good story.

So why try and have a character who removes them? I think it's much more enjoyable personally, to have them have the goal of living a life, where they don't let their emotions control their actions. Something we struggle to do in the real world every day.

To add to this, the reason why Catholic priests can't marry has nothing to do with God anyway. It was solely a political matter. For the first 1000 years of the faith, Priests actually could marry. However, around the 10th century, the Church decided that it didn't want priestly dynasties, particularly in the higher levels. It didn't want priests passing church holdings down to their sons.

7 minutes ago, tunewalker said:

Even Batman avoids serious long term relationships because of this fact, he can't afford his enemies getting to him through the people he loves, and neither can the Jedi.

\

Yeah...I'm just being "That Guy" right here.

While I, as a long-time comics fan, readily accept the "protecting my loved ones" trope regarding secret identities and personal attachments, it still strikes me as a bit odd when I think about it (a bit too much, maybe). Years ago, fleshing out my own personal super-hero "universe," I had a Superboy-type character whose secret identity was revealed beyond repair. His response was to publicly advise his enemies not to try striking at him through his loved ones, because it would be a really bad idea to make an incredibly powerful teenager that angry at them.

The darkside gets married and attached. The selfless lightside hits it and quits it