43 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

No. It was because they abandoned the mysticism of the Force and became a more secular organization.

Ok thank you that makes sense to me. My next question would be what the evidence is for this? Where are they shown abandoning their old ways for new secular ideals?

7 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Adding in some in-game terms: According to Master and Apprentice , Foreseeing is a rare power among CW-era Jedi. They scoff at mysticism and prophecy, viewing attempts to see the future as dangerously close to attempting to control the future (a dark side action). Without Foreseeing, Jedi might have ranks in Uncanny Reactions to bolster their (typically) high Willpower and Vigilance scores, but the set-up with the clones likely gives the Jedi Setback on their Initiative checks and/or grants Boost to the Clones (that probably tend towards average Presence and Cool scores). In fact, with Palpatine's whole scheme in place, it is quite possible that Jedi had their Difficulties on the Initiative rolls Upgraded, and Despairs on that roll could be quite nasty. In many cases, it seemed that the clones did best when the Jedi was currently engaged with CIS forces and seeing as the Clones all have at least one rank of Knowledge (Warfare) while Jedi don't seem to have it means the Jedi could be out maneuvered by their "grunts" in the field.

@Archlyte Happydaze covered it.

46 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Ok thank you that makes sense to me. My next question would be what the evidence is for this? Where are they shown abandoning their old ways for new secular ideals?

There's really several sources that touch upon the Jedi become less servants of the Force and more servants of the Republic (offer more specifically the Senate and Chancellor's office). Master and Apprentice is merely the most recent one.

1 hour ago, HappyDaze said:

There's really several sources that touch upon the Jedi become less servants of the Force and more servants of the Republic (offer more specifically the Senate and Chancellor's office). Master and Apprentice is merely the most recent one.

Is that a novel? OK so the only way this could possibly make any sense would be if the Jedi are just spending massive amounts of time doing other things besides learning about the Force and meditating or whatever.

Their skills atrophy as they start doing other things.

But this would mean that Force ability requires constant maintenance. That if you were a Jedi and somehow had to do other things you would lose your ability to use the Force. I don't see anything in the movies that seems to indicate that this is the case. This sounds like real mental gymnastics to try and justify the fact that George didn't figure out a better way to have Jedi in proximity with Palpatine and get beat by him without resorting to Jedi Weak + Palpatine Invisible.

24 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

But this would mean that Force ability requires constant maintenance. That if you were a Jedi and somehow had to do other things you would lose your ability to use the Force. I don't see anything in the movies that seems to indicate that this is the case.

Kanan Jarrus in Rebels, Luke Skywalker in TLJ, Obi-Wan Kenobi in An New Hope (Your powers are weak, old man) are three examples of this in the movies and TV.

42 minutes ago, Kyla said:

Kanan Jarrus in Rebels, Luke Skywalker in TLJ, Obi-Wan Kenobi in An New Hope (Your powers are weak, old man) are three examples of this in the movies and TV.

Those three are some pretty weak examples. Kanan was only a Padawan before Order 66, and even after being in hiding and not using a lightsaber for 14 years, he's able to immediately stand his ground against several stormtroopers with little apparent difficulty. Kanan improves over Season 1, but there's nothing to really suggest that he had grown rusty from when he'd been a Padawan during the Clone Wars.

Luke in TLJ had actually cut himself off from the Force. And yet despite this, as soon as he reconnects to it, he's shown destroying the hut Rey is talking to Kylo in (Luke's biggest TK showing on screen), defeating Rey in a fight (until she escalates the encounter by pulling out a lightsaber), and projecting himself across the galaxy (a feat Kylo felt was pretty much impossible).

Ben Kenobi may have been in hiding for 19 years, but he spent that time growing in the Force, learning from Qui-Gon how to become one with it. Vader taunted Ben and called him weak, sure, but that doesn't mean Ben's powers have lessened since the Clone Wars. Perhaps Vader just feels he is far more powerful than Ben at this point. If Ben were truly so weak, he wouldn't have three-shot Maul, and he wouldn't have stonewalled Vader for as long as he did.

