Jedi Baby-Snatchers?

I only know of a single case of Sith actually going out of their way to get a baby recruit, and that was Maul, presumably because of his immense potential, without the Jedi having also snatched him first.

If KotOR is any indication, Sith are usually adults who are either invited or wants to join Sith ranks. And even then they have to prove themselves fiercely in both motivation and power. Without their trainers spending any effort on getting them ahead (per PoD). That suggests a level of "If you want to join our exclusive club, you damn better have the stuff" which doesn't jive at all with the Sith actually looking for Force-babies the way the Jedi do.

As for the Order of the Sith Lords Sith you are talking about, I guess Palp does set a certain precedent. But the odds of that happening to just your Force-baby is comparable to getting hit by a meteor.

 

Dude, he's talking about the Sith Order of Legacy. The One Sith, not "the recently ascended master of the Banite Sith looking for a new apprentice".

We know for a fact that the One Sith raise individuals from infancy in the Sith traditions (to the point that there are Sith families: see Wyyrloks I, II, III and the future Wyyrlok IV) and it has been demonstrated time and again that they have a very strong sense of cultural identity - to the point that they will raise those even incapable of becoming 'proper' Sith (like Jor Torlin) in their society.

As such, I think it's incredibly unlikely that in their new role as rulers of the galaxy the One Sith aren't actively indoctrinating every Force Sensitive they can into their traditions, particularly infants, especially when we know that Wyyrlok's master plan is to make the entire galaxy part of the One Sith.

 

Yeah, what Uli said. I wasn't talking about the days of Sith going around converting fallen Jedi. I'm talking about Darth Krayt raising 10,000 kids from infancy to believe he is God.

 

I think most would be honored. It's not much different that a child becoming a Shaolin monk for parents who are enthusiastic about martial arts. In China, that's a great honor. Kids are regularly sent to Shaolin at young ages to be immersed in Shaolin kung fu.

 

Recall that Lorana Jinzler's parents certainly felt honored...

 

Oh. My bad. I thought calling it One Sith like that was rather odd. Serves me right for not reading Legacy.

 

Heh. Oddly enough I actually dislike how it's ended up being the One Sith. When they introduced the term in the novels you didn't call it "the" but treated it as a noun (I presume there's some fancy grammatical term for that but I don't know what that is). Like how you don't go "the Manchester United" you just go "Manchester United". Or it's just "Buckingham Palace" not "the Buckingham Palace".

It always sounded better to me without the "the" as it worked in the "We are One Sith now" way, not "We are the One Sith now". They are all One Sith, he is One Sith, they come from One Sith, etc. Sticking "the" in there always seemed a bit weird to me. I preferred when it felt more like a philosophical statement as opposed to an actual name.

Not that I particularly care. Just saying I can see where you're coming from.

 

Interesting point. Are they definitely 'the' One Sith... or is that something fanony that's creeping in? (I can't remember)

 

As far as I can tell it started out as a fan thing, as originally whichever book that introduced the term didn't call them "the" One Sith. It's slipped into one of the actual Legacy comics since then though, which has essentially canonised it as "the" now.

I still prefer it as fanatical mantra though than an actual name that the Sith themselves call their group. To me their group is simply the Sith Order. Like how to the Banites it was always just the Sith Order too. They're weren't actually called "Banites". I prefer "One Sith" just being zealous spiel, "We are One Sith". Only time I don't mind that much is if they go "We serve the One Sith" in reference to Krayt himself, given he is the One of the Many.

Of course, I'm being very nit-picky... as whether or not you use "the" before particular nouns is largely just a language thing anyway, e.g. how a lot of foreign speakers do say "I want to see the Manchester United" or "I want to visit the Buckingham Palace" etc.

 

However we DO say "I want to visit the Harbour Bridge", not "I want to visit Harbour Bridge"

 

I suppose that would be because "Harbour" isn't so much a name in the, uh, "name sense" (I did say I don't know what the fancy grammatical terms are ), but probably just originally what it actually was, i.e. "the bridge across the harbour". Whereas, "Tower Bridge" in London is usually just "Tower Bridge".

