Why are so many folks anti-Jedi?

For me it's because without the extra nuance, depth and restraint that can be applied to them (as in the OT) but all too often isn't, they become essentially a childish power-fantasy for people who want to be more special than everyone else.

Also there's a tendency to make everyone that matters a jedi or Sith. It's like that debacle in Shadowrun where they had a character who was an immortal elf and that was fine, but then in 3rd edition suddenly they're everywhere as various author's fantasy stand-ins and half the famous people were secretly elves. We like room for other people to matter and be special too. Again, the OT does this, many other things do not.

That's why they wont be in my game for a good long time if ever, and if a player wants to play one that's okay but only if I think the player will do an interesting and measured character with it, not if they just want to be some silly over the top super-being.

^ Completely agree there.

Why are so many folks anti-Jedi?

For me it's because without the extra nuance, depth and restraint that can be applied to them (as in the OT) but all too often isn't, they become essentially a childish power-fantasy for people who want to be more special than everyone else.

Also there's a tendency to make everyone that matters a jedi or Sith. It's like that debacle in Shadowrun where they had a character who was an immortal elf and that was fine, but then in 3rd edition suddenly they're everywhere as various author's fantasy stand-ins and half the famous people were secretly elves. We like room for other people to matter and be special too. Again, the OT does this, many other things do not.

That's why they wont be in my game for a good long time if ever, and if a player wants to play one that's okay but only if I think the player will do an interesting and measured character with it, not if they just want to be some silly over the top super-being.

But the system doesn't seem to let them be silly over the top super-beings..? So, you shouldn't have any reason to ban them.

Ok, here is the thing, the whole "he is the last hope" thing makes for a good story, but its logically ridiculous to assume that he was the only person possible in the entire galaxy that could have been trained as a Jedi.

Remember that Luke wasn't raised learning to use his powers. You are telling me that not only did the Empire wipe out every Jedi in existence, they also wiped out every single person who could be TRAINED as a Jedi? There was no one else, in the entire galaxy that could possibly be force sensitive? Because the idea that your last hope only began training at 16, and you couldn't possibly find anyone else that could be trained that is the only assumption.

I've always assumed that the whole he is the last hope thing was tied more to visions than being the only force sensitive in the entire galaxy. Yoda and or Obi-wan had experienced glimpses of the future that Luke was the last hope, though Yoda sensed that Leia would work as well.

And as for Tarkin's quote? Well we can't exactly take that for literal when he is dead wrong even in the Original Trilogy. At the least there were 2 left (Obi-wan and Yoda), and its not hard to imagine that there were others that Tarkin either didn't know about or considered insignificant.

There is plenty of room, even in just the Original Trilogy, for Jedi who had survived and went into hiding.

Why are so many folks anti-Jedi?

For me it's because without the extra nuance, depth and restraint that can be applied to them (as in the OT) but all too often isn't, they become essentially a childish power-fantasy for people who want to be more special than everyone else.

Also there's a tendency to make everyone that matters a jedi or Sith. It's like that debacle in Shadowrun where they had a character who was an immortal elf and that was fine, but then in 3rd edition suddenly they're everywhere as various author's fantasy stand-ins and half the famous people were secretly elves. We like room for other people to matter and be special too. Again, the OT does this, many other things do not.

That's why they wont be in my game for a good long time if ever, and if a player wants to play one that's okay but only if I think the player will do an interesting and measured character with it, not if they just want to be some silly over the top super-being.

But the system doesn't seem to let them be silly over the top super-beings..? So, you shouldn't have any reason to ban them.

And I haven't "banned them". The very post you quote says I might allow them if a player would do them justice. The question I responded to was why so many people are "anti-jedi". And that is why. (imo, anyway.)

I've always assumed that the whole he is the last hope thing was tied more to visions than being the only force sensitive in the entire galaxy. Yoda and or Obi-wan had experienced glimpses of the future that Luke was the last hope, though Yoda sensed that Leia would work as well.

I always took it to mean that Luke was the only one with a strong enough connection to the Force (he is his father's son, after all) to defeat Vader and the Emperor both. After all, Yoda is on his way out, and Kenobi is dead; and I doubt either of them know whether or not any of their former Jedi-companions are still alive and breathing. Hell, as far as either of them could be concerned, the Empire DID wipe out the rest of the Jedi - if that is what they believe, then Luke is the only hope that they know of (aside from Leia).

