The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

The orders rulings on the jedi strictures.
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Adventures and Campaigns -> The orders rulings on the jedi strictures. Goto page Previous  1, 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10286
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Barrataria wrote:
it seems to me that any female jedi would be completely in touch with her body enough to recognize, if not control, ovulation. and thus totally able to choose if and when to have a child.

That's reasonable. And it's not like there couldn't be contraception in the SW galaxy as well. Of course female Jedi can have casual sex too.

Like I said, I just don't see female Jedi travelling around the galaxy acquiring insemination with the intention of procreating Jedi babies. But males? Maybe.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Zarm R'keeg
Commander
Commander


Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 481
Location: PA

PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Generally, the Jedi are hypocrites. They pay lip-service to forbidding attachment, but form father-son bonds between masters and padawans, form strong friendships, are attached to the Republic, etc.

In addition, their moronic reasoning about loving someone being the shadow of greed is, well- moronic. (And easily disproven within the EU; Nomi has her husband struck down in front of her, turned to the dark side, and became a powerful Si- oh, on, wait. She grieved, never turned to the Dark Side, and became one of the most powerful Jedi of her era- almost as if attachment being a path to the dark Side is malarky and Anakin's numerous OTHER character flaws, including possessiveness, fear, pride, and greed were his downfall, rather than his love.) It's also a gross misunderstanding; love, at its core, is selfless- that's the definition of it. Now, perhaps the Jedi feel that romance far too often brings in the selfish-feelings that masquerade as love, and those are the gateways to greed and selfishness, and fair enough... but banning all attachment- essentially, all relationships- because of the potential for someone to form unhealthy strands as Anakin did? Seems a bit extreme. By the same logic, because you *could*cut off your own arm with a lightsaber if you use it improperly, the Jedi should ban lightsabers. Anything can be corrupted, misapplied, or unhealthily twisted- banning the good to prevent the minute possibility of twisting is a baby-out-with-the-bathwater, absurdist solution.

Since numerous other eras show Jedi marrying (including Luke's order, which I will be *furious* if Episode VII overturns and has him adhering to the 'nonattachment' policies of the PT, which would presumably also discount Leia from Jedi membership), and even the PT shows strong bonds, I tend to think of the non-attachment as being a specific doctrine worked into the Jedi order within the last few hundred years before the PT... and a sign of their corruption and internal decay, much as the rising arrogance and pride that Yoda comments on. The whole (oft-overlooked) thing about the PT Jedi is that they were not the pinnacle of Jedi-hood; like the Republic itself, they'd begun to decay within. That's how I view the non-attachment policy, and other portions of the Jedi code; relics of an increasingly out-of-touch order focusing on all the wrong areas and trying to combat the darkness with shortsighted methods.

(Which, on a tangent, is why I dread what Episode VII will portray; because the whole great thing about Luke's order for me, in the last decade, is how he rebuilt the Jedi right- how he threw off the decay and foolhardiness of the old order. It makes Order 66 more like a necessary culling of an increasingly-corrupt, stagnant institution to make room for a new, vibrant order that *can* flourish, because they're unencumbered by the muddied, distorted dogma that the old order was entrenched in and dragged down by. But, back to the topic at hand...)

Interestingly, I think Barrataria and I agree about the decline of the Jedi order... but he sees the nonadherence to the nonattachment standards as evidence of that, while I see the existence *of* those standards to be the evidence. Either way, in relation to the original question of this matchmaker PC, the answer seems to be 'well, they probably wouldn't be especially consistent in how they treat him.' Smile

So, would the Jedi of the PT reject this 'matchmaker' character? Probably (for too-old-to-begin-the-training age, as well as this issue). Would they be hypocrites for doing so? Absolutely- but that's their deal. *However,* if this is set more than 200-300 BBY, then I thinking numerous examples from TOTJ, KOTOR and TOR evidence that this rule was not always in place, and the order would not only accept him, but also not have this policy in place yet. (As shootingwomprats noted, changing dogma).

DarthOmega wrote:
I have a counter question for you (and anyone else who cares to answer), one that I have pondered quite a few times and one you should consider with your current dilemma - how smart is it to kick someone who is only partially trained out of the Jedi Order? Shouldn't they be worried that said person would turn to the Dark Side? Same with not training someone after they've grown up. Again wouldn't it be better to try and train them rather than just let them go with the potential of becoming a dark-sider?


Yeah... agreed. See, there are two points of view with which I'd answer. On the one hand- yeah, it doesn't make sense to give them just enough tools to be dangerous and then dismiss them, or leave them with such power unmonitored. (Kinda like mutant or superhero registration in the Marvel comics; some count it an invasion of privacy, but on the other hand, does it make sense to let such awesome power roam around unmonitored? How many will die if the guy who can crush throats with his mind decides to rob the grocery store, or even set himself up as king of the town, and they send in ordinary, unsuspecting cops to face him?)

On the other hand, that does start to make the Jedi a bit totalitarian, doesn't it? Just like taking candidates at birth; not only are they given no choice in how they're to devote their life, but it's like the Jedi are saying 'We can't afford to have any non-Jedi Force users out there.' To prevent the rise of the Sith or Dark Jedi, that's logical, but... who made them gods over the lives of everyone born with the Force? Who gives them the right to say that everyone with a high midichlorian count must join an order, and can't just live their lives as they see fit? Even if they don't force it on the potential parents, that arrogant assumption is there in the mindset, it seems to be; I dunno, YMMV.

So in that way, the option to leave might be the Dark-Side-riskier but morally-required one. Turning away someone who doesn't want to leave, though- yeah, that makes no sense. It's just going to embitter someone with Force abilities. I suppose if they are judged as insufficient to become a Jedi, they're considered to be a negligable threat if they turn to the Dark Side, because they wouldn't be able to do much about it?


Kytross wrote:
If he had planned jedi celibacy from the beginning, then it is the worst foreshadowed plot point in history, having multiple plot points that contradict it.

It is clear that Jedi celibacy was added in at ep II and previous to that film the concept did not exist and the contrary was true.