English is such a finicky language.

 

You also have to factor in the poverty level in general. Forget the religous aspect of the Jedi. If someone approached you and said, "Your child has what it takes to become a talented neurosurgeon." It would be hard to say no. Jedi recieve the best educations and certainly aren't poor or want for anything. Jedi get to see the galaxy. If Anakin had stayed with Shimi he would have been a moisture farmer at best. As advanced as things are in SW the common person still doesn't own their own spaceship.

 

Was Jax Pavan snatched, or did Lorn just decide it sucked not having any contact with the kid? (Btw, I do think it's a little far-fetched for most families to give up an infant, never to see that child again, for the abstract honor of being the parent of a Jedi. I can't think of many parents who would do that if an Ivy League University asked. Or the military. Or Morgan Freeman. Or any other respected institution we'd care to name.)

But, even if they are baby-snatchers, how does that make them bad guys in the big picture? It's at a very early age, so the kid doesn't have a huge attachment to the parents. As for the parents, sure it sucks for them, but it's a tough galaxy and since slavery is illegal in the Republic it's not like they actually own their children.*** Assuming the average Jedi saves at least dozens of lives in his career, the emotional loss of the parents is outweighed by a greater good. So, from a certain point of view, the Jedi might have a duty to take kids.

Now, someone earlier noted that Jedi teachings will influence the youngling in question until he's almost certain to follow the Jedi path for his entire adult life. True, but we could say the same thing if said youngling stayed with his parents and they instructed him in their religion/culture, so it seems like a wash. And remember that Jedi are allowed to walk away from the Order.

So, I think it's an interesting area, and anyone who either refuses to entertain the notion that they wouldn't take a child without parental consent or who depicts it as "OMG, teh immoral Jedi kidnappers! They need to learn the Mandalorian Resol'nare to see reason" is being glib or refusing to really think much on the issue.



*** This is why I always get a little wary when people start talking about "parental rights." It smacks of ownership, and "Michael-Jackson-dangling his baby is ok 'cuz it's *his* baby" arguments.

 

I think the reason you can't fathom a parent being willing to give up an infant to a respected institution is primarily because you're applying real world analogies to the situation. There are some similarities on earth, but no one-to-one and thus the rules become a little bit different in the GFFA. A parent's logic may be very very different. Especially when it comes to a millenia old tradition that has a knack for saving the entire galaxy on a good day.

 

I think Dawud pretty much hits the nail on the head, though I would add a further variable: that a lot probably depends on which society you're taking the baby from.

Just like how in the real world some countries would be disgusted at the idea of taking a baby away at such a young age, whereas others would feel honoured to have their child grow up in a prestigious group; in Star Wars, you've got thousands of different races and species, so a lot is likely to depend on where you're doing the taking from.

It could well be that the Jedi have just learnt from experience to not bother visiting Planet X to take babies from, knowing that their culture doesn't like it. It seems on the two extremes the Jedi are okay: the Core Worlds know the Jedi well enough to generally be happy with it; and the Outer Rim is so poverty stricken that people are happy to give their kid any chance it can get. Elsewhere though, there may well be more anomalous societies that the Jedi tend to stray away from, rather than upsetting the apple cart.

 

The thing about Star Wars is that it encourages these Real World analogies. Both in the films and books. That's why we have things like Dex's Diner and dice hanging in the Millenium Falcon, and *shudder at the Planet of Twilight reference* smashball all-star Rip Calkin. The parallels are there and they are big. We're meant to identify with the Galactic norm (which is largely humanocentric).

EDIT: Let's look at it another way. Let's say a major religion (which the Jedi are not) started randomly asked some members to give away a kid at birth. Not raise a kid and instill in him the desire to join the clergy, but to give away the child to the the High Priests and never see him again. Betcha people would leave that church in droves. So it boggles my imagination that the Jedi would have better luck getting younglings voluntarily when most of the galaxy does not keep to the Jedi religion.

