Lit Bits of lore from Legends that have been negated with Canon?

Right on the money, however there’s actually a George Lucas quote where he says that Jedi can have all the sex they want, they’re just not allowed to be in love with the person they’re doing it with.

 

Marriage =/= celibacy. I’m just saying they didn’t have that rule to outlaw Jedi bearing children

 

He doesn’t say theyre not allowed to be in love with their partner, but they can’t commit to a long term relationship/attachment with them without renouncing their Jedi vows

 

This is the problem love in english is one word,
In Greek there is Agape, Eros, Philo, and etc.
I’d say having a physical relationship will lead to attachment, the intimacy creates soul ties.

 

Okay I'll amend my post to "I was annoyed that Luke only 'passed on what he learned' to people who died, became evil, or quit the Jedi."

In terms of new canon negating Legends lore, though, I'm less annoyed by Luke failing to rebuild the Jedi as by Luke failing to rebuild or reform the Jedi. The Jedi Path has notations from Luke directly rebuking the PT Jedi's no-attachments doctrine and saying that his Jedi Order won't make the same mistake. Luke succeeds in ROTJ by defying the old Jedi teachings; he refuses to renounce his attachment to Vader and proves that Obi-Wan and Yoda were wrong. It makes no sense for him to immediately turn around in The Book of Boba Fett and fall into lockstep with the failed dogma of the old Jedi Order. I don't need Luke to be some kind of flawless superman but it sucks that in the new canon he did basically everything wrong.

 

The Book of Boba Fett Luke adheres to Lucas' ideas of the Jedi. To him, they were never flawed or wrong in regards to their philosophy in the prequels. It was Anakin who was wrong. To Lucas, there was never a notion of "old" or "new" Jedi teachings and Luke proving someone wrong. No attachments was never meant to be wrong. Jedi philosophy did not need any improvement on Luke's part. In TBOBF, he did everything right. There is no failed dogma.

 

Yeah that's a bit of lore from Legends that has been negated with Canon that really bothers me.

I think it's super dumb, but even if it was Lucas's intention, he don't have a say no more. Nobody put a gun to Favreauolini's head. Disappointing creative decision to say the least.

 

To be honest, that's not "Legends lore." That's not the same as, for example, Ryloth (EU invention) being different, or Korriban (EU invention) having a different name.
This is just fundamental misunderstanding on the EU's part, which probably comes from the fact that Luke being married came around before the prequels, and then they could not just say that Luke marrying was wrong, so they thought it was the Jedi who were wrong, or something, despite Lucas saying quite explicitly that Jedi don't marry and that attachments being forbidden is actually sound and it's not something that is bad.

 

That’s how it started, but later it was directly acknowledged in-universe, via The Jedi Path and probably other sources, so it’s real lore. They didn’t annul Luke’s marriage off-screen once AOTC came out and pretend it never happened.

He can say it but that’s not how it plays in the films. Obi-Wan and Yoda want Luke to forsake his attachments and kill Vader, Luke his refuses, that refusal is what redeems Vader and defeats the dark side. For Luke to immediately drink the Kool Aid and start preaching non-attachment isn’t a logical continuation of his character arc. In-universe he didn’t have Lucas whispering in his ear going “No no, it’s supposed to be like this.”

 

It may be sound doctrine and all, doesn't change the fact that Luke eventually finds out about Prequel Jedi's beliefs and disavows them. He would also find out about the "no attachments" being the causal factor for Anakin's fall to Vader. That's pretty good fodder for sticking with his reform. And in the EU, there was other cases of marriage besides Luke. Tales of the Jedi had Nomi and Andur Sunrider married and with a daughter, Vima. There are a lot of other dissimiliarities between Jedi in TOTJ and PT, so in the EU there were definitely changes that occurred to the Jedi Order's doctrines over time. The "no attachments" rule is probably dated to around the Ruusan Reformation of 1000 BBY.

 

I don’t know if I’d frame it like that. Lucas had 25 years to set the EU straight on Jedi and marriage and never mentioned it, despite his role in approving all the tie-in storylines and lore details. Even after he started working on the prequels he didn’t seem too fussed about it because we still got Ki-Adi-Mundi’s and Thracia Cho Leem’s families after The Phantom Menace.

The Jedi marriage/attachment rule feels like one of those details Lucas came up with after the OT was already finished and put in the prequels without thinking about how well they fit with the old movies, like the Sith using lightsabers or Tatooine robes being the signature uniform of the Jedi Order.