I've always assumed that the whole he is the last hope thing was tied more to visions than being the only force sensitive in the entire galaxy. Yoda and or Obi-wan had experienced glimpses of the future that Luke was the last hope, though Yoda sensed that Leia would work as well.

I always took it to mean that Luke was the only one with a strong enough connection to the Force (he is his father's son, after all) to defeat Vader and the Emperor both. After all, Yoda is on his way out, and Kenobi is dead; and I doubt either of them know whether or not any of their former Jedi-companions are still alive and breathing. Hell, as far as either of them could be concerned, the Empire DID wipe out the rest of the Jedi - if that is what they believe, then Luke is the only hope that they know of (aside from Leia).

And even more than this, Yoda is the last Jedi master so far as he knows (and very probably is right). Even if there are other Force sensitives out there, Luke and Leia are his only chance to pass on his teachings and save the Jedi order from extinction. So it's not only about overthrowing the Emperor. Yoda and Ben might view this as a Jedi vs. Sith thing. When Yoda says "our last hope", consider that may be "our" the Jedi, not "our" the rebels.

Why are so many folks anti-Jedi?

For me it's because without the extra nuance, depth and restraint that can be applied to them (as in the OT) but all too often isn't, they become essentially a childish power-fantasy for people who want to be more special than everyone else.

Also there's a tendency to make everyone that matters a jedi or Sith. It's like that debacle in Shadowrun where they had a character who was an immortal elf and that was fine, but then in 3rd edition suddenly they're everywhere as various author's fantasy stand-ins and half the famous people were secretly elves. We like room for other people to matter and be special too. Again, the OT does this, many other things do not.

That's why they wont be in my game for a good long time if ever, and if a player wants to play one that's okay but only if I think the player will do an interesting and measured character with it, not if they just want to be some silly over the top super-being.

This sounds a lot like "my players are immature and can't be trusted."

@ Maelora: At least the current canon policy means that the Rebels cast won't successfully bring back the Jedi as an order, as opposed to hermits, hideaways and rogues... in that respect, Palpatine already succeeded in the Purge.

Why are so many folks anti-Jedi?

For me it's because without the extra nuance, depth and restraint that can be applied to them (as in the OT) but all too often isn't, they become essentially a childish power-fantasy for people who want to be more special than everyone else.

Also there's a tendency to make everyone that matters a jedi or Sith. It's like that debacle in Shadowrun where they had a character who was an immortal elf and that was fine, but then in 3rd edition suddenly they're everywhere as various author's fantasy stand-ins and half the famous people were secretly elves. We like room for other people to matter and be special too. Again, the OT does this, many other things do not.

That's why they wont be in my game for a good long time if ever, and if a player wants to play one that's okay but only if I think the player will do an interesting and measured character with it, not if they just want to be some silly over the top super-being.

This sounds a lot like "my players are immature and can't be trusted."

Sometimes that's the case. Certainly describes one person in our group.

For most though it would just be a case of them not being familiar with the setting / how I see the setting. If someone just sits down fresh at the table they don't necessarily know the subtleties of the world you're creating - I mean how would they? And even with something established like Star Wars a lot of people are just going to think "Star Wars? I will be Obi Wan Kenobe, then". It takes time and sometimes enforcement to establish a game world. Saying "no Jedi without special GM approval" avoids awkward or frustrating clashes of expectation.

Or was I supposed to be taking your comment on my post as a criticism? Are you implying that my players are mature and can be trusted and that I'm doing something wrong by them? I would ask you if you've met them to make such judgements on me, if that is the case.

Or was I supposed to be taking your comment on my post as a criticism? Are you implying that my players are mature and can be trusted and that I'm doing something wrong by them? I would ask you if you've met them to make such judgements on me, if that is the case.

No criticism of you or your group here.

It just seems like a lot of the anti-Jedi sentiment boils down to "Jedi are bad because my players are dicks." Blaming the setting or system when it is a player problem doesn't seem productive.

I would never want to be the sort of GM that thinks I have full rights to the game world we're playing in. I wouldn't want to play with one either, personally. Dungeon World is the greatest example of this, where you start a campaign/adventure/session by having players describe details about the world/situation.