 

One good real world analogy to the Jedi taking children would be the fact that during the Middle Ages, families would often give young children and infants to the Catholic Church with the knowledge and intent that the Church would train those children to be either priests or nuns. At that time, people believed that having a child serving as a priest would be an incredibly high honor due to the importance of the Church in society. I think this comparison works particularly well because of the similarity between the Catholic Church's views on celibacy and the Jedi in regards to attachment.

 

That's probably the best counter-argument I've heard, but the GFFA is not in the middle ages. It's far closer to contemporary Western culture. And there is no Jedi Church that everyone belongs to and worships under (partially because the Jedi don't use fear of damnation to the netherworld of the Force to motivate the galaxy at large).

 

You know, with how the Galaxy seems to hate the Jedi as being no different to the Sith half the time, it leaves me torn between parents either going:

1. WTK? I'm not giving my baby to you bunch of warlocks with your magic. All you people ever do is cause problems. I don't want my boy/girl being a part of that.

or,

2. *screams the first time baby bends a spoon with telekinesis* GET IT AWAY FROM ME! I can't handle this. You know all about that Force stuff. Can you help him/her, please?



Parents are stuck in a pretty awkward place really if their kid has already started exhibiting traits that would most likely scare most laymen when their kid started doing all the weird freaky stuff that the Galaxy seems to be spooked out by most of the time. Either they try and deal with something they can't hope to comprehend all on their own, or they give their kid away to the baby snatching warrior monks who always are starting holy wars. Karked if they do; karked if they don't.

 

You are forgetting two things:

A) It was a sort of tradition to have at least one member of a family in the church, particularly for noble and middle class families. It sets you up to have a better store in heaven.
B) For poorer families, it was a way of getting rid of an extra mouth to feed.

And the Jedi is seen in GFFA as a kinda quasi-religious way.

 

As I remember it, he gave him away, then got fired because the kid wasn't supposed to have contact with his father. Ergo a situation that from Lorn's perspective turned from "Have my kid raised where I work" to "Have my kid removed from me by the people who pushed me into poverty".

And I gotta agree on the real-world analogies. Without the Jedi religion being common, or even understood, giving your kid away to them is sorta like giving them to the Secret Service or something. Generally seen as the good guys, but not someone you want to give your kid to if you have a choice, especially if it meant never seeing them again.

 

I think there's probably also a certain amount of Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters going on too.

Most parents aren't going to know what to do with a Force-sensitive kid, especially when he throws a toddler tantrum and your stuff starts flying around the room. Or when he has nightmares that absolutely terrify him whenever a natural disaster happens on the other end of the galaxy. Let alone visions, they could be horrifying visions too... and what's a non-FS parent to do with that?

There are a couple reactions... "Yikes, my kid's a freak and I need to get away from him!" or "My son really needs guidance, can you please help him?" Eventually that turned into the Jedi, after the Ruusan Reformation, taking Force-sensitive children at as early an age as possible. They'd had millenia of prestige at that point... oddly, I don't think they were as universally reviled coming out of the New Sith Wars as they were the Clone Wars(somehow the Sith just never managed to absolutely smear the good name of the Jedi, yet Palpatine did it with a single master stroke which he might've been able to do if the Jedi hadn't harmed their own image with some of their post-Ruusan policies).

Add the things that motivate parents to send their kids to Charles Xavier(who identifies his chosen students in mysterious ways as well, to the non-mutant parent that is), and he comes knocking on their doors asking them to give their kids to him, to the religious side of the Jedi and the elite warrior monk side. You've got a potent combination for why someone would send their kid to Jedi school for life.

1) They might be afraid of their own child and his powers. Or they might just want to get them the best help that they can, and if the vaunted Jedi tell them it's better for them not to have contact with them again so that they can maintain and sensible control over their powers via non-attachment... well, who the hell are they to ask questions? And don't you doubt that many people would feel that way, especially at the height of the Jedi's popularity in public opinion.

2) The Force and the Jedi have definitely been characterized as a religion in ANH. It's entirely possible that there are people out there that believe in Jedi doctrines, fully accepting that they can never touch the Force in the same way... but see the Jedi as representives of the will of the Force and serve in some sort of priestly function that doesn't include the performance of rituals but via actively doing the will of the Force to maintain balance in the cosmos. If you're a partisan of such a faith in the GFFA, it's going to be a massive honor for someone bearing your name to render that service... even if that means alienating them from you from infancy. They are still bearing the family name in their capacity as a Jedi.

