Lit Bright Sith - Should we see them outside of the Old Republic?

I think the idea George Lucas was going for with the Jedi Knighthood is that it's very easy for people to become detached from the day-to-day world even when they're actively trying to do good. I think the publishers missed a visual pun when they moved the Jedi Knighthood back to Coruscant.

The Jedi Temple has a literal Ivory Tower. One the Jedi Council rules from.

The banishment of love is basically what happens when you have a religious order constantly trying to self-improve to the point that suggestions become laws which become dogma. The Jedi Knights are supposed to avoid attachment and the Jedi Knights over the generations take this to extremes. They want desperately to be good and perfect and that pursuit of perfection is inherently self-destructive.

 

Charlemagne19

What do the Jedi define as perfection? An emotionless being motivated by logic? That doesn't sound like any Jedi. Every Jedi in the films, including Yoda, shows some emotional pain. Yoda feels it during Order 66, Mace feels it for the Republic, Anakin feels it for Padme, Obi-Wan feels it for Anakin. But only Anakin fell to the dark side. Is it slippery slope logic that motivates the Jedi in this regard? I would personally suggest that only Anakin had an actual attachment, but Obi-Wan does blame himself for his feelings for Anakin clouding his judgement and allowing him to make excuses for Anakin's attachment.

I recall that back in 1999, a lot of fans were under the impression that Obi-Wan used the dark side to defeat Darth Maul because Ewan McGregor was clearly showing some emotional turmoil and distress after Qui-Gon's death and throughout his duel with Maul including when he cuts him in half. Was Obi-Wan wrong? Or is it a slippery slope thing?

I concur about the ivory tower symbolism -- the way that the Jedi are handled in the post-NJO doesn't seem to have much thought of that kind put into more than it tries to emulate the films as spin-off fiction.

 

I think the Jedi Knights view perfection as a being totally maintaining an objective viewpoint of reality and choosing actions based on logic while motivated by compassion. The difference between Vulcans and Jedi is that the latter view logic as a MEANS to an end of a universal utopia versus an end itself.

The problem is the Jedi Knighthood's pursuit of perfection, totally unattached selfless ideal, is:

1. They're not afraid to cheat to achieve this.

Taking children from their parents and raising them in a temple is a means which can create perfect uniform Jedi. However, it doesn't really contribute much to the enlightenment of society as a whole. Monasticism should be open to those who are willing to take the vows later in life as well as early. It's not brainwashing to be raised in a Jedi environment but isolating its members is a recipe for disaster when not actually intending to stay isolated.

2. They have a very narrow definition of enlightenment.

The Jedi of the Prequels were extremely confident of their interpretation of the Force. The "many roads to Jerusalem" argument holds bigger sway with me. It seems quite likely that exposure to different viewpoints of the Force and differing paths would benefit the Jedi. Multiple schools of thought and Jedi traditions.

3. Furthermore, the quest for a perfect society is one which cannot be restricted to one particular group.

The Jedi Knighthood support the Republic, which is a corrupt and venal institution. The Jedi Knights should remain neutral or, if they do promote the Republic, it should be with the acknowlegement of changing it. The Jedi promoting the Republic from the top down is just a recipe for disaster. They might also consider spreading their knowledge of the Force galaxy-wide.

In short, the Prequel Jedi are when the Order is at its most flawed because it's when the group is at its most stagnant. They've become comfortable with the Republic and do not particularly care one way or another about it getting better. They have assumed the appearance of perfection by being unchallenged, absolute in their position, and idealogically pure. If I may quote Conan, I'd say, "success can test one's mettle as surely as the strongest adversary."

 

​

Were is this stated

Also have I got the wrong impression that the no marriages thing was something that happened after the Ruusan Reformation?



P.S. am I the only one that feels that the writers seems to work to make me dislike the jedi?

 

You may always quote Conan.

I'll try and get it enshrined in the forum rules, somewhere.

 

The Old Republic timeline videos.

And yes, writers LOVE making the Jedi jerks in order to make their heroes stand out more.

 

Were can I find those videos?