That's what makes a game memorable, not "remember that time I had to act a certain way or risk being ostracized?" You don't hear a lot of stories that start like that and end on a positive note, unless its "and then I got the hell out of there and found a much more enjoyable group to play with!"

Now, maybe your group isn't as bad as that, but that's sure what you kind of make it sound like when you talk about people needing to conform to how you see the Star Wars universe.

Why are so many folks anti-Jedi?

Everything about the Jedi and the purge is being retconned for the stories that Disney is writing.

Obviously That means Vader didn't do very good at hunting down and killing every Jedi during the 18 years betwean RotS and ANH. Now the Emporer has "inquisitors" instead of Just Vader. Because Vader is too busy chasing down a Farmboy all over the Galaxy, trying to get his old lightsaber back

Also it contradicts what Tarkin said

"The Jedi are extinct, their fire has gone out of the universe. You, my friend, are all that's left of their religion."

and also contradicts Yoda when he talks about another. Unless he is talking about Luke and Liea being the only ones POWERFUL enough in the force to defeat the Emporer or even Vader. So yea. you can be a psuedo Jedi, but you are never going to be more powerful then the Emporer, Luke, Vader, or even possibly Liea.

For those of us who grew up without The prequals, that was dogma. and even the prequals support the idea that all the jedi were killed by either Vader, or order 66. except for Yoda and Obi-wan.

It makes the whole ESB and RotJ movies rather lame and less Epic if you think there were other people besides Luke and Vader using Lightsabers. if Luke dies, or is even turned, the Galaxy is doomed. If Luke defeats the Emperor, the Galaxy is saved. But we find out in the End the only way to defeat the Emperor, is to turn Vader BACK to the lightside and defeat the Emperor and the only person who could do that was Luke (or maybe Liea)

But LOOK OUT... here comes Kanan Jarrus (DUN DUN DUN!) he was just a Padawan, but had just enough training to make his own saber, avoid Vader and any inqusitors, and now is going to train plucky kid sidekick Bridger just like Kanan was trained by his now DEAD former master.

No retconning is necessary here, unless we take Tarkin's (obviously erroneous) and Yoda's (possibly qualified, possibly mistaken) statements as fact and not in-character assumptions about the state of the galaxy.

So what if there are dozens of "Jedi" in hiding around the galaxy? As was pointed out earlier in another thread, 99% of even 10,000 is a pretty effective purge.

No retconning is necessary here, unless we take Tarkin's (obviously erroneous) and Yoda's (possibly qualified, possibly mistaken) statements as fact and not in-character assumptions about the state of the galaxy.

So what if there are dozens of "Jedi" in hiding around the galaxy? As was pointed out earlier in another thread, 99% of even 10,000 is a pretty effective purge.

Not only was Tarkin obviously incorrect even within the scope of the EXACT SCENE HE WAS IN (As in, he was telling Vader there was no way Obi-wan was there), but I don't think Yoda ever actually says that there are no more survivors of the Purge. The closest he gets is is telling Luke that after he dies, Luke will be the Last of the Jedi, and from a certain point of view, he could be correct.

If there was a self trained Padawan somewhere, who survived Order 66 and trained himself afterwords, would Yoda necessarily consider him a Jedi? If a Jedi was doing nothing but hiding, has he not abandoned his goal of protecting the galaxy? Is he still a Jedi to Yoda?

Luke on the other hand, was being the shining beacon of what a Jedi should be. A little impatient at times, but he was out there protecting the galaxy, being an active force of good in the universe. In a way, doesn't that make him the Last of the Jedi.

And its not like Obi-wan and Yoda haven't been shown to shade the truth a bit to serve their goals.

Also, go back and watch the scene where he mentions another in Return. He literally says: There is another SKYWALKER. He wasn't talking about another person who could use the force, he was specifically saying there was one more left of Vader's line. He says Skywalker right as he is dying so its kind of hard to hear, but its there.

'Luke on the other hand, was being the shining beacon of what a Jedi should be.'

Wow, you sure are lucky that the old fluff got booted into the Legends EU.

There are/were several instances where the Jedis stood aside and let mad dictators, warlords and even the Mandalorians run rampage for years because they thought it did not concern them/was mingling in politics.

Wow, you sure are lucky that the old fluff got booted into the Legends EU.