In fact, Luke's famous declaration, "I am a Jedi, like my father before me!" makes no sense in context now. If Jedi are celibate, then how can they have children? They would have to violate their celibacy to do so


Yes, yes, and YES. This. I agree wholeheartedly. It's why the comics had to scramble through so many ret-cons after Episode II came out, having written married Jedi in Episode I tie-ins; because no one even had a remote conception that Lucas would come up with such a concept or that Jedi would be this way, and all prior evidence in the other films pointed strongly against it. (Which is, again, why I hope Episode VII won't be taking it's lead from ep. II/III).

Bravo, Kytross- preach it, brother! Wink


Whill wrote:
Qui-Gon obviously had a one-night stand with Shmi in TPM but displayed no signs of attachment to her.


You and I have a different definition of 'obvious'! O_o

Whill wrote:
Regardless of your personal code of conduct, it is possible for some people (especially people well-centered like Jedi Masters) to have casual romantic encounters and not developement attachments.


Yeah... no. That's what the sleep-around culture of the 21st century wants to believe... but that gets into a disagreement wholly outside of the world of Star Wars.

Regardless, if the Jedi are going around 'farming' new recruits with casual sex, they're even more despicable than I previously thought. With every turn of this discussion, Order 66 becomes less and less a tragedy and more and more of a public service. Smile

Whill wrote:
I disagree that Yoda knew of Anakin's involvement with Padme. When Anakin went to Yoda to discuss his visions of someone in his life dying, the novelization indicates that Anakin said it was someone close to him without being specific, to let Yoda believe it was Obi-Wan. There is nothing in the films or anything else I've come across to make me believe that Yoda really knew and just pretended he didn't, but I'd be happy to consider any evidence supporting this claim.


I believe several of the Clone Wars tie-in novels, like Wild Space (and that particular series is actually quite good; Wild Space, Gambit, and Seige, at least) far more strongly implies this. That could be what is being referenced here.


Barrataria wrote:
I don't know why females couldn't have one-nighters too, if they're going to be admitted to the order. Anyway, I agree that it's easy to conceive an order that forbids its members to marry/pair in long-term attachments.


A. I can't believe we're having this discussion... Smile
B. To be fair... I think not forming an attachment to the child you've borne is just a tad more unrealistic than the 'don't form attachments in general' idea. (I.E. No, that would NOT work). So yeah, i agree with Whill there; it would kinda work against the nonattachment message. Although...
C. Padme apparently managed it just before she died. (Oooh! Cheap shot!)


Whill wrote:
I respectfully disagree with all of your statements. It was not a continuity error. Lucas was never bound to maintain continuity with the EU.


Whill, Kytross was citing Lucas' previous draft of the story and the evidence within the previous 4 movies themselves. So, while I agree in principle of 'moral obligation' and semi-disagree in principle of 'moral responsibility' to the entire EU dissertation cited here, Kytross wasn't talking about a continuity error with the EU. He was talking about a continuity error within the films themselves.

And, as stated before, I think he is absolutely 100% right on that. Like 'their fire has gone out of the universe,' there are a LOT of things that are clearly implied by the OT that the PT drops the ball on... things which, even if they can be rationalized, clearly do not jibe with the intent of the OT when it was created. This is one of the bigger ones, IMHO. Like this new Marvels comics Star Wars issue 2 preview that was just released, the prequels didn't do their research sometimes- in terms of both stated facts, and tonal implications. It's something we have to live with as Star Wars fans, unfortunately (and why some of us probably aren't as hot on the PT). The two trilogies just don't mesh seamlessly; no matter how many retcons or rationalizations are thrown at them, there are still things that tonally conflict, and were clearly not meant or intended to be as they ended up portrayed. (We've discussed this in issues like Obi-wan/Vader's age, the timing of the Clone Wars, etc.) How one reacts is, I suppose, an artifact of one's "certain point of view." If what was established is of paramount importance (the 'it came first' view, as it were), then these conflicts are clear and bothersome, and the fact that decisions weren't made based on what had been established is irksome. If embracing all trilogies equally is of paramount importance (the 'well, they're all here now, so they're all of equal weight' view, as it were), then those conflicts will be papered over, dismissed, or simply ignored to maintain an equal authority between entries. And each way of approaching the films is, I think valid.

But I'm with Kytross here- whether one lets it bother them or not, tries to retcon or not, there are clear inconsistencies between the trilogies in what they establish and what their plain intent or implication was... and the Jedi order's non-attachment policy springs directly out of nowhere in episode two, with no hints in any of the previous 4 movies, and lots of hints to contradict it.

Much like, if avengers 2 does decide to introduce Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver as mutants, it would feel very odd because there are a whole lot of prexisting entries that don't mention them, and plenty in them to imply that metahuman powers are rare. Nowhere in any of those films does someone say the line "there's no such thing as mutants," but the sudden introduction would certainly jar with how everything is seen, implied, and generally presented. Or, to use a more Star Wars-y example, Ahsoka Tano. Nowhere in Episode III does anyone say 'Anakin never had a Padawan that was extremely important to his life,' but the total lack of any positive reference, and the way he *appears* to be portrayed, still conflict with the later-inserted notion. The tone and intent don't jibe with her existence, even if the solid 'facts' never specifically preclude it.



DISCLAIMER: Not trying to debate the *merits* of either viewpoint or start another argument; just trying to explain what the viewpoint is, since it wasn't coming through clearly and got mistaken for an EU issue previously. And incidentally, to explain why I support/agree with the viewpoint (but not attempting to make a statement that it is the only valid viewpoint! Merely how it appears to me. And, if I can make the assumption, to Kytross; could be wrong about that, though!)
_________________
Star Wars: Marvels, the audio drama: www.nolinecinemas.com

Hard core OT, all the way!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14023
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
garhkal wrote:
Further muddling the issue is Ki-ad mundi, one of the masters who supposedly had more than one wife.

