When did the Jedi Forbid Attachment?

I've been searching Wooki (and it's possible I'm just a poor researcher) in an attempt to work out when exactly the Old Jedi Order forbade attachment, marriage, kids and all that jazz.

It's clearly not forbidden during the Tales of the Jedi era, but from what I've managed to gather watching my boy play endless hours of KOTOR (I'm terrible at video games) it's not accepted by that point in time even though it's only decades after Redemption.

What happened in that time to make the Jedi come up with such an idea?

I'm only just getting into the more recent comics (though help me, I did read most of ToTJ) so I'm not familiar with either Jedi vs Sith or the KOTOR comics (though the first is on my reading list and the second is on my "pick up the TPBs" list).

Do they shed any light on the matter? I was under the (presumably mistaken) impression that Jedi vs Sith was about a huge war and in the aftermath of that, the Jedi radically changed their organisation into the sort of Order we see in the prequels - i.e. it was at this point that they foreswore attachments, gave up military titles and no longer fought wars but rather acted as defenders. And the Sith instituted the Rule of Two.

But that doesn't really fly with Bastilla's endless whining about how she can't love Revan in KOTOR...

Please, help me before my head explodes!

 

Bastila's a hardliner. I'm under the impression that attachment has always been discouraged, to an extent, but it wasn't until Ruusan that it became canon law. A similar thing happened with Christianity: priestly celibacy was not always strictly enforced, but for centuries before its being made the rule, it was still considered a really good way of doing things.

 

QFT

I'd also add:

"When did the Jedi Forbid Attachment?"

When George decided he needed a twist so having Padme and Anakin hookup wouldn't be too easy or cheesy...*snort*

Seriously though, Ruusan is the focal point for most of what the Jedi Order IS during the film era...before that there are hints and divided camps in the order on many things...Post-Ruusan is must stricter order.

 

A popular fan-theory/retcon is that following the events of Tales of the Jedi, Nomi Sunrider became a member of the ruling Jedi Council, and that the non-attachment rule was established by her -- she had lost her husband and fallen in love with Ulic (which obviously didn't end well). Working into this theory is that when Nomi stripped Ulic of the Force, she did so out of anger at his betrayal. It is concievable that she later forbid attachments, as she knew it could lead Jedi to potential darkness (a la Anakin, so many years later).

Corollary to this theory is that at some point prior to Ruusan, the policy of non-attachment was either recinded or relaxed, until post-Ruusan, when it became the policy as it stands in the PT.

But, as i said, this is all speculation. The theory that the non-attachment was not strictly enforced in general (except by "hardliners"/traditionalists such as Bastila) until post-Ruusan is also a good theory.

And of course, the OOU explanation for the non-attachment rule in the KOTOR game is simply that they wanted it to relate to the Anakin/PT-storyline, irrespective of the status of the Order in the Tales of the Jedi series.

 

I still think the "no attachment rule" is the dumbest thing of the OJO.

I mean it's not like Jedi are invincible or could live forever, but they decide that no Jedi can have a heir?

Did they just assume that there would always be little Jedi children to raise and train all over the Galaxy?

It seems like after that many years of that dumb rule, the amount of force sensitives in the Galaxy would drop considerably.

 

There always have been.

Considering how often attachment leads to the dark side, it seems like a really, really good rule.

 

I'd argue that it's an impossible rule to keep...and thus why everytime it's mentioned in Star Wars, it's because someone is challenging it.

It's a ideological rule that crumbles in the face of reality.

I can't wait for the "Yoda's Secret Love" novel.

It will be made...just wait.

 

and essemtially attachment has a direct effect on the rise of the Empire (aside from Anakin and Padme). If the Jedi hadn't been so attached to the Republic they would not have been so blind to which direction the war was leading the galaxy.

 

I just don't understand why they are purposely trying to kill themselves off.

And how often does attachment lead to the dark side? I mean I think of Vader and Jacen, but thats just prequel mirroring anyway. I think it was said earlier that the ToTJ comics had something like that happen but I've never read those.

 

Thanks guys, great ideas and retcons.

Seems there isn't an official line on it...yet.

I'm going to go with the "Bastila's a hardliner" idea for now, I think. While it makes sense, I don't quite like having Nomi institute the rule; seems kind of hypocritical considering she'd already had love and a child and such.

(And yes, I know it could be considered an object lesson in why it's not a good idea, but it is something many want, so it seems hypocritical for someone who has had those things to forbid them to others. Kind of like how I can no longer stop myself from giggling at Ki-Adi Mundi's serious expression when Anakin's throwing his paddy about his appointment to the council being "unheard of". Sitting there. With his big head. And his four wives. And his position on the council before he was a Master. Goit.)

I think that the attachment rule is a great rule in theory because, yes, attachment leads to fear etc, etc.