 

http://www.swtor.com/holonet/galactic-history

Here's the Youtube compilation too.



Lance Henrikson as a Jedi Master!

 

Why? Really, why do they think that is a good ide?

 

It's a common flaw in fantasy fiction that the good guys have to be alone. Robert Jordan (RIP) was surprised to discover a lot of people were less than pleased by the plan to reform the Aes Sedai because he'd gone out of his way to illustrate the flaws of said organization while also showing there were a bunch of other female Channeling groups which seemed so much saner. Basically, if Star Wars was a literary series rather than a movie one, people would be wondering why reviving the Jedi was a good idea versus the Altisian Jedi or Luke becoming a Zeiosha Sha. Even now, I think the Prequel Jedi influence makes people wonder why Luke wants to be like them.

Of course, he's NOT but people are dumb and miss that.

 

It's really not terribly overblown in the timeline. No more than information, say, in the Atlas about the Great Hyperspace War. ICly, Gnost Dural is looking at ripple effects, so be pinpoints the follow up campaign after the war as something with unfortunate consequences. Jedi aren't perfect and Dural's doing his backwards trace of the chain of events directly after the Treaty, a situation which justifiably incurs guilt. If only out of a perceived failure.

EDIT: As a side note, the Old Republic era itself deals with Jedi arrogance as a major flaw but it also tends to offer a lot of counter examples. For every Vrook (who is, even, in his own ways, heroic), there is a Kavar. For every Jun Seros, there is Satele Shan.

That and Jedi judgement is both vindicated and undermined. The Jedi wait in the Mandalorian Wars because they are unsure about the threat. They turn out to be entirely correct that something else is going on. At the same time, the do morally questionable things to Revan. The Jedi Masters of TSL, in general, are quite smart. Kavar's quite heroic. Vrook is dedicated to helping those in need. Zez Kai El is pensive and remorseful over his past actions. But they still take it upon themselves at the end of the game to try to remove the Exile from the Force.

If the general critique of Jedi in the PT era is that they've lost sight of their service to the Force, for the Old Republic era, it is that they often place their own judgement at an overwhelming premium. For good and for worse.

 

He's also ignoring the Jedi dynasts were infiltrated by Sith.

 

Exactly, Post ROTJ Jedi are allowed to get married and have kids, Students are allowed to be raised by and have contact with there Families. We even have examples of Jedi Masters training multiple padawans at once, with Luke Training both his nephews in the NJO and Kyle Katarn training both Rosh and Jaden in the Jedi Academy video game. Most of the NJO only were traditional Jedi robes for formal occasions. If anything Luke's Order is closer to what we see in the pre Exar Kun era except with the Jedi watchmen thing were the Masters are assigned to spefic regions of space(which is something I loved about the TOTJ comics.)

And that is one of the only good things I can say for the works of Kevin J Anderson(with Credit also going to his collabrotors in those comics) in Star Wars is that his portrayal of the Jedi early history.

 

Gnost Dural? It's had to say he's ignoring it when he's so concerns about Barel Ovair. But one of the more problematic things is that he can't document as many cases because most are not as clear. Indeed, there's less infiltrators in the Jedi than you might think, during TOR. The major problem is the Children of the Emperor but that's more arcane and difficult to bring to light than a mere saboteur.

 

I'm surprised that Denning didn't try to blow up the Jaina-Jag romance by having Luke institute a no attachment policy.

 

Yeah, that's why I mentioned 'phases' : the Order goes back and forth on the issue multiple times in its history. Just in the KOTOR/TOR era, the Jedi had families and attachments (Tales of the Jedi), then attachments were strictly forbidden (the KOTOR games), then the KOTOR comics told us that apparently the 'no attachments' rule only started to get mileage around the beginning of the Mandalorian Wars.

Bioware probably just wanted to add some easy drama to some relationships in the game and decided to include the no attachments rule into the Jedi Order of that time.