No muddle. The EU did its job and made up a retcon: "Mundi was granted a rare exception to the Jedi Order's ban on marriage due to his species' low birth rate and had a polygamous family of five wives and seven children, although he tried to avoid developing emotional attachments to them." Easy Peasy.


Then there is also the 'exception' they gave to the Halycon and other corellian bloodline jedi.

Quote:
As Corellian Jedi, the Halycons/Horns had customs different from other members of the Jedi order, they did not keep the vow of celibacy and readily married and sired children, they generally did not travel beyond Corellian space, keeping their peacekeeping activities to their home system, and passed ritual Jedi Credits down through the generations.

_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Barrataria
Commander
Commander


Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 295
Location: Republic of California

PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zarm R'keeg wrote:
Generally, the Jedi are hypocrites. They pay lip-service to forbidding attachment, but form father-son bonds between masters and padawans, form strong friendships, are attached to the Republic, etc.


Hooray for nihilism, my favorite of the isms! I think the lightside orders are a lot more interesting with this sort of thing in play. D&D paladins were always kinda boring Smile Then again, I was raised Catholic and have read an awful lot of church history, so the struggle of humans and their adherence to professed values is a timeless theme. My favorite template the Failed Jedi is worthless without that.

Zarm R'keeg wrote:
It's also a gross misunderstanding; love, at its core, is selfless- that's the definition of it. Now, perhaps the Jedi feel that romance far too often brings in the selfish-feelings that masquerade as love, and those are the gateways to greed and selfishness, and fair enough... but banning all attachment- essentially, all relationships- because of the potential for someone to form unhealthy strands as Anakin did? Seems a bit extreme.


Well, of course they're not banning ALL relationships. Certainly not the bands of "brotherhood" (gang signs? Eastside Jedi wut wut). I don't see them as hermetic. But there's a significant strand of Eastern philosophy/religion that deals with this, which Whill talked about in that link of the "ring trilogy". Just as two examples: Gandhi wrote in his autobiography about his decision to be celibate within his marriage, and I'm just finishing a great book about Alexandria and am devouring a chapter about Hypatia, who never married and considered her students and colleagues at her (neoplatonic) school in Alexandria as equal to brethren.

So, I think you're selling the idea short by a long shot, at least saying it's defective by nature. Whether you feel it's tacked in wrongly to the SWU, that I cannot argue. It's not really how I'd run the railroad either, but my philosophy is to not contradict setting stuff in the PT when I don't have to. As I say, it ended up informing how I set up the ancient republic and pre-Jedi orders (none of whom were quite as ascetic in terms of relationships and all of whom thought it was weird).

Zarm R'keeg wrote:
all prior evidence in the other films pointed strongly against it. (Which is, again, why I hope Episode VII won't be taking it's lead from ep. II/III).


That's not totally right as to Ep. I is it? Not arguing your general point, but it seems to me implicit in Ep. I. Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon didn't say anything about families, and (to me) seem as oblivious to familial relations as some priests I've known.

Zarm R'keeg wrote:
Whill wrote:
Qui-Gon obviously had a one-night stand with Shmi in TPM but displayed no signs of attachment to her.


You and I have a different definition of 'obvious'! O_o
Yeah, I think it's a funny observation and like it for my SWU story purposes, but I think it's more subtle in the film.

Zarm R'keeg wrote:
Yeah... no. That's what the sleep-around culture of the 21st century wants to believe... but that gets into a disagreement wholly outside of the world of Star Wars.
I'm Catholic AND an Italian citizen... I can assure you promiscuity existed before 2000 Smile And even, you know, romanticized.

Zarm R'keeg wrote:
Order 66 becomes less and less a tragedy and more and more of a public service. Smile
IMC all the other lightside orders are eventually eliminated or assimilated into the Jedi. I haven't firmly figured out the process, and won't have the Jedi having actually killed anyone, but there will be an element of tragedy to the story of the winnowing of the light side orders in the Republic.

Zarm R'keeg wrote:
A. I can't believe we're having this discussion... Smile
Well, is this a SW nerd board, or isn't it? Laughing

Zarm R'keeg wrote:
B. To be fair... I think not forming an attachment to the child you've borne is just a tad more unrealistic than the 'don't form


What child? I assume the force-sensitive female can stop ovulation. Whill's the guy postulating the Jedi baby harvests. For me the story makes more sense if none of the sworn Jedi (at least of the "warrior order", if you're assuming different branches or whatever) have children... by the rules anyway.
_________________
"A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing"- George Lucas
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10286
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zarm R'keeg wrote:
Whill, Kytross was citing Lucas' previous draft of the story

I just finished reading the three mega "Making Of" books, so I'm familiar with the drafts. Kane Starkiller training his sons was not in the produced version of the films.

Zarm R'keeg wrote:
Whill wrote:
Qui-Gon obviously had a one-night stand with Shmi in TPM but displayed no signs of attachment to her.

You and I have a different definition of 'obvious'! O_o

The money shot is after Qui-Gon makes the second bet with Watto in the pod hanger, and Anakin, Padme, Kitster and Shmi ride up on those camel-things. Qui-Gon goes up to Shmi to help Shmi off the camel, even though they had crouched down to dismount mode, and Qui-Gon says "Good morning" in a clear morning-after voice. It's obvious from that alone, but now take all of the rest of their interactions. They obviously have a chemistry, Qui-Gon smiles at her in that special way, he is even shown putting his hand on her shoulder and rubbing it. All of these things are just the icing on the Jedi sex-without-attachment "good morning" cake.

