Love and the Jedi

In short I've been reading some of This thread over on the Old Republic forums and I wanted to get the perspective of my peeps on the subject.

So whats your perspective on this debate? Do you think that emotional attachment is too much of a risk for Jedi to take knowing that it can potentially lead to instability and possibly the Dark Side? Or do you think that if handled properly theres nothing wrong with a Jedi forming emotional bonds with others? What are your views on some of the biggest 'falls' in the mythos?

My inquiring mind wants to know!

You can always look at religion on this subject. The catholic church does not allow its Preists to marry for several reasons. First because they believe that thier whole existance should be in servititude to God, much like the KOTR believed the Jedi should focus everything on the force. Second they believe that the strain to decide to choosing the church over family or vis-versa could lead to coruption, much like the KOTR believe that Needs of a family could lead to the dark side....

Other Christian religions allow thier preachers to marry, believing that the sacrament of marrage and the devotion of love can bring you closer to God.

Who is to say either is right or wrong. Just the same, you really cant say either the KOTR or Luke's jedi are wrong. Any Jedi can be tempted to the dark side. Love can be a temptation, but it is only one of many. There is no way to remove all temptations, so why remove any? In fact, one could argue that the Jedi would be stronger if they face temptation and defeat it.

So in my honest opinion I believe Love with the Jedi is fine. Its not love that makes the Jedi fall to the Dark side, it's the lack of the ability to cope with your emotions that leads to the Dark side.

Originally posted by CaedusRules
Who is to say either is right or wrong. Just the same, you really cant say either the KOTR or Luke's jedi are wrong. Any Jedi can be tempted to the dark side. Love can be a temptation, but it is only one of many. There is no way to remove all temptations, so why remove any? In fact, one could argue that the Jedi would be stronger if they face temptation and defeat it.

Do you not see the risk of a Jedi facing temptation and failing as being a factor? I mean, look at Caedus, who was driven insane by his obsession to protect his daughter from what was essentially a non-exsistent threat, and from his inability to cope with his brothers death. And when a Jedi goes bad, it isn't like if you or I go bad. Caedus dragged the entire galaxy to war over this. Just because he couldn't deal with it.

Also Vader.

George Lucas is very clear- in the Star Wars universe, having an attachment means you fear to lose it and that leads to the Dark Side.

That's simply a cosmological fact within the Star Wars setting and it is in fact crucial to the entire storyline. And I approve, because it is one of the very few damn storylines out there where love isn't the magic answer to everything.

Though as Anakin says, Jedi are encouraged to love in general, as opposed to specifically.

Surely you mean that it can lead to the Dark Side. Luke was happily married for years and even after Mara was murdered resisted falling. Hell, even in the movies Luke is clearly attached to his friends and loved ones. And it was the bond between father and son that eventually redeemed Vader. Love redeemed him as well as caused him to fall.

And I would argue that in so far that its crucial to the storyline that in Anakins case it was far more to do with that it was forbidden that it became such an issue. If he could have actually have gotten support from the Jedi rather than oppostion I doubt he would have turned against them.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Do you not see the risk of a Jedi facing temptation and [b]failing as being a factor? I mean, look at Caedus, who was driven insane by his obsession to protect his daughter from what was essentially a non-exsistent threat, and from his inability to cope with his brothers death. And when a Jedi goes bad, it isn't like if you or I go bad. Caedus dragged the entire galaxy to war over this. Just because he couldn't deal with it.

Also Vader. [/B]

I understand what you are saying, but an arguement can go either way. You could essentially break this down to a discussion whether you believe people need rules to protect them from themselves, or whether rules should be made to protect others, and let people protect themselves.

I am under the belief that you should not protect people from themselves. People that are tempted and fail will be held accountable by the rules in place to protect people.

In terms of being a Jedi. Would you rather travel to a darkside Nexus with someone that has never been tempted by the darkside, or someone that was tempted, but turned away? Me, I would rather have someone that was tempted and turned away, because I know his will-power is strong enough to withstand another temptation.

And the wonderful thing about EU is you can basically interperate as you want. I dont care if some uber dork pulls out a quote from George Lucas made in 1986.... Fact is there are hundreds of SW writers and each book you read is thier interperation... Thus SW EU is up to anyone's interpertations.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Surely you mean that it [b]can lead to the Dark Side. Luke was happily married for years and even after Mara was murdered resisted falling. Hell, even in the movies Luke is clearly attached to his friends and loved ones. And it was the bond between father and son that eventually redeemed Vader. Love redeemed him as well as caused him to fall.

And I would argue that in so far that its crucial to the storyline that in Anakins case it was far more to do with that it was forbidden that it became such an issue. If he could have actually have gotten support from the Jedi rather than oppostion I doubt he would have turned against them. [/B]

Yes Love CAN lead to the Darkside, but so can vanity, greed, desire, lust, boredom, and all the other emotions. Are you going to ban anything that leads to having any emotions? Emotions are a human factor. The Light side doesnt teach not to have emotions, it teaches to control your emotions, and to not let them drive you. And so just like you can teach someone not to act on thier desire for power, you can teach them not to fall because of love.