 

It's Anakin's attachments that led him to the dark side to begin with. Yes, Luke helps redeem Anakin, but that doesn't suddenly overturn 25,000 years of religious teaching. As a true Jedi Knight, Luke should have tried saving Anakin anyway, and Anakin should have sacrificed himself to save Luke anyway, whether they were related or not. Whether they had an attachment or not.

...Vader uses a lightsaber. And Tatooine robes became Jedi robes in ROTJ (and, arguably, ESB).

Lucas notoriously didn't much care what the EU did or didn't do, so whether he intervened or not on a particular lore point doesn't really hold water as an argument.

 

I hated that. Luke saved his father because he ignored the Jedi dogma, “once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.” The only reason Luke is alive is Anakin saved his life, he owes his ability to pass on the Jedi Way because of unorthodox beliefs, mainly love between a father and son.

 

That's not what happened. No one told Luke he must go and kill Vader. Yoda told him that he must confront him to become a Jedi. Obi-Wan essentially implied that he must be prepared to kill in self-defense, because Vader will try to kill him. And it was Luke anyway who brought up the killing first. Obi-Wan just said that if Luke was not prepared to do that, and instead will just let himself get killed, then the Emperor will win and the Galaxy is doomed. You also have to take into account Obi-Wan's state of mind and everything he had witnessed Anakin doing over the last 20+ years. It was really fool's hope on Luke's part, because he did not know any better.

Luke's compassion redeems Vader, which is the opposite of attachment. Luke was never attached to his father. He never knew him. You could say, perhaps, he was attached to an idolized idea of his father, but that shattered the moment Vader mentioned he was going to convert Leia to the Dark Side, which is why he lashed out in anger and almost killed him. Compassion is unconditional love, which means regardless of what Vader did to him, to the Galaxy, what he threatened to do to his sister, he was going to show him compassion anyway. He is not gaining anything from it, there is nothing possessive about it, whereas attachments are possessive, selfish, conditional.
This is based on Buddhist philosophy. The concepts of attachment, clinging, compassion. Many people just seem to not understand it, because the Western mindset taught us that attachments and possessions are good, whereas this is not the case in Eastern philosophies.

But Luke did let go of his attachments in ROTJ. Vader threatened Leia, to whom Luke was clearly attached, and Luke snapped and almost killed Vader in anger. It's when he realized that he was becoming Vader himself, when he looked at his father's severed mechanical hand and then on his own, it's in this moment he realized it and he let go of all attachment, he did not succumb to it and he let go of his own life in that moment. In that moment, Luke was smart to realize that. Or lucky, depending on how you want to frame it. In case of Grogu, he can't be certain that he will be as smart or lucky. Or that he will have the willpower to resist greed and fear. Because Anakin couldn't do that. Anakin could not let go of Padme. He could never let go of anything in his life. And he chose his feelings, his greed, his selfishness, his attachment over the Galaxy. And his failure to learn the lesson of letting go, failure to adhere to the Jedi principles is what plunged the galaxy into darkness for two decades. It is more than clear that Luke is using the lessons he had learned the hard way. Both Ahsoka and Luke sensed fear in Grogu, and his attachment to the Mandalorian. But Grogu cannot seem to comprehend his situation. That he will live for 1000 years, and the Mandalorian will die in the next 50 at best. He cannot get attached, he cannot succumb to grief and fear, he cannot prioritize him over his duty to the galaxy because of the power he wields, because of his potential. If he wants to be with Mando, fine. But he can't be a Jedi. Because if you do both, you become a potential threat to everyone else. That's just the rules of the setting and the reality for the Force sensitives. To be a Jedi means to have a duty. It means the deepest commitment. It's not just regular dudes with magic powers. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's either one or the other. You either become a Jedi and follow the rules, or you don't.

I think you are overestimating Lucas' involvement and his care for the EU, because he said quite many times throughout the decades that the EU was a parallel world, and he just let them do whatever for the most part, and he didn't read any of it. Ki-Adi Mundi thing was a stark example of it. Married Jedi Knight with many children on the Council. His EU story was one big practical joke on Anakin. Which is why they needed shoddy retcons of his species dying out, or him needing to be married for some reason in order to repopulate his species...

 

Anakin's issue was that his love was selfish. He feared losing it so he sought power to keep it, starting a vicious cycle of needing to attain more power to hold onto what he feared to lose. It wasn't attachment that turned Anakin evil, it was who he chose to be to possess his attachments.