However, I do concede that just because it was obvious to me upon my first theatrical viewing of the film, that it may not be obvious to all the prequel-detractors that already have a constant frown on their face long before Shmi even enters the story. You guys probably just look away from your TV anytime Anakin or Jar Jar is on the screen, right? Wink

Kytross wrote:
If Jedi are celibate, then how can they have children? They would have to violate thier celibacy to do so

Non-Force sensitive parents can produce Force-sensitive children. TPM establishes that Force-sensitive children born in the Republic are usually identified at a young age and the Jedi then ask the parents to take the child to train them as Jedi. Anakin was born outside of the Republic so was not discovered after birth. When Anakin grew up, he did violate the Jedi code. We learn in the prequels that the violation to the rules is how this Jedi had children. By the time Luke says, "like my father before me", the Jedi Order that had those rules was long since destroyed. Obi-Wan and Yoda were just keeping the flame alive until Luke could destroy the Sith and establish a new Jedi order. I don't see the Jedi Masters going on about all the various rules of the Jedi Order that simply weren't important to Luke's brief training. From the classic films alone, the single most important message in Luke's training was to not cross over to the Dark Side, a very real danger considering Luke's father had turned, Luke wasn't raised in the Jedi Order from birth (as it no longer existed), Luke had seen his aunt and uncle's bodies burned to a crisp by the Empire, Luke' best friend was killed by Vader, Luke was angry and impatient, and Luke had a personal attachment to his Dark Side father who wanted Luke to join him.

tetsuoh wrote:
I have seen and heard of countless jedi falling in love and even marrying.

Not in the films, so you must be referring to the EU.

DarthOmega wrote:
This is one of those areas where the EU and the movies clash, and big time.

Yep, big time.

Zarm R'keeg wrote:
...moronic. (And easily disproven within the EU... Since numerous other eras show Jedi marrying

"Numerous other eras" sounds like another reference to the EU.

Zarm R'keeg wrote:
I thinking numerous examples from TOTJ, KOTOR and TOR evidence that this rule was not always in place.

Numerous examples from the EU, and I never suggested the no-attachment teachings were always in place.

Kytross wrote:
Wow. All I was trying to get across was that the whole no-attachment/chastity/celibacy, whatever thing was a late addition retcon after thirty years of contrary stories...

"Thirty years of stories" sounds like a reference to the EU (since the pre-AotC films were only four stories that came out in four different years). And technically, the time between the first appearance of the the old Jedi Order and AotC was closer to a decade. Just sayin'.

Kytross wrote:
It is a clear continuity error, one of the biggest in any series... Seriously, hire an editor.

Zarm R'keeg wrote:
Kytross wasn't talking about a continuity error with the EU. He was talking about a continuity error within the films themselves.

There was a clear discussion going on about EU, and I don't think Kytross' reference to "thirty years of stories" was excluding the EU. Above I was specifically responding to the incorrect idea that the fimic discontinuity with the EU was an error. It was not an error. It was intentional disregard, like it or not. I don't care if other fans don't like Lucas' Jedi Order. You are entitled to your opinion. But I'm not going to let a factual error that Lucas made an mistake in designing his Jedi order go uncontested. Lucas didn't plan to adhere to the EU's Jedi Order and then accidentally didn't. 'Oops, I forgot.' That's a rather silly idea. Lucas intentionally, not erroneously, disregarded years of EU stories.

But I previously did mention what would be an actual continuity error between trilogies that Lucas did make. In AotC Palpatine suggested that the Republic was only 1000 years old, when in ANH Obi-Wan said it lasted for over 1000 generations. Oops. Then the EU did its job to reconcile the two statements.

But anyway, we can also talk about what the classic films alone suggest or don't suggest about the pre-Empire Jedi Order too...

Zarm R'keeg wrote:
It's why the comics had to scramble through so many ret-cons after Episode II came out, having written married Jedi in Episode I tie-ins; because no one even had a remote conception that Lucas would come up with such a concept or that Jedi would be this way, and all prior evidence in the other films pointed strongly against it...

But I'm with Kytross here- whether one lets it bother them or not, tries to retcon or not, there are clear inconsistencies between the trilogies in what they establish and what their plain intent or implication was... and the Jedi order's non-attachment policy springs directly out of nowhere in episode two, with no hints in any of the previous 4 movies, and lots of hints to contradict it.

Yes, in AotC is was explicitly revealed that Jedi Order of the circa Clone Wars era aren't allowed to marry or raise children. I'm not saying that aspect of the prequel story arc was definitely planned out at the time of the classic trilogy, but I don't see the "evidence in the other films" that "pointed strongly against it". I don't feel there are hints of a family-oriented Jedi Order in the previous movies, and I do not see "lots of hints to contradict it."

Obi-Wan Kenobi alone in the Dune Sea - No hint or suggestion in the films that he may have been married or had children. Yoda alone in his swamp on Dagobah - No hint that he may have ever married or had children. Yoda and Obi-Wan's ghost talking about Anakin to Luke on Dagobah, and Luke and Leia on Endor discussing their mother and father - It is true there is no hint that they had a marriage illegal to the Jedi Order at the time, but there is actually no reference to them even being married in the films. Luke's mother was never even referred to in the trilogy before Luke and Leia on Endor. In the classic trilogy, there is very little said at all about Luke and Leia's parents or the Jedi Order from the time before Anakin become Darth Vader, but there is a lot of room for viewers to fill in the blanks how they see fit. And of course, the EU filled in a lot of blanks for a lot of fans too.

Not saying it was, but if the no-attachment Jedi Order was actually planned out ahead of time, should Lucas have directed the EU to have those rules? It certainly would have minimized this being such an issue with us fans if he had, but it also would have significantly altered or eliminated the stories that made money for the franchise, and profit was the purpose of the EU. But from the beginning of the EU, Lucas did make the prequel-era off limits in the EU. I can really see Lucas just letting the EU tell its stories knowing that he could do whatever he wanted for the films.

But to me, it doesn't matter if it was a brand new concept for the prequels or not. The final product is what matters, and I don't see that the classic films in any way exclude the prequel Jedi Order, even in tone or attitude. I certainly choose not to be bothered by it anyway.

Zarm R'keeg wrote:
(including Luke's order, which I will be *furious* if Episode VII overturns and has him adhering to the 'nonattachment' policies of the PT, which would presumably also discount Leia from Jedi membership)...

...(Which, on a tangent, is why I dread what Episode VII will portray; because the whole great thing about Luke's order for me, in the last decade, is how he rebuilt the Jedi...

...(Which is, again, why I hope Episode VII won't be taking it's lead from ep. II/III).