3)The economic side of the equation. The Jedi live in this awesome Temple on the cosmopolitan center of the universe. Even if they have to adhere to certain austerities, they are always certain of 3 square meals and clothes on their backs. Great education, and they get to explore the greatest mystery in the universe to boot.

4) They are the most legendary karking heroes in the galaxy! Your kid gets to become something of mythic proportions. That's pretty freaking awesome, especially if you grew up wanting to be a Jedi but knowing you couldn't... alot of parents live vicariously through their kids!

Also, the assumption that the GFFA is necessarily far closer to contemporary Western society than medieval society or even non-Western contemporary societies is a bit of a stretch. In many ways it's very non-Western and non-contemporary. And that's especially true as you branch out to the variety of cultures present in the GFFA. I think we have a tendancy to think it's contemporary Western society because the Republic, New Republic and Galactic Alliance are all essentially an intergalactic United Nations. Coruscant may be very much contemporarily Western in most respects, but the entire galaxy is not and elements of the GFFA itself are not. It's not even a true democr

 

File "baby-snatching Jedi" under "Pope Joan" and the testicle-chair of the Catholic Church as widely believed but ultimately bogus rumors.

Oh, and for the record, Lorn gave his child up voluntarily but became snippy later cos he got sacked. He certainly *claims* it was because they didn't want him to get to close to his child, but that's his own post-rationalisation, I'd say, and seeing the man's many psychological issues in Shadow Hunter, there's probably more going on.

And...DarthMRN, the Banite Sith definitely snatched children without asking parents. Unless you believe Palpatine asked Darth Maul Sr. whether he wanted his child to join a mysterious cult...

Btw, I do think it's a little far-fetched for most families to give up an infant

When you have a revered organisation that has been a part of the state of civilisation for 25,000 years, you'd probably act differently. As Dawud points out, where a lot of fans go wrong understanding the GFFA is by comparing it to our own world. It's not that simple. The Jedi have existed as a continuous organisation for more than 4 times as long as the entire recorded history of human civilization.

Jedi in the GFFA are older than the following things in our own reality: writing, the wheel, cities, farming, tools, domesticated animals....

Consider also the relative numbers. Jedi are never more than about 10,000 in a galaxy containing trillions or so that number.

It's not the equivalent of someone on earth saying they're taking your kid and raising him to be wealthy and important....it's the equivalent of going to an African village and saying you're going to to raise their kid as President of the United States.

But only more so.

So instead of President...imagine someone actually guaranteeing your child will grow up to be Superman.

 

Yes, Palpatine does set a certain precedent. Though I wish we had more members of the Order of the Sith Lords to sample. On one hand, as important as the single apprentice is to you, raising it from birth to insure loyalty to the Rule of Two certainly seems like the rational thing to do. But on the other, when looking at Maul's reverent loyalty and love for Palpatine in spite of his hardships, that seems rather incompatible with being supposed to envy and supplant your master. I think I even read him admit to being willing to die for old Palp somewhere.

And anyway, as I also said, even if the Banites did snatch babies, the odds of that happening would be comparable to a meteor strike, and thus irrelevant compared to the danger of having a Jedi do so.

EDIT: Also, Maul is a rather poor example, seeing as he was never meant as a continuation of the RoT, but a blindly loyal and expendable tool. For those purposes baby-snatching is decidedly the better option. Palp's adult apprentices on the other hand did a much better job of the supplantion gig.

 

I'm not sure that there's really any proof that Maul was "never meant" to be anything more than a tool beyond Dooku's opinion. Indeed, in The Phantom Menace novelisation we have the following:

So it's pretty clear that Sidious hadn't intended to discard Maul at all. I'm sure he would have if someone more capable came along... but, that would be true of any Sith apprentice.

If Sidious has any apprentice who was only ever intended as a placeholder, it was Darth Tyranus.

Excellent post by the way, QG.