BTW wouldnt Vulcans make the best Jedi?

Originally posted by Nephthys
Surely you mean that it [b]can lead to the Dark Side. Luke was happily married for years and even after Mara was murdered resisted falling. Hell, even in the movies Luke is clearly attached to his friends and loved ones. And it was the bond between father and son that eventually redeemed Vader. Love redeemed him as well as caused him to fall.

And I would argue that in so far that its crucial to the storyline that in Anakins case it was far more to do with that it was forbidden that it became such an issue. If he could have actually have gotten support from the Jedi rather than oppostion I doubt he would have turned against them. [/B]

No, GL is clear- it DOES lead to the Dark Side. Attachment causes Fear and that;'s game.

EU material; that contradicts this is wrong. I am afraid your interpretation is wrong also; no amount of support would have helped unless it was support for him to give up the relationship.

Luke's love for his father was not possessive, that's the point.

Where does he say this? And are we talking just romantic love or otherwise. And please, the idea that that love always leads to the darkside is retarded. Obi-Wan loved Anakin 'like a brother' (GL's words). You don't see him going grimdark. Plus this is my thread and I asked for your perspective, not that of a divorced 60-year old ******* who doesn't even know how to pronounce his own made up words correctly.

I'm wrong because you say so. Great. ¬_¬

What about his love for his sister or Han? Clearly he is attached to them.

Originally posted by CaedusRules
Yes Love CAN lead to the Darkside, but so can vanity, greed, desire, lust, boredom, and all the other emotions. Are you going to ban anything that leads to having any emotions? Emotions are a human factor. The Light side doesnt teach not to have emotions, it teaches to control your emotions, and to not let them drive you. And so just like you can teach someone not to act on thier desire for power, you can teach them not to fall because of love.

BTW wouldnt Vulcans make the best Jedi?

Its definately not all emotions. Obi-Wan and Yoda clearly express emotions in the movies. I agree with you that its a matter of control, not complete emotionless sociopathy.

Vader just handled it wrong.

If done correctly emotional attachment is not too much to handle.

If you aren't a Skywalker and you aren't some random Knight or Padawan then you have a good shot of succeeding. Hell Satele got laid and dumped the kid and the guy that did her. Skywalkers just fail.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, GL is clear- it DOES lead to the Dark Side. Attachment causes Fear and that;'s game.

EU material; that contradicts this is wrong. I am afraid your interpretation is wrong also; no amount of support would have helped unless it was support for him to give up the relationship.

Luke's love for his father was not possessive, that's the point.

I don't remember Lucas ever making this clear. Sure attachment can be a risk to falling to the dark side so the jedi forbid it. Obi Wan was attached to Anakin but did not fall. Anakin's love for Padme turned into a severe obsession to the point where he thought it was impossible for him to live without her.

EU material; that contradicts this is wrong. I am afraid your interpretation is wrong also; no amount of support would have helped unless it was support for him to give up the relationship.

The most important thing to stress here is that all produced Star Wars is for yourself to enjoy. Whatever interpretation you want to put on what is and is not so is absolutely your business.
[...]

I must absolutely stress the point that none of this is based on simple personal preference. There is sometimes a feeling, for example, that some people seek to cut the EU out of continuity because they dislike it. Well, speaking personally, I don’t like Return of the Jedi, but that doesn’t mean I want to cut it out of continuity. All decisions in this area are based on statements by George Lucas and senior members of Lucasfilm. If they clearly and unequivocally change their minds, so shall we.
[...]

2. As far as the EU section is concerned, the films are the most important canon. The rest of the canon is rated in-house as part of an ongoing continuity effort by the makers and as much as it can be, that can be treated as the way of things here. Generally speaking, books are very canon, computer games aren’t, but it’s not quite as simple as that. Ask around and you shall find out.

We've got a phrase that gets tossed around here a lot:
"Your interpretation <<< Canon"
The EU forum is founded on the fairly straightforward idea that the EU is canon. I'm... baffled as to how you can post something like "the EU is wrong" and expect the post to be received with anything less than derision.

Anyway, there is a huge amount of EU that gets nerfed by your new "EU is wrong" idea:
Shatterpoint, because Mace has an undeniable attachment to Depa.
The Jedi Apprentice series in its entirety, because of Kenobi's attachment to one young freedom fighter (and eventual departure from the order) as well as Jinn's friendship with the Jedi Knight Tahl.
Literally the entire New Jedi Order series, which includes relationships between Jaina and Jag, Tahiri and Anakin, Leia and Han, and obviously Luke and Mara.
Dark Rendezvous includes a subplot about the relationship between Scout and Whie that could be interpreted as romantic.