I don't know what they'll do in the new trilogy, but I don't think the makers feel bound to make the new Jedi order match the rules of the old one. Personally I think the 'no Jedi families' rule doesn't make sense post-RotJ because one way to make a new generation of Jedi would be for the Jedi to have children. I think Leia will have had at least some Jedi training because Yoda's dying words to Luke were The Force runs strong in your family, Pass on what you have learned, and There is another Skywalker. And I suspect that at least one character in the new trilogy will be Han and Leia's child.

Will the new Jedi order in the films be like the EU's New Jedi Order? Will Luke be or have been married? Will Luke have a kid? I have no idea.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage


Last edited by Whill on Fri Feb 06, 2015 7:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10286
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Barrataria wrote:
My favorite template the Failed Jedi is worthless without that.

I love the Failed Jedi too, but unfortunately I've never had a player that wanted to play one, so I've been forced to create NPCs so I could play one as a supporting character.

Barrataria wrote:
Whill's the guy postulating the Jedi baby harvests.

I'm not advocating the idea of male Jedi intentionally seeding the galaxy. I was just throwing the idea out there.

Barrataria wrote:
For me the story makes more sense if none of the sworn Jedi (at least of the "warrior order", if you're assuming different branches or whatever) have children... by the rules anyway.

Barrataria wrote:
Zarm R'keeg wrote:
It's also a gross misunderstanding; love, at its core, is selfless- that's the definition of it. Now, perhaps the Jedi feel that romance far too often brings in the selfish-feelings that masquerade as love, and those are the gateways to greed and selfishness, and fair enough... but banning all attachment- essentially, all relationships- because of the potential for someone to form unhealthy strands as Anakin did? Seems a bit extreme.

Well, of course they're not banning ALL relationships. Certainly not the bands of "brotherhood"... So, I think you're selling the idea short by a long shot, at least saying it's defective by nature.

Yes. And I find it sad that a discussion about (1) whether Lucas was bound to the EU or not, and (2) whether the first films contradict the last films regarding the Jedi, has turned into a bashing of the last films. Why does every discussion regarding the prequels have to be reduced to a bash-fest? I certainly was NOT bashing the EU's Jedi. I was only talking about Lucas having no mandate to honor EU continuity.

Barrataria wrote:
Zarm R'keeg wrote:
all prior evidence in the other films pointed strongly against it.

That's not totally right as to Ep. I is it? Not arguing your general point, but it seems to me implicit in Ep. I. Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon didn't say anything about families, and (to me) seem as oblivious to familial relations as some priests I've known.

I agree.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Zarm R'keeg
Commander
Commander


Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 481
Location: PA

PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Barrataria wrote:

Well, of course they're not banning ALL relationships. Certainly not the bands of "brotherhood" (gang signs? Eastside Jedi wut wut). I don't see them as hermetic. But there's a significant strand of Eastern philosophy/religion that deals with this, which Whill talked about in that link of the "ring trilogy". Just as two examples: Gandhi wrote in his autobiography about his decision to be celibate within his marriage, and I'm just finishing a great book about Alexandria and am devouring a chapter about Hypatia, who never married and considered her students and colleagues at her (neoplatonic) school in Alexandria as equal to brethren.


I will freely admit to being philosophically outclassed, so I will tackle only the simplest of those concepts; from what I understand, the Jedi forbid 'attachment' as per the movies. To me, that would preclude brotherhood, patriotism, and master-padawan bonding just as clearly as it would romantic relationships, as all are a form of attachment to another being. That is why I would deem it unviable (and hypocritically practiced).

I personally don't have a strong opinion of celibacy as a blanket concept for an entire order (though I do think some are called to it); regardless, if it were merely a question of celibacy, I might not disagree with you as much as I do. (Being raised in an order requiring celibacy/lack of marriage from an age early enough not to have a say, however...). So there, I think we might be in accord- I simply read the philosophies espoused within the movies to be a little more universal than merely romaticly-based, extending to any emotional/relational attachment to another being.


Barrataria wrote:

That's not totally right as to Ep. I is it? Not arguing your general point, but it seems to me implicit in Ep. I. Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon didn't say anything about families, and (to me) seem as oblivious to familial relations as some priests I've known.


I dunno. I guess it's a matter of personal opinion. I never got any such flavor - and I would think the number of comic writers who gave Jedi Council members families and then ad to retcon it when AOTC came out indicates that others didn't, either. So, to me, it was not implicit, no. But I can see how it could be seen that way.


Barrataria wrote:

Zarm R'keeg wrote:
Yeah... no. That's what the sleep-around culture of the 21st century wants to believe... but that gets into a disagreement wholly outside of the world of Star Wars.
I'm Catholic AND an Italian citizen... I can assure you promiscuity existed before 2000 Smile And even, you know, romanticized.


Indeed. I would say the sexual revolution of the 20s (I believe it is) probably began to usher in the more modern style of attitudes; but I'm sure they've always existed (even if they were not always publicly accepted).

Either way, citing the 21st century is a catch-22. So much that's shaped our society (at least, American society) has happened since 1900. Yet, citing the 20th century makes any assertion sound out of date- while citing the 21st makes it sound as if your view of history only extends back a decade and a half. This century-spanning stuff is tricky on the references.


Whill wrote:

Zarm R'keeg wrote:
...moronic. (And easily disproven within the EU... Since numerous other eras show Jedi marrying

"Numerous other eras" sounds like another reference to the EU.

Zarm R'keeg wrote:
I thinking numerous examples from TOTJ, KOTOR and TOR evidence that this rule was not always in place.

Numerous examples from the EU, and I never suggested the no-attachment teachings were always in place.


Yes. By this point, my responses had moved on to addressing the thread topic in general, rather than your points. Sorry if that wasn't clear.


Whill wrote:
Yes. And I find it sad that a discussion about (1) whether Lucas was bound to the EU or not, and (2) whether the first films contradict the last films regarding the Jedi, has turned into a bashing of the last films. Why does every discussion regarding the prequels have to be reduced to a bash-fest? I certainly was NOT bashing the EU's Jedi. I was only talking about Lucas having no mandate to honor EU continuity.