And that's the problem, right? Institutions need to change, reform, and adapt to meet the changing needs of an evolving society. The Jedi followed their teachings straight into extinction.

Beyond that though, we know that the non-attachment rule wasn't even always part of the Jedi teachings, at least in Legends. It's hard to pin a solid date to it because the lore was always changing but I think it only started showing up after the Great Sith War. On the historical timescale of the Jedi Order it was a fairly recent addition to doctrine, imposed as a reactionary measure during decades of war. It was an attempt to curb further conflict but only made things worse.

Vader is a fallen Jedi, "all that's left of their religion." Palpatine calls lightsabers "a Jedi's weapon" and treats them like toys. The early EU took its cues from this and only depicted Sith who were former Jedi like Exar Kun and Ulic Qel-Droma wielding lightsabers, with true Sith Lords using alchemized swords.

Luke doesn't wear them. Anakin's ghost does because he was a Tatooine moisture farmer who Uncle Owen thought "should have stayed here and not gotten involved."

He did care, though. Not about the quality or continuity, but he explicitly didn't want the EU doing things he disapproved of from a thematic or lore perspective. Lucy Autrey Wilson said recently that Lucas's displeasure with Palpatine coming back in Dark Empire led to him taking a more active role in approving story outlines and major plot points in much of the Bantam era and early NJO. It's possible he had the marriage rule in mind all along and just kept it close to the chest for no reason, but I doubt it.

 

To quote GL, its not attachment, its possessiveness, “We are allowed to love, but not possess.”

 

Filoni was Lucas's padawan. He is definitely following with what George would have told him is how envisioned Luke as a Jedi.

The idea that Jedi celibacy was some grim flaw that Luke had to fix is pure retconning because Legends assumed Jedi were more like knights than monks because Anakin's had kids and neither Obi-Wan nor Yoda treats it like it was a violation of his vows to the Jedi Order.

The Order isn't presented as wrong about romantic attachments in the PT, Anakin is pretty consistently portrayed as frequently doing the wrong thing. He marries, in secret, the woman that justifies his slaughter of Tusken men, women and children in the same movie! And it is through his attachment to Padme that Anakin is fully seduced to the dark side. That's not at all a condemnation of the Jedi or in any way saying "if they just let this dude be married none of this woukd have happened."

Even with Luke, it's not his attachment to Anakin that saved his father. It was his compassion. It was very nearly Luke's attachment to Leia that killed Vader and sent him to the Emperor's side.

You're making a category error by thinking love = attachment. Attachment literally means possessiveness. For the Jedi, much like Buddhist monastics, non-attachment starts at celibacy. No Buddhist monk would say they are forbidden to love, they woukd in fact say much the same THAT Anakin does to Padme. The difference being, Anakin was basically using weasel words to justify his attachment to Padme, his desire to possess her.

Point is, the Jedi don't marry in Lucas's vision for the GFFA.

If you want to lay into the attachment rule, you'd be better aimed if you talked about the ways in which the Jedi would just take in younglings and completely sever their ties to their families. I think that is far worse than simply forbidding marriage.

One of the biggest hurdles fans have is wanting the Jedi to just be regular folks with super powers, and that is not what they are. They are religious devotees with a calling to literally help all beings in the galaxy without discrimination. Their non-attachment rules make sense in this regard. Especially in light of a history of fallen members of their order through the ages literally doing immense evil because they didn't have nonattahcment and didn't have compassionate love for all beings without discrimination. Whether it was attachment to self or others that caused their turn to the dark side.

 

I find this a strange reading to be honest. What do you think Yoda intended to happen when he talked about Luke “confronting” and “conquering” Vader? Even if they didn’t think Vader’s death was strictly required, they clearly don’t believe there is anything left in him that can be saved.

“Only a fully trained Jedi, with the Force as his ally, will conquer Vader and his Emperor.”

“You must confront Vader. Then, only then, a Jedi will you be.”

“You father was seduced by the dark side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed.”

“There is still good in him.”

“He's more machine now than man... twisted and evil.”

“I can't do it, Ben.”

“You cannot escape your destiny. You must face Darth Vader again.”

“I can't kill my own father.”

“Then the Emperor has already won. You were our only hope.”