This is a prodigious amount of material--and certainly not an exhaustive list-- to declare "wrong" so casually. Instead, I'm going to have to interpret such a casual disregard for the source material as a joke of some sort. 😆

Personally I believe that the NJO has a much healthier interpretation of the Force and the danger of attachments than did the Golden Age Jedi. Biological fact doesn't go away just because you declare it to be wrong. Acceding to feelings, going with the flow and mastering one's actions, rather than suppressing them, is a more psychologically effective strategy. (From a narrative standpoint it also makes characters more dynamic; the more relationships and intricacies each character has to navigate, the more opportunities for soul-crushing inadvertent betrayal.)

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, GL is clear- it DOES lead to the Dark Side. Attachment causes Fear and that;'s game.

EU material; that contradicts this is wrong. I am afraid your interpretation is wrong also; no amount of support would have helped unless it was support for him to give up the relationship.

Luke's love for his father was not possessive, that's the point.

Anakin's "attachment" to Padme was not traditional love. It was a dark obsession fueled by mutual physical attraction. Anakin was emotionally damaged and his prodigious abilities further separated him from others. It was not love which tore apart the Jedi Order, or caused any one of its numerous Schisms. It was lust for dominion over others, selfishness, and seduction of power magnified by the amazing abilities of all Force users.

The Golden Age of Jedi's failure to recognize the needs of someone other than a devout, raised from infancy Jedi including love and support is pretty much showcased throughout the PT. EU material simply lumps on more to support that.

I don't see how you can use a blanket statement like "GL sez love leads to DARKNESS!" and expect it to be binding. Try something new, like supporting your own stance with facts and logical arguments.

Or in lieu of that, flex mod muscle. Your call.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, GL is clear- it DOES lead to the Dark Side. Attachment causes Fear and that;'s game.

EU material; that contradicts this is wrong. I am afraid your interpretation is wrong also; no amount of support would have helped unless it was support for him to give up the relationship.

Luke's love for his father was not possessive, that's the point.

The problem with saying anything GL says is Cannon, is people like you that take every word GL says as black and white, from God's mouth.

Let me put it this way. GL wakes up one morning and his wife just backed into his favorite car. She gets mad that he is more upset about the car, then if she's ok... They have a big fight, and GL leaves for the office pissed off...

Then some Snot-nosed internet blogger see's GL on his way to work and asks him. "GL, There is a difference in love between the golden age jedi and the EU jedi... Can you comment."

GL, already pissed off says, "Love leads to possesing, and possesion leads to the dark-side."

Now every other day GL might say, "well in the golden age, the jedi were different, and becuase of the sheer number of Jedi, it was easier to just ban love then police jedi's relationships. However, in the EU, Luke was able to mentor each Jedi to control emotions and thus in his time love was not as dangerous."

So now the brat, goes home, blogs his discussion with a pissed off GL, and now "Cannonites" quote this as being undisputable evidence from GL's mouth...

Originally posted by Ushgarak
George Lucas is very clear- in the Star Wars universe, having an attachment means you fear to lose it and that leads to the Dark Side.

That's simply a cosmological fact within the Star Wars setting and it is in fact crucial to the entire storyline. And I approve, because it is one of the very few damn storylines out there where love isn't the magic answer to everything.

Though as Anakin says, Jedi are encouraged to love in general, as opposed to specifically.

So if George Lucas said sticking your head in a fire was a good idea, would you stick your head in a fire?

Or would you maybe, think for yourself, instead of what someone told you to think?

Seriously, Love is the greatest force for good in existence. It is pure, it is unselfish and is, in fact, the complete opposite of the dark side which is all about selfishness. Love is about unselfishness.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Anakin's "attachment" to Padme was not traditional love. It was a dark obsession fueled by mutual physical attraction. Anakin was emotionally damaged and his prodigious abilities further separated him from others. It was not love which tore apart the Jedi Order, or caused any one of its numerous Schisms. It was lust for dominion over others, selfishness, and seduction of power magnified by the amazing abilities of all Force users.

The Golden Age of Jedi's failure to recognize the needs of someone other than a devout, raised from infancy Jedi including love and support is pretty much showcased throughout the PT. EU material simply lumps on more to support that.

I don't see how you can use a blanket statement like "GL sez love leads to DARKNESS!" and expect it to be binding. Try something new, like supporting your own stance with facts and logical arguments.

Or in lieu of that, flex mod muscle. Your call.

"Applauds."

Well said.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Luke's love for his father was not possessive, that's the point.

Exactly. Love (be it familial love, romantic love etc) does not corrupt. Selfish feelings of possessiveness are what leads to corruption.

In the case of romantic love specifically, true love is NOT possessive. Let me show you a quote;

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

Originally posted by chilled monkey
Exactly. Love (be it familial love, romantic love etc) does not corrupt. Selfish feelings of possessiveness are what leads to corruption.

In the case of romantic love specifically, true love is NOT possessive. Let me show you a quote;

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

Good quote. Well said indeed.

Originally posted by chilled monkey
Exactly. Love (be it familial love, romantic love etc) does not corrupt. Selfish feelings of possessiveness are what leads to corruption.

In the case of romantic love specifically, true love is NOT possessive. Let me show you a quote;

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

The PT showed love leading to the Dark Side. It's G-canon. Love is always bad. Always. It's wrong.

YouTube video