But see, it wasn't. That was my point. The 'whether Lucas is bound to honor the EU' was introduced once, in misunderstanding that a primary point was being made based on the EU when it wasn't. There was a discussion on how the EU handled Jedi relationships, and a *separate* post by Kytross (which I seconded) claiming that the concept in the PT was a breach of intent between the OT and the PT, no EU required. Those two conversation threads were running in parallel. It was never about whether Lucas was bound to the EU, except in your post (at least, as far as I can tell).

And I don't think there is EU bashing going on. Bashing of the PT Jedi Order, sure- even when I liked the movies, I thought the guy was a shmuck. I'd happily bash High Human Culture doctrine or Sith Philosophy, too, because I think they're bad ideas. Smile But, while I think there is a case being made that the PT concept of attachment (as understood by some) does not fit the OT's apparent intent or tone, I don't think there is any bashing that has broken out- merely topics related specifically to the question of how the pre-Empire Jedi handled relationships. We're just discussing a concept within the PT that (some of us) are not too hot on and don't think fits in with the franchise. I think that's pertinent to the discussion, not any attempt to go out of our way to disparage the EU.



EDIT: I think we're fighting a battle of perceptions here. Essentially, it is 'clear' to myself (and, I assume, Kytross), that no such non-relational intent was present in the OT, making it an error or discontinuity, in the same way that it is 'clear' to you that Qui-Gon and Shmi slept together. What is a perfectly-obvious, self-evident intent of the films to one side is utter rubbish to the other. But both assertions are nicely comparable, because they involve what the viewer saw and read into the film, and picked out as the clear, unspoken intent of it. Are either right? Are either wrong? Probably impossible for us to say without getting inside the heads of the filmmakers at that moment in time. In much the same way as I suggested and you confirmed, there are two camps here- the 'pre-existing authority' and the 'they're all here now' camps; both come with different biases, preconceptions, and drives- and individuals from both camps come with very different perceptions after seeing the exact same thing. So, I should qualify.

It is my opinion that everything Kytross said in terms of violation-intent is true; that the films before AOTC imply Jedi having no anti-attachment policy; similarly, to the points with Barrataria, it is implied/stated that the policy of non-attachment is to any emotional relationship. Those are my interpretations of the films; and the resultant continuity-mismatch and Jedi hypocrisy I perceive (and am bothered by) are the results of those perceptions. Being intent/interpretation-based beliefs, they are difficult to argue objectively; but it is clear that there are viewpoints represented here that find very different implications in both of those cases. I think, at best, we can say 'this is how X came off to me'- and, if we so desire, state our liking or disliking of what we perceive we're being told (if it's honestly that important to share; it's probably not. Smile ). Arguing it is probably as pointless as "Chocolate is better!" "No, Vanilla is better!", in that it's an argument of opinions and perceptions rather than facts. I'll try to contribute to that; I've stated my opinion, and it is required to be adopted or approved by no one else.
_________________
Star Wars: Marvels, the audio drama: www.nolinecinemas.com

Hard core OT, all the way!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10286
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think the classic films implied one way or the other regarding old Jedi Order rules against attachment, and I don't feel that rule had to be established in the classic films for it to not be considered a 'jarring discontinuity' with AotC and RotS. It wasn't relevant to the saga's story until AotC.

While there is nothing in the classic films that overtly states the Jedi Order rule we don't learn about until AotC, there is also nothing in the classic films that contradicts that. The only two members of the pre-Empire Jedi Order (who did not turn to the Dark Side) were hermit monks that lived by themselves with no romantic relationships or children as far as we saw. In the classic era, the Jedi Order that had that rule had been destroyed. Obi-Wan and Yoda threw out the playbook and made a new plan of action for the twins because there could be no new Jedi order without the Sith being destroyed. There was no need for Luke to know about that, and even if the Jedi Masters would have mentioned it to Luke, there was no need for the audience to see that or know about those rules at the time. Luke's only possible love interest in the plot turned out to be his sister who fell in love with Han.

Anakin Skywalker being a Jedi that had children was not evidence of anything. In the classic films, there is no reference to Anakin having been married to Luke's mother. And we know that Anakin didn't raise his children. He became evil and his children had to be hidden from him. So the fact that he even impregnated a woman didn't prove anything because as far as we knew then, he could have already betrayed the Jedi Order by then. EU authors and fans made a lot of assumptions about the Jedi Order that Yoda, Obi-Wan and Anakin had been a part of based on almost nothing from the classic films. The only Jedi of the three in the classic films that was known to have procreated children had betrayed and murdered the Jedi.

There were 25 years in between the idea of a Jedi having children to the time we found out for certain that Luke's father had broken a rule to get married and have children. Anyone who watches the films alone and still experiences the new rule in the near-clone-war era Jedi Order (as first shown in AotC) to be a jarring discontinuity must be allowing the EU and/or personal imagination about the Jedi Order to influence their experience of the films.

In 2002, it was time to "unlearn what you have learned" regarding the Jedi (for the sake of the films only - the EU version of the Jedi Order was and still is intact in the time periods those stories took place in). However, in my experience since 2002, if you don't like the prequels you are going to have a laundry list of 'reasons' not to, and nothing will ever help you "Let go of your hate."
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Zarm R'keeg
Commander
Commander


Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 481
Location: PA

PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that last bit's a little unfair. As I said before, we clearly have different perspectives on what is 'clearly' implied by one piece or the other (as the majority of your post indicates; this is an agree-to-disagree matter of differing perspectives). But chalking that up to PT-hatred is more than a little biased; it assumed that because you see no such implications being made by the OT (and thus, no breach of continuity or intent), that no one else could- and anyone who claims to is just making it up to justify an unreasoned hatred of the PT. This comes dangerously close to what we've discussed in the past; namely, not leaving room for anyone to look critically at the films or have an issue with any aspect of them without being labeled 'a hater.'