It feels like actively reading against the text to argue that Luke was just a fool who got lucky by trusting Vader. Star Wars was influenced by, among other things, ’60s counterculture and the anti-Vietnam War movement. Luke is the ultimate Rebel: in TESB he chooses death over submission to evil, and in ROTJ he proves himself wiser than his teachers and becomes a better Jedi than they were by having hope where his teachers were hopeless and choosing love for another over his own life. It’s the targeting computer all over again, with the older generation telling Luke something can’t be done, but he trusts in his own feelings and the Force and proves them all wrong.

The “compassion vs. attachment” argument is nonsensical semantic hairsplitting. Vader and Luke are attached. Whether or not they logically should be is a separate discussion. They are. Luke wants to redeem Vader and Vader doesn’t want to kill Luke. Neither would hold their respective position if they weren’t attached.

It’s not some stupid, generalized “compassion” for all living things that spares Vader. Luke doesn’t try to bring the Emperor back from the dark side; he doesn’t risk his life and soul to save any of the mooks he carves up on Jabba’s sail barge or the stormtroopers he pancakes on Endor. It’s fairly clear that the absence of a father has affected Luke and he’s not willing to let him die once Luke finds out Vader is him. Luke wants to save him up until the moment Vader dies.

Like many people, you’re making the mistake of attributing falling to the dark side to attachment and, in doing so, miss the point. Attachment in and of itself doesn’t dictate whether or not you turn to the dark side, choice is the determining factor. What a silly notion, that loving people makes you evil.

PT era Jedi had attachments but it was basically just “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Difference is, none of them turned to evil to keep their attachments. Anakin did. He would kill anyone, do anything if it meant saving Padme and, in doing so, he became someone she couldn’t love. He became angry, jealous, and possessive and once he had power, he only wanted more.

I’m not sure why you think this scene has anything to do with renouncing attachment. Vader threatens Leia, Luke goes nuts. He gives in to his emotions and lashes out. Upon defeating Vader, Luke looks from his own robotic hand to Vader’s severed one. Luke realizes that what he saw in the dark side cave in ESB is coming to fruition. Luke is becoming his father. So rather than take the same path as Anakin, Luke refuses. He rejects the Emperor and finally fully commits to the Jedi.

Watch the scene where Anakin walks in on Mace and Palpatine in ROTS and you can see parallels between it and this moment in ROTJ. Similar circumstances. Luke can kill Vader and join the Emperor in pursuit of the power to save those he loves just as Anakin helped Palpatine kill Mace to do the same. Make a deal with the devil. Luke knows what that leads to. He’s literally looking at it. So Luke does what Anakin could not. He chooses good, chooses Jedi, and chooses love over hate. Luke doesn’t “let go.” He doesn’t forsake his attachments but he doesn’t allow himself to become his father to keep them either. Luke saves his father and in turn the father saves his son because if Luke can choose good, so can he. None of this happens if neither is attached.

Luke has attachments. At no point in the OT does he give them up. Luke proves that attachments can be a strength rather than a liability. Lucas wrote that too.

 

Im really going to miss Mara Jade one of the Best Characters of the EU/Legends Universe some Fans complain that there are not enough Female Characters in Star Wars and Mara Jade was one of the most Iconic Characters in Star Wars before Ahsoka or Rey there was Mara i think Mara deserve to be part of the New Canon but the problem is that Mara is very related to the Character of Luke and could cause conflict with Disney ST Version of Luke i dont know if the Novels are considered High Level of Canon in the New Canon but in the Prologue of The Last Jedi Novelizaicon Luke dreams of being the Husband of his Tatooine Friend Camie Marstrap if we consider the Novelization of The Last Jedi Canon with the New Canon then the Novel gives me to understand that New Canon Luke really wanted to have a Girlfriend or a Wife and that New Canon Luke probably didnt have anything similar or a Wife at least EU/Legends Luke Jedi Order allowing attachments makes sense to the Movies in my opinion since Luke attachment saved Darth Vader and Yoda never tells Luke about Jedi and attachments in ESB and ROTJ because Yoda did not consider it necessary and considered Luke as a True Jedi in ROTJ, Yoda could have changed his mind about Old Jedi Rules and during the Times of the OT was more necessary to create more Jedi than to preserve the Old Jedi Rules, Prequel Jedi are also not allowed to Train Old People if you was not with the Jedi when you was a Baby then you could not be a Jedi according to the Old Jedi Rules Teens or Adults cannot become a Jedi according to Old Jedi Rules did New Canon Luke forgot about that? why Train Leia and Kylo if you follow the Old Jedi Rules? there were only a few exceptions but it was a General Rule that Kids or People who did not Grow Up in the Jedi Order could not become Jedi personally, i prefer Luke Jedi Order in the EU/Legends Universe because that was how i envisioned Luke Jedi Order after the OT but i respect Lucas Vision

 

Yep.