The problem is it really is almost impossible to enforce. And by forbidding it you, well, criminalise it, it goes underground, in secret, so that there's no support for you when you're trying to deal with the fear and loss attachment can bring. And perhaps that's why attachment leads to the fall of so many Jedi - not that they have attachments but because they're also made to feel ashamed of them. I'd argue Anakin would have handled his situation much better if he could have shared his dilemma with others.

 

It's an idealogical rule that Buddhists have been living by for centuries. To take it completely literally is to misconstrue what's intended. Obviously, the Jedi are attached to other Jedi, to their friends and comrades, to their causes. Obi-Wan and Dex are good friends, Obi-Wan loves Anakin, etc. The point is that attachment can lead to problems, to negative emotions. People challenge the rule about attachment, get wound up in it, then end up skirting the dark side, or running into some other trouble.

Yoda's advice to Anakin isn't to not be sad, but to realize that she's now in a better place, that she's one with the Force, and to allow his sadness to pass, to not dwell on it, to not allow it to cause suffering. The reason Jedi actively avoid romantic entanglements is because those can cause the worst pain, the worst suffering, the worst greed of any interpersonal relationship besides familial connection. Not every Jedi can handle it, thus no Jedi should risk it. We've seen a ton of Jedi relationships end poorly. Disastrously so.

Within a reasonable bound, that is. See, the point, in real world religion as in the Jedi way, is to strive. The rule is there for adherents to the path to reach for, knowing that, as humans (or other sentient) we will inevitably fall short.

What I don't get about people who criticize Yoda's advice is this: why, then, did Yoda end up being right about Anakin's attachment? Why do attachments lead so many to the dark side? Why does even Luke Skywalker draw a line in the sand: you're a Jedi first, or not a Jedi at all?

 

As has been said already, it has probably always been discouraged, though marriage was not unheard of. My guess would be that after the Exar Kun war they really started pushing it, making it almost an unwritten law that all goodie-goodie Jedi like Bastila follow. They probably pushed it even more after so many Jedi went over to the Sith with Revan and Malak. Their solution to try and prevent Jedi from experiencing strong emotions that can lead one to the dark side, though it obviously didn't work.

I forget, did the Jedi know about Jolee's wife?

 

The canon answer is Odan urr wrote against it and he founded the Jedi Academy on Ossus.

So 5000 years according to Power of the jedi has it been "discouraged."

It's not until after Exar Kun is defeated that people actually start taking the rule seriously.

But it's not until after Ruusan its a nearly absolute rule.

 

After Ruusan its a way to regulate the number of Jedi. Just in case people go dark, there won't be a HUGE ass war either.

And attachments actually are usually it for FALLING.

let's face it, when people lose control it's usually because they lose something or someone.

 

http://qdb.lucidfox.org/quotes/view/576

 

That's all established canon? What are the sources?

What I've never figured out is if it was just discouraged back in the KOTOR era, why was Arren Kae kicked out? Was it for having a kid or was it another reason entirely?

 

I think she was kicked for joining the Mandalorian Wars.

(On a related note, we should really have a Yusanis/Arren Kae novel. There's a lot of potential.)

 

Power of the Jedi.

I think Arren Kae was kicked out for lying about it, too. From the implications, it seems there was a lot going on with her more than a simple affair with a Echanni warrior. Especially if the Kreia=Arren Kae stories are true.

 

I don't think the Jedi were too hot on the Echani, for that matter.

 

i like

 

2002.

 

Actually, 2001, since I remember seeing the teaser poster when I went to see The Fellowship of the Ring...

 

The specific character this idea takes on in the prequels came along after the Battle of Ruusan for whatever reason, but it's pretty clear in TOTJ that it's not forbidden and not even really spoken of. I get the impression too that there are different outlooks on what it is and what it takes to be a Jedi depending on who you learn from and where. So the "Jedi Order" could have easily been far less cohesive in those days than it is at any other time. The Jedi Council's not nearly as central to the operation of the Order as it is even just 50 some odd years later.

I think, too, that alot of what we see in the Jedi of KOTOR1 has a great deal to do with what was going on on Dantooine and the rules of that academy.

One can be married and not "attached" in the way that Anakin Skywalker was attached to his wife or mother... one can have family and be able to serve the Force regardless of what you might lose by putting yourself in harms way. From and Islamic standpoint, and this is often how I'm seeing Star Wars, family is a trial and tribulation... if you can handle family life in the best of ways then you will have a leg up on the guy that avoids the experience of family. You'll be better in society, ultimately, if you can lead a just and equitable family life and defer to the wishes of others sometimes and what not. That give and take of intimate relationships is IMPORTANT for building strong moral character. That's the single most important thing in a Jedi's life, strong moral character.

 

I think that it is very bad rule. Love os more important than everything and it is the only force, which could overcome hatred, as we saw in "Return of the Jedi". I am glad that Luke Skywalker got rid of this awful rule.

 

^ That's not really what the rule is about, or why it exists. Also, by DNT Luke is moving back towards it.