It's a common way of thinking, especially in modern politics- "X is the only reasonable way to think, thus if someone claims to support Y, they do not actually support Y (as X is the only conclusion any reasonable person can reach!), but are instead being malicious in opposing X for trollish reasons." It's not a conscious bias thinking as such, but it's an easy subconscious assumption to slip into if we're not careful. (I know I've certainly caught myself thinking that way on more than one occasion and had to adjust my thinking.)

In this case, please do allow for the fact that others may see an issue where you see none, and that it is the reason that contributes to their dislike, rather than assuming that the issue being discussed is an invented justification for the preexisting dislike. I think we've all been open enough with our views on the prequels that we clearly don't feel the need to fabricate 'reasons' or justify our positions on the PT using reasoning we don't truly believe in. Smile
_________________
Star Wars: Marvels, the audio drama: www.nolinecinemas.com

Hard core OT, all the way!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10286
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zarm R'keeg wrote:
all prior evidence in the other films pointed strongly against it... He was talking about a continuity error within the films themselves... there are a LOT of things that are clearly implied by the OT that the PT drops the ball on... the prequels didn't do their research sometimes- in terms of both stated facts, and tonal implications... between the trilogies in what they establish and what their plain intent or implication was... and the Jedi order's non-attachment policy springs directly out of nowhere in episode two, with no hints in any of the previous 4 movies, and lots of hints to contradict it...

the fact that decisions weren't made based on what had been established is irksome... I never got any such flavor - and I would think the number of comic writers who gave Jedi Council members families and then ad to retcon it when AOTC came out indicates that others didn't, either. So, to me, it was not implicit, no. But I can see how it could be seen that way... It was never about whether Lucas was bound to the EU...

What has been established by the EU. You have demonstrated in multiple post here and in other threads at this site that your view about film contradictions is influenced by the EU. You are clearly extremely disgruntled that Lucas contradicted the EU, and you are not alone. It is a very common feeling in the fan community. 'Boba Fett is not a clone! He's Jaster Mereel! How dare Lucas used one part of the franchise he owned to contradict another part he owned?! How dare he?!' The prequels contradicted the EU, and the prequel bashers tend not to like it. Based on yours and other comments here, I don't think I was at all out of place responding to this pro-EU bias when discussing contradiction between the film trilogies.

Whill wrote:
I don't think the classic films implied one way or the other regarding old Jedi Order rules against attachment, and I don't feel that rule had to be established in the classic films for it to not be considered a 'jarring discontinuity' with AotC and RotS. It wasn't relevant to the saga's story until AotC.

While there is nothing in the classic films that overtly states the Jedi Order rule we don't learn about until AotC, there is also nothing in the classic films that contradicts that. The only two members of the pre-Empire Jedi Order (who did not turn to the Dark Side) were hermit monks that lived by themselves with no romantic relationships or children as far as we saw. In the classic era, the Jedi Order that had that rule had been destroyed. Obi-Wan and Yoda threw out the playbook and made a new plan of action for the twins because there could be no new Jedi order without the Sith being destroyed. There was no need for Luke to know about that, and even if the Jedi Masters would have mentioned it to Luke, there was no need for the audience to see that or know about those rules at the time. Luke's only possible love interest in the plot turned out to be his sister who fell in love with Han.

Anakin Skywalker being a Jedi that had children was not evidence of anything. In the classic films, there is no reference to Anakin having been married to Luke's mother. And we know that Anakin didn't raise his children. He became evil and his children had to be hidden from him. So the fact that he even impregnated a woman didn't prove anything because as far as we knew then, he could have already betrayed the Jedi Order by then. EU authors and fans made a lot of assumptions about the Jedi Order that Yoda, Obi-Wan and Anakin had been a part of based on almost nothing from the classic films. The only Jedi of the three in the classic films that was known to have procreated children had betrayed and murdered the Jedi.

There were 25 years in between the idea of a Jedi having children to the time we found out for certain that Luke's father had broken a rule to get married and have children. Anyone who watches the films alone and still experiences the new rule in the near-clone-war era Jedi Order (as first shown in AotC) to be a jarring discontinuity must be allowing the EU and/or personal imagination about the Jedi Order to influence their experience of the films.

You still have missed my point entirely. No, we are not talking about having two different interpretations on what the classic films imply about the Jedi Order.

Your view is that the classic films (with the whopping four Jedi characters total, only two of which appear as Jedi at the very end of the third film) strongly imply that the former Jedi Order that three of them had been a part of clearly allowed Jedi marriage and children-raising.

I am not saying the films imply the opposite. I am not saying that the classic films imply the 'no attachment' practices first revealed in AotC. I am not saying my interpretation is that the no attachment practices of the pre-Empire Jedi Order were suggested all along. It seems that you're the one attempting to polarize the discussion by putting me into an opposing camp that I am not in.

I am saying there is no implication whatsoever either way. Yoda, no lover or children. Obi-Wan, no lover or children. No discussion of any past Jedi, including Anakin, ever having been married. Luke, no marriage or children, and his potential love interest in the first film fell in love with the other primary protagonist in the second film and was revealed to be his sister in the third film. Anakin, the only one classic trilogy Jedi known to have procreated children, betrayed the Jedi Order and became a villain. There was no clear and strong implication that the Jedi were allowed to have spouses and children in the old destroyed Jedi Order.

What about TPM? Lots and lots of Jedi shown. The Jedi Temple shown. Many details of the filmic Jedi Order first revealed, but no Jedi marriages or Jedi flirting even slightly implied. There were no clear and strong implications that they were allowed to have spouses and children. Again, I'm not suggesting that the AotC revelations were in any way foreshadowed. There was no suggestion either way.

I do not have the opposing view! Remember, I even liked the comic series made from The Star Wars (rough draft) where Kane Starkiller was established to have been training his own sons to become Jedi. The idea of Jedi getting married and having children is not something I despise. It's fine for the EU stories taking place over a 1000 years before the classic trilogy, the new Jedi Order, and in an alternate reality of the films.