There are/were several instances where the Jedis stood aside and let mad dictators, warlords and even the Mandalorians run rampage for years because they thought it did not concern them/was mingling in politics.

Which were all intended to point out that the Jedi Order had become too inwardly concerned, too bureaucratic, and too slow to act.

KotOR II is one of my favorite video games of all time. The Jedi Exile is also a shining beacon of what a Jedi should be (if you follow the light side path). The Jedi Council on the other hand, were mostly arrogant jerks.

If people are suffering, that is where the Jedi should be. The Jedi of the KotOR era were too concerned with contemplation, and the Jedi of the Clone Wars era were too concerned with Politics. The Clone Wars cartoon really highlights the last part a lot, for instance in the 5th season when Mandalore has fallen to Death Watch, and the Jedi refuse to do anything because the Republic didn't want to be involved in the internal affairs of planet neutral in the ongoing war.

Or when the Jedi Order bowed to the Republic military demanding Ahsoka Tano be excommunicated so that she could face a military trial.

They cared more about politics than doing the right thing. They were a ineffectual body hampered by bureaucracy. They were not what Jedi should be.

As Pro-Canon and Jedi Lover, I 100% agree with Emperor Norton

...2 sentence response with 20 embedded pictures and 2 videos incoming.

Wow, you sure are lucky that the old fluff got booted into the Legends EU.

There are/were several instances where the Jedis stood aside and let mad dictators, warlords and even the Mandalorians run rampage for years because they thought it did not concern them/was mingling in politics.

Which were all intended to point out that the Jedi Order had become too inwardly concerned, too bureaucratic, and too slow to act.

KotOR II is one of my favorite video games of all time. The Jedi Exile is also a shining beacon of what a Jedi should be (if you follow the light side path). The Jedi Council on the other hand, were mostly arrogant jerks.

If people are suffering, that is where the Jedi should be. The Jedi of the KotOR era were too concerned with contemplation, and the Jedi of the Clone Wars era were too concerned with Politics. The Clone Wars cartoon really highlights the last part a lot, for instance in the 5th season when Mandalore has fallen to Death Watch, and the Jedi refuse to do anything because the Republic didn't want to be involved in the internal affairs of planet neutral in the ongoing war.

Or when the Jedi Order bowed to the Republic military demanding Ahsoka Tano be excommunicated so that she could face a military trial.

They cared more about politics than doing the right thing. They were a ineffectual body hampered by bureaucracy. They were not what Jedi should be.

Jedi in the KOTOR era were insane one way, like sitting back and doing nothing while the Mandalorians were counquering whole worlds and committing genocide yet claiming to be defenders of peace and justice.

Jedi in the post Rusan and Clone Wars era were insane in another way namely following along wherever the Republic led even if they should b trying to stop the Republic because what the Republic was doing was wrong.

As for Ahsoka she deserved to be handed over for trial. She was pretty much doing everything she could to make herself look guilty. That's a large part of why her being mad at the Jedi for not trusting her so utterly pathetic. That and the fact she expected the Republic and Jedi to trust her when her actions proved she didn't trust them at all.

To be honest, she didn't trust them for good reason. The only people who expressed doubt that she could have done it were Obi-Wan, Anakin, and Rex. And as for her not trusting the Republic, Tarkin pretty much declared her guilty immediately and then completely isolated her from any support network she had.

And that is beside the point. Whether the Jedi should have trusted her or not matters not one bit. It was a Jedi matter. The Jedi police their own. EVEN IF SHE WAS GUILTY, THE JEDI WERE THE ONES TO DETERMINE THAT. And that was obviously an agreement the Jedi had with the Republic, otherwise Palpatine would not have had to suggest they excommunicate her first.

They DECLARED her guilty and excommunicated her, without any sort of trial or investigation. They bowed to Republic demands without actually looking into it themselves because it was the political move.

Jedi shouldn't make political moves. They should make the right moves, even when they are unpopular.

And lets be fair here. Its obvious that no one considered investigating the possibility she was innocent except Anakin, considering it took him all of like, 1 to 2 days to figure out what really happened. You think a real Republic investigation couldn't have uncovered that if they had actually tried?

Or was I supposed to be taking your comment on my post as a criticism? Are you implying that my players are mature and can be trusted and that I'm doing something wrong by them? I would ask you if you've met them to make such judgements on me, if that is the case.