25 minutes ago, Underachiever599 said:

If Ben were truly so weak .... he wouldn't have stonewalled Vader for as long as he did.

You and I remember that fight far differently. I saw someone who was visibly struggling to keep up with Vader, whom in the RotS he was equally blow for blow. Kanan in his own words when he was talking about teaching Ezra spoke of how he wasn't even sure he could do so, citing not just his own lack of training but also how he had locked it away for so long he didn't know if he could do that anymore. Kylo didn't say it was impossible, merely that "it would have killed" whomever did it ... which it did.

And "weak" in your opinion or not, they are examples that refute the statement "I don't see anything in the movies that seems to indicate that this is the case" which is the whole point of providing the examples.

56 minutes ago, Kyla said:

You and I remember that fight far differently. I saw someone who was visibly struggling to keep up with Vader, whom in the RotS he was equally blow for blow. Kanan in his own words when he was talking about teaching Ezra spoke of how he wasn't even sure he could do so, citing not just his own lack of training but also how he had locked it away for so long he didn't know if he could do that anymore. Kylo didn't say it was impossible, merely that "it would have killed" whomever did it ... which it did.

And "weak" in your opinion or not, they are examples that refute the statement "I don't see anything in the movies that seems to indicate that this is the case" which is the whole point of providing the examples.

Having done an in-depth breakdown of every movie lightsaber duel (way too much time on my hands two years ago), I can tell you that based off of choreography, Old Ben was far more offensive in ANH than he'd been in RotS, and his overall performance was better against Vader than his younger self against Anakin. Also, considering Anakin drove Obi-Wan back through all the Mustafar duel, constantly landing kicks and punches, I'd hardly claim that Obi-Wan was Anakin's equal "blow for blow." But if you view it differently, you're welcome to your opinion on the matter.

Edit: Can't sleep, decided to rewatch the two lightsaber duels in question. I still stand by my belief that Old Ben did better against Vader than Obi-Wan did against Anakin, but a minor correction is necessary. In terms of punches/kicks landed, Obi-Wan hit Anakin four times, while Anakin hit him five. So that is fairly close to being equal, "blow for blow," in that regard. However, Obi-Wan very seldom delivers any counter-attacks during the majority of the duel, and is stuck merely defending himself all the way until the end, while Old Ben occasionally manages to make Vader give ground, and overall holds his ground better against the Sith.

It's been a while since I watched Rebels Season 1 (keep loaning out my copy), but I don't recall Kanan saying he doesn't feel he can be a Jedi any more after having locked it away for so long. Even if he did, depending on how it's worded, he might be referencing Jedi teachings and morality, not necessarily the actual skillset. Again, the moment he pulls out a lightsaber, he performs just fine against a large number of stormtroopers. He isn't displayed ever struggling to use telekinesis, (that I recall) despite having avoided using it for half of his life.

I didn't say Kylo called it "impossible," just that he believed it "pretty much" impossible. He thought that a few seconds of projection would have killed Rey. Luke held his projection for minutes. Seems pretty impressive to me, and doesn't at all indicate that not using the Force for a few years weakens you.

So while those could be seen as examples that Force powers might atrophy from disuse, I personally disagree with that assessment.

4 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Ok thank you that makes sense to me. My next question would be what the evidence is for this? Where are they shown abandoning their old ways for new secular ideals?

Check out Dooku: Jedi Lost and Master and Apprentice for some good recent examples. A heavy theme in both is the Jedi Council refusing to heed visions of the future provided by the Force because they are so afraid that seeing the future is tantamount to trying to control it. And of course, trying to control the future is the path to the Dark Side. So rather than acknowledge the warnings provided by the Force, the Jedi Council's decisions tend to be "do nothing when one of our Jedi has a vision." Great example of the Jedi losing their reverence for the Force due to their dogmatic nature.