 

I think they're motivated by emulating the films. If LucasFilm and the licensees were truly interested in continuity, then KOTOR would have taken more cues from Tales of the Jedi than the prequels -- but that could have adversely affected sales because gamers unfamiliar with the comics would likely have complained how the Jedi weren't the same as in the prequels.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me why forbidding attachments was a reaction to the Sith War -- neither Exar Kun nor Ulic Qel-Droma were motivated by attachments in their fall to the dark side, and their followers were motivated by either some sort of Sith/dark side possession or Kun's oratory skills -- I don't see attachment being the cause of someone joining an existent cause outside of very particular circumstances (see: Anakin). I guess in a more broad sense there's some conservative movement within the Jedi that simply gained political capital from the conflict (Atris) that simply didn't like the idea of marriage or romantic relationships and exercised that capital to see those forbidden alongside whatever they deemed the causes for Kun and Qel-Droma to fall.

From what has been fleshed out historically, then, it seems that the prequel era status quo was maintained between the Old Sith War up to during the New Sith War, which by the conclusion the Jedi were so badly stretched thin that they were forced to abandon these Simikartian principles as a matter of survival -- but following the Battle of Ruusan quickly adopted them once more.

 

Well, you could argue Aleema's seductive skills got scapegoated for Ulic's fall.

That would imply the Non-Attachment folk were REALLY pushing it, though.

 

I'm sure they were. They were using the war as capital to force their viewpoint on the order. But Ulic got into the mess because he wanted to infiltrate the Krath to destroy them and became the mask.

 

I don't think the Sith War is ever mentioned as a reason for forbidding attachments in the following incarnation of the Order. And I'm not sure if Atris is old enough to have really been influential during the Sith War. She's older than what the Revan novel implied, but she's not much older than Revan or the Exile.

 

There's a school of thought that it's NOMI SUNRIDER who actually is the party responsible for non-attachment. Irrationally blaming her own feelings of attachment for Ulic for his latter atrocities. Though, to be fair, Nomi had a chance to take Ulic into custody before he joined up with Exar Kun and won over the Mandalorians.

She didn't, almost certainly because she was in love with him.

Also, Vima Sunrider commented how distant and cold she'd become.

 

I am saying this as one who has not read any of the guide books about the force or having watched the Mortis episodes; but the impression I got is that there is no light side, there is just the Force and part of it is dark; a dark side of the Force, so to say.

 

Adso of Melk: Master? Have you ever been in love?
William of Baskerville: In love? Yeah, many times.
Adso of Melk: You were?
William of Baskerville: Yes, of course. Aristotle, Ovid, Vergil...
Adso of Melk: No, no, no. I meant with a...
William of Baskerville: Oh. Ah. Are you not confusing love with lust?
Adso of Melk: Am I? I don't know. I want only her own good. I want her to be happy. I want to save her from her poverty.
William of Baskerville: Oh, dear.
Adso of Melk: Why "oh dear"?
William of Baskerville: You *are* in love.
Adso of Melk: Is that bad?
William of Baskerville: For a monk, it does present certain problems.
Adso of Melk: But doesn't St. Thomas Aquinas praise love above all other virtues?
William of Baskerville: Yes, the love of God, Adso. The love of God.
Adso of Melk: Oh... And the love of woman?
William of Baskerville: Of woman? Thomas Aquinas knew precious little, but the scriptures are very clear. Proverbs warns us, "Woman takes possession of a man's precious soul", while Ecclesiastes tells us, "More bitter than death is woman".
Adso of Melk: Yes, but what do you think, Master?
William of Baskerville: Well, of course I don't have the benefit of your experience, but I find it difficult to convince myself that God would have introduced such a foul being into creation without endowing her with *some* virtures. Hmm? How peaceful life would be without love, Adso, how safe, how tranquil, and how dull
- the Name of the Rose (1986)

 

My take on the subject is the Force has two sides primarily because when you take the Dark Side out of the equation all you're left is the Light Side. Likewise, if you have a Force which includes the Dark Side and you're SUPPOSED to avoid it, there is (by definition) a light side.

Also, great quotation from the Name of the Rose.

 

There's talk of a "good side" once or twice in the films, and maybe a few more times in the ROTJ novelization and script.

But I think the Jedi are more concerned with the Force as a whole, and imbalance toward the dark side is what they're warning about.