No criticism of you or your group here.

It just seems like a lot of the anti-Jedi sentiment boils down to "Jedi are bad because my players are dicks." Blaming the setting or system when it is a player problem doesn't seem productive.

I get where you're coming from. I respond with pretty much exactly the same argument when people argue for gun control with me. Blaming the availability of guns - even though they are often misused, they have legitimate uses and can be fun - for what people do when they have access to them, is wrong for exactly the reasons and logic you just gave above. We shouldn't curtail access to them just because some people are "dicks" as you put it.

I would never want to be the sort of GM that thinks I have full rights to the game world we're playing in. I wouldn't want to play with one either, personally. Dungeon World is the greatest example of this, where you start a campaign/adventure/session by having players describe details about the world/situation.

That's what makes a game memorable, not "remember that time I had to act a certain way or risk being ostracized?" You don't hear a lot of stories that start like that and end on a positive note, unless its "and then I got the hell out of there and found a much more enjoyable group to play with!"

Now, maybe your group isn't as bad as that, but that's sure what you kind of make it sound like when you talk about people needing to conform to how you see the Star Wars universe.

Tough, basically. No-one is forced to play in my games and my players tell me I run some of the best games around. If I put a lot of work into creating a setting I enjoy, someone doesn't get to throw in things that would spoil it for me because their likes should override mine. I set rules. If someone were forced to play my game you might have a point. Instead, they are invited. What makes you think that their wishes should override mine? Especially when I've worked so hard on it?

I would never want to be the sort of GM that thinks I have full rights to the game world we're playing in. I wouldn't want to play with one either, personally. Dungeon World is the greatest example of this, where you start a campaign/adventure/session by having players describe details about the world/situation.

That's what makes a game memorable, not "remember that time I had to act a certain way or risk being ostracized?" You don't hear a lot of stories that start like that and end on a positive note, unless its "and then I got the hell out of there and found a much more enjoyable group to play with!"

Now, maybe your group isn't as bad as that, but that's sure what you kind of make it sound like when you talk about people needing to conform to how you see the Star Wars universe.

Tough, basically. No-one is forced to play in my games and my players tell me I run some of the best games around. If I put a lot of work into creating a setting I enjoy, someone doesn't get to throw in things that would spoil it for me because their likes should override mine. I set rules. If someone were forced to play my game you might have a point. Instead, they are invited. What makes you think that their wishes should override mine? Especially when I've worked so hard on it?

Wow, that is some massive ego and entitlement. An entire group of people's idea of fun shouldn't have any impact of your singular idea of fun? This isn't about what you actually do or don't do, but the way you're talking about it is amazing to me. You didn't create the Star Wars setting. You are throwing your own ideas into the universe created by Lucas and other writers. But other people aren't entitled to have any input? Why is your fun the ultimate power in the universe? Why can't it be a collaborative experience? I'm not saying you should allow something completely ridiculous, but just flat out saying "If it doesn't fit perfectly, it needs to be expunged" is crazy.

Like, you may run a fine game, but what you're actually typing makes you seem like a GM from hell, and pretty bad at the actual craft. It comes off as if you're saying that the players need to be following your script rather than experiencing your story, despite the fact you should be thankful you have players.

A player has a ton of outlets for their role as player. A GM doesn't. What a GM gets from players, the chance to shepherd a story and give a bunch of people a great time? That's something unique. You may be "working hard", but that doesn't entitle you to anything. I will take a newbie GM who realizes how lucky he is to have dedicated players who want to be a part of his world, over a well-practice GM whose an arrogant dictator any day of the week. The road may be bumpier, but its going to be a hell of a lot more fun in the end.

I'm not sure how "Players control their characters, I control the rest of the world" is somehow coming up as bad GMing.

Or how in the world GMs should feel privileged to have players play in their games. I'll just say, as someone who hasn't played in a game in years and years and years, because I've ran every game I've been in in recent memory, there are way way way way more players than GMs in the tabletop community. And a good GM is even rarer.

If you want to paint him saying its his table so he makes the rules of the game as being some kind of dictator, that same level of putting words in peoples mouths makes me want to say you are an entitled player who takes for granted the rarity of a good GM and the amount of work that goes into doing it.

But I'm sure that is not what you are saying, so I have no interest in actually accusing you of that. So how about you give him the same courtesy.