Lucas was infamous for meddling in the old EU; the Yuuzhan Vong weren't allowed to be Force-users, Anakin Solo wasn't allowed to be the hero of the New Jedi Order saga, Luke, Leia, and Han weren't allowed to be killed, people weren't allowed to show the Clone Wars. He had plenty of opportunity to set things straight. If he didn't bother to insert a rule in there against Jedi marrying, despite the astronomical number of Jedi who did it in a quarter century of EU lore, it's not because the EU misunderstood him. It's because he only came up with that rule at some point between The Phantom Menace and Attack Of The Clones.

 

He should have had two classes of Jedi like The Templars, Knights who to be fully committed have no families and Sargents who could marry.

 

To add to that, the fact that Obi-wan and Yoda were quite open about Luke being a jedi's son, never implying this was against some kind of rule, and given this was a fun adventure trilogy suitable for kids in the 70s and 80s I don't think anyone was expecting Luke to be born out of wedlock, ergo the natural conclusion would be that the jedi could get married.

Particularly since Lucas talked about the star wars universe and its world building quite a bit in interviews and behind the scenes documentaries and the like, and again there wasn't anything clearly against it.

(Though interestingly it seems like some things did come earlier but were misunderstood - for instance, his notes to the TOTJ comic crew on ancient jedi and sith in hindsight clearly implied the rule of two, but the writers at the time thought that two sith couldn't threaten the galaxy on their own and seem to have interpreted it as sith leadership taking a master and apprentice system. Similarly, some interviews suggest his framed the climax of rotj as supporting non-attachment - that familial attachment failed to redeem Vader, and almost drove Luke to the dark side when he became furious for Leia's sake, and it was instead a more universal sense of empathy and compassion sparked by seeing Vader as a defeated old man with an injury similar to him that sparked Luke's mercy, which in turn sparked Vader's redemption. Definitely not the obvious reading of the scene though, and even this form of non-attachment doesn't seem opposed to romance or family bonds entirely, just not being consumed by them to the expense of all else)

 

While these questions are complicated by semantics (love? attachment? possession? jealousy?) and Lucas' shifting understanding of the Jedi between trilogies, both the EU (Survivor's Quest) and new Disney Canon (The Last Jedi novelization) affirm that Luke's new Jedi order modified the PT Jedi's understanding of attachment, at least as applied to relationships. This lines up with a fairly straight-forward reading of the PT-OT saga. By the end of the PT, even Yoda and Obi-Wan acknowledged they have failed Anakin, and they instead opt to have Luke and Leia raised in families, which ultimately makes all the difference. While Obi-Wan is Kierkegaard's perfect Knight of Infinite Resignation, willing to kill his best friend for the greater good, Luke is Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith, refusing to kill and instead appealing to the love of his father. Where Obi-Wan and Yoda failed to stop the Sith, Luke and Anakin succeeded.

This doesn't mean that the PT Jedi were wrong about attachment (as in possession or jealously); they were basically right, but they misapplied this understanding, or even had different understandings of what this meant within the Order. There is a scene in TCW where Barriss is talking to Ahsoka and says Mace Windu teaches that Jedi should avoid attachments. This is different from the attitude of Obi-Wan or even Yoda, who recognize that it is impossible to avoid attachments; instead, one must train oneself to let go of the attachments that inevitably form over the course of one's life. Avoiding attachments vs letting go of attachments could look the same externally (for an Order of warriors like the Jedi, both might require celibacy - the contrary is Freudian idiocy), but ultimately the former hinders one from learning to achieve the latter, because either one forms attachments and lives in denial (e.g., Mace's commitment to the Republic), or one rationalizes jealously and violence to hold onto attachments (e.g., Barriss). Luke, in learning to let go of his possessive fear but not of his familial love, thus represents a clarification of or advance upon the PT Jedi view, rather than a wholesale rejection of it.

While it might seem like Ahsoka in Mando season 2 or Luke in BOBF contradict all this, those stories are far from over. Filoni is certainly partial to the Qui-Gon/Ahsoka take on these issues, and I expect we will see some interesting developments of these characters' perspectives going forward.