But I get what Lucas was going for in his stories. The attachment thing is inspired by Buddhist teachings and adoption issues, two things very near and dear to Lucas' heart. No it was impossible for even the filmic Jedi to not have any sort of attachments whatsoever, such as father-son-like and sibling-like relationships. If you are not a basher, then why take it to such an irrational extreme? But the ideal involved the Jedi Order taking the kids from their parents before they would have developed lifelong attachments to them and raising them to not develop too many and too severe attachments, and Jedi not having romantic love attachments (one of the strongest kind). In Anakin's character arc, the fear of loss ultimately leads to the Dark Side, because that was the story Lucas came up with. He feared to lose his mother, and she later dramatically dies in his arms. He then feared to lose his secret wife, and in his quest to prevent that from occurring, he causes his loss. Anakin is the pathetic victim of his own greed. Obi-Wan had obviously loved his master, but when Qui-Gon was mortally wounded, Obi-Wan did not resort to anger or revenge. He kept his head and completed the task at hand (end the immediate Sith threat) without going down the dark path. He passed his trial despite his fear of loss.

I do think it is likely that the 'minimize attachment' practices of the filmic Jedi Order wasn't even in Lucas' mind when he made the classic films, and I never said it is what he intended all along. I've recently become more well-versed in the story development of the classic trilogy films, and there is no evidence to indicate that Anakin's exact fall to Dark Side was planned out in any detail in the classic films' evolving backstory, until at some point after RotJ was released. However it was being planned when Lucas was developing the prequel trilogy in the 90s, the same time that the EU was putting out their version of the ancient Jedi Order. Yoda did foreshadow Anakin's fall in TMP, but the 'no Jedi marriage and family' rules still weren't necessary to the first prequel. And there was already so much known about the plot of the prequels, so keeping it under wraps until AotC was a way to minimize just how much of the plot would be revealed in advance.

There is nothing wrong with loving the EU Jedi. There is nothing wrong with disliking the prequel Jedi order or the prequels. And I'm not even saying there aren't any contradictions between trilogies. I may even agree with you on some of your criticisms. But just because Lucas introduced a Jedi Order concept in AotC that was completely out of the blue and never addressed by the previously released films (or supporting EU publications), that does not automatically mean that there are "lots of hints to contradict it" in the classic films. If there are lots, I politefully request that you please name them.

Zarm R'keeg wrote:
I don't think there is EU bashing going on. Bashing of the PT Jedi Order, sure- even when I liked the movies, I thought the guy was a shmuck.

Quote:
In 2002, it was time to "unlearn what you have learned" regarding the Jedi (for the sake of the films only - the EU version of the Jedi Order was and still is intact in the time periods those stories took place in). However, in my experience since 2002, if you don't like the prequels you are going to have a laundry list of 'reasons' not to, and nothing will ever help you "Let go of your hate."

Zarm R'keeg wrote:
I think that last bit's a little unfair. As I said before, we clearly have different perspectives on what is 'clearly' implied by one piece or the other (as the majority of your post indicates; this is an agree-to-disagree matter of differing perspectives). But chalking that up to PT-hatred is more than a little biased; it assumed that because you see no such implications being made by the OT (and thus, no breach of continuity or intent), that no one else could- and anyone who claims to is just making it up to justify an unreasoned hatred of the PT. This comes dangerously close to what we've discussed in the past; namely, not leaving room for anyone to look critically at the films or have an issue with any aspect of them without being labeled 'a hater.'

It's a common way of thinking, especially in modern politics- "X is the only reasonable way to think, thus if someone claims to support Y, they do not actually support Y (as X is the only conclusion any reasonable person can reach!), but are instead being malicious in opposing X for trollish reasons." It's not a conscious bias thinking as such, but it's an easy subconscious assumption to slip into if we're not careful. (I know I've certainly caught myself thinking that way on more than one occasion and had to adjust my thinking.)

In this case, please do allow for the fact that others may see an issue where you see none, and that it is the reason that contributes to their dislike, rather than assuming that the issue being discussed is an invented justification for the preexisting dislike. I think we've all been open enough with our views on the prequels that we clearly don't feel the need to fabricate 'reasons' or justify our positions on the PT using reasoning we don't truly believe in.

I never said that you were fabricating reasons to have a negative position on the prequels that you don't truly have. I know you and others truly have a very real and passionate disappointment about some aspects of the prequels based on specific criticisms you truly believe in. I only put the word 'reason' in quote marks because I don't find all the criticisms I've heard to be 'reasonable' and I couldn't think of a better word at the time. Sorry for the unintended inference there.

I don't care for the suggestion that I am subconsciously trolling you or in any way behaving like a politician. Trolls are only negative. I don't think you are a troll, because you are not negative about all things Star Wars. Trolls don't gush, and you do gush about some things (just not the prequels).

I don't leave room for contrary views? There are negative opposing views, and there is taking it to the extreme, or bashing. You boldly admitted to prequel-bashing in this thread, but you think I am being a little unfair? Bashing is an extremely negative activity. Those who take part in prequel-bashing tend to have a long list of criticisms, and they tend to be extremely unable to consider non-negative views of what they are bashing. Respectfully, if the shoe doesn't fit, then don't wear it. Thank you.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jerrod Owex
Sub-Lieutenant
Sub-Lieutenant


Joined: 26 Apr 2013
Posts: 56
Location: Iowa, USA

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kytross wrote:
Jedi celibacy


No one has ever said that Jedi can't have sex, to the best of my knowledge anyway, which is getting overwhelmingly large more recently. They are just encouraged not to form attachments to things. They could have all the meaningless sex they want.

And I apologize if someone else has already said this, didn't go through the whole thread just yet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tetsuoh
Captain
Captain


Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Posts: 505

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2015 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

in truth no act of reproduction involving humans is without emotion/attachment.

but then in truth humans cannot be with emotion - their brain doesn't normally allow it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14023
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 3:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Which makes you wonder how so many 'jedi bloodlines' existed if they couldn't form attachments.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Adventures and Campaigns All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0