I see the force as being a perishable skill. Most skills are.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

I see the force as being a perishable skill. Most skills are.

Anyone see Maul vs. Kenobi in the Rebels series?

15 hours ago, Daeglan said:

No. 2 different problems. according to from What tramp says the mucking with the Jedi temple Nexus by palps did that.

But there is also their aversion to using Foresee.

but the manipulation of the Nexus could have a negative effect on how the jedi behave subtly such that they start being a little harsher in their arbitration. a little more rigid. a little more dogmatic. a .5 degree shift in path can be hundreds of miles off course after hundreds of years. and those subtle influences can have students learning things slightly off and allowing further deviation.

Correction there: Palpatine didn't manipulate the nexus beneath the Jedi temple. The Jedi Temple was built upon a Dark Side nexus to begin with. It had been done in an attempt to purify it, and erase the ancient Sith presence on Coruscant. It failed on both counts.The Nexus itself is what clouded the Jedi's vision. Palpatine simply took advantage of this fact, but didn't have to do anything to the Nexus itself in order to do so.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Correction there: Palpatine didn't manipulate the nexus beneath the Jedi temple. The Jedi Temple was built upon a Dark Side nexus to begin with. It had been done in an attempt to purify it, and erase the ancient Sith presence on Coruscant. It failed on both counts.The Nexus itself is what clouded the Jedi's vision. Palpatine simply took advantage of this fact, but didn't have to do anything to the Nexus itself in order to do so.

Wasn't Palpatine doing rituals at the nexus?

2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Wasn't Palpatine doing rituals at the nexus?

No. Not to my knowledge . I haven't read Tarkin , though. The Nexus itself was buried deep below the bowels of the Jedi Temple, so how Palpatine would have reached it without the Jedi knowing, would be a feat in and of itself.

9 hours ago, Underachiever599 said:

Check out Dooku: Jedi Lost and Master and Apprentice for some good recent examples. A heavy theme in both is the Jedi Council refusing to heed visions of the future provided by the Force because they are so afraid that seeing the future is tantamount to trying to control it. And of course, trying to control the future is the path to the Dark Side. So rather than acknowledge the warnings provided by the Force, the Jedi Council's decisions tend to be "do nothing when one of our Jedi has a vision." Great example of the Jedi losing their reverence for the Force due to their dogmatic nature.

So RotS came out in 2005. Near as I can tell that Master and Apprentice book is pretty recent. Some writers looked this same problem and decided to start filling in details to try and explain it.

Ok so it sounds like in the book the Jedi are getting all of these warnings that something is up but they don't act on it. Acting on it would have looked like what exactly? What could they have done to avoid the Force abandoning them?

33 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

So RotS came out in 2005. Near as I can tell that Master and Apprentice book is pretty recent. Some writers looked this same problem and decided to start filling in details to try and explain it.

Ok so it sounds like in the book the Jedi are getting all of these warnings that something is up but they don't act on it. Acting on it would have looked like what exactly? What could they have done to avoid the Force abandoning them?

That's getting dangerously into spoiler territory, which is something I'd prefer to avoid. You are correct that the book is recent, but you hadn't made any previous stipulation about what time frame you're willing to pull sources from. It's all equally canon, so I don't see how a more recent explanation is any less valid to you than examples from 1999-2005. To me, the fact that writers are attempting to correct "mistakes" in the prequels, even to this day, is a major strength of the franchise.

Just now, Underachiever599 said:

That's getting dangerously into spoiler territory, which is something I'd prefer to avoid. You are correct that the book is recent, but you hadn't made any previous stipulation about what time frame you're willing to pull sources from. It's all equally canon, so I don't see how a more recent explanation is any less valid to you than examples from 1999-2005. To me, the fact that writers are attempting to correct "mistakes" in the prequels, even to this day, is a major strength of the franchise.

Well I guess that came off as more argumentative than I intended but what I meant was that I don't feel that the filler material is related to the original movie depictions. I think I have wandered off that trail a bit myself in my posts so I cede your point there. I will say that I feel that these authors are not working from the idea that the original depiction was good, but rather they are trying to fix it.

The argument for the fall of the Jedi as it concerns the Jedi, and not the Palpatine part, seems to go something like this:

• Jedi refuse to use Foresee cause they feel like this is controlling the Force
• Jedi were not powerful in the Force in prequel era because they can't multi-task (lose power if they divide their attention)
• Jedi are rigid and as such they failed to consider possibilities of how to deal with situation

what am I missing?

17 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

The argument for the fall of the Jedi as it concerns the Jedi, and not the Palpatine part, seems to go something like this:

• Jedi refuse to use Foresee cause they feel like this is controlling the Force
• Jedi were not powerful in the Force in prequel era because they can't multi-task (lose power if they divide their attention)
• Jedi are rigid and as such they failed to consider possibilities of how to deal with situation

what am I missing?

It's not because the Force abandoned the Jedi (the Force doesn't make choices like that), it's because the Jedi abandoned the Force. Multitasking wasn't the problem, it was seeking to what was best for the Republic/Senate/Chancellor over what was the the right thing to do. They let secular concerns override their values. Not using Foresee is a problem because they couldn't trust themselves not to abuse it for the benefit of the Republic.

22 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

It's not because the Force abandoned the Jedi (the Force doesn't make choices like that), it's because the Jedi abandoned the Force. Multitasking wasn't the problem, it was seeking to what was best for the Republic/Senate/Chancellor over what was the the right thing to do. They let secular concerns override their values. Not using Foresee is a problem because they couldn't trust themselves not to abuse it for the benefit of the Republic.

And meanwhile they were letting themselves be used for the benefit of the Republic rather than doing the right thing. Which probably would have been to let go of their attachment to the Senate. I got stupid. The money was too good. As Jayne Cobb said.

10 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

It's not because the Force abandoned the Jedi (the Force doesn't make choices like that), it's because the Jedi abandoned the Force. Multitasking wasn't the problem, it was seeking to what was best for the Republic/Senate/Chancellor over what was the the right thing to do. They let secular concerns override their values. Not using Foresee is a problem because they couldn't trust themselves not to abuse it for the benefit of the Republic.

Again I am wondering what it is that they did that was so secular and how it was contrary enough to their teachings that it actually weakened them as an entity. Wouldn't it make more sense to just say that they were overcome rather than to need them to be compromised? Seems far more parsimonious to me.

17 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Again I am wondering what it is that they did that was so secular and how it was contrary enough to their teachings that it actually weakened them as an entity.

As one example, Qui-Gon Jinn asked (paraphrased) "Why do the Jedi allow slavery to continue to exist within the Republic?"

1 minute ago, HappyDaze said:

As one example, Qui-Gon Jinn asked (paraphrased) "Why do the Jedi allow slavery to continue to exist within the Republic?"

I think that this falls into the perfect being the enemy of the good . If it wasn't foolishly optimistic to think slavery could be eradicated from the galaxy without some sort of massive war then the Jedi would have done it I believe.

58 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

I think that this falls into the perfect being the enemy of the good . If it wasn't foolishly optimistic to think slavery could be eradicated from the galaxy without some sort of massive war then the Jedi would have done it I believe.

Except the conflict was why the Jedi allowed slavery to continue within the Republic . Slavery (of a particular sort, Master and Apprentice again goes into greater detail) was allowed because it was convenient for the Republic's goals but that raised the issue of whether those should those be the Jedi's goals.

50 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Except the conflict was why the Jedi allowed slavery to continue within the Republic . Slavery (of a particular sort, Master and Apprentice again goes into greater detail) was allowed because it was convenient for the Republic's goals but that raised the issue of whether those should those be the Jedi's goals.

Well if only that book had been written in 2005, maybe George would have read it and it would have explained away all of these concerns. Also the Jedi were not the actual government were they? Seems to me like it was supposed to be a democracy.