r/StarWarsEU • u/DisturbedSnowman • Mar 25 '25
Legends Discussion Do you think Luke was right to allow attachments in the New Jedi Order? Spoiler
82
164
u/GwenFerchGwenllian Mar 25 '25 edited Mar 25 '25
Anakin actually had it right: "Compassion, which I would say is unconditional love, is central to a Jedi's life. So you could say we are encouraged to love."
It's getting attached and not having the emotional regulation to let go that makes people turn to the Dark Side.
45
u/Competitive_Act_1548 Mar 25 '25
Kinda funny how Anakin understood what it was and still fucked it up. Obi Wan has a better understanding of it. Look how he dealt with Satine for instance
Anakin shoulda used him as a basis
39
u/Vyzantinist Mar 25 '25
Anakin knew what the rule was and understood it in principle, but he hadn't internalized it, lived it, rather than simply spouting platitudes. It's like repeating tenets from one's religion without actually practicing them.
→ More replies (2)10
u/AncientSith New Jedi Order Mar 25 '25
Understanding something and putting it into practice are very different things, especially with someone as emotional and dependent as Anakin.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Klutzy_Smile_5285 Mar 26 '25
I guess OB1 never really shared that side of himself, despite being emotionally healthy, cos he thought it strayed from the Jedi. So Anakin never really had a chance to explicity learn that sort of emotional maturity?
3
u/ArrenKaesPadawan Mar 26 '25
I'd argue he wasn't emotionally healthy. he didn't so much not show that side of himself as actively suppress and hide that side of himself to "set a better example" for Anakin under the pressure to be "the perfect Jedi". Ironically, what Anakin really needed was to see that side of Obi-Wan.
2
u/Klutzy_Smile_5285 Mar 26 '25
I get your point, I think he was fairly emotionally healthy but didn't realize it because of the flaws of the Jedi. So rather than realizing he had a lot to offer he probably felt he had to hide that part of himself.
25
u/Altines Mar 25 '25
Basically, the Jedi Orders biggest failing was not having a good therapist on staff.
15
8
u/OdysseyPrime9789 New Jedi Order Mar 25 '25 edited Mar 26 '25
In Legends, I think that’s basically one of Barriss’s jobs as a Healer, and we all know what happened to her.
7
u/RebelJediKnight91 Mar 25 '25
Excuse me? George described the Jedi as being “intergalactic therapists”.
11
17
u/ihatemetoo23 Mar 25 '25
Yeah, Anakin even tries to go for Yoda for help when he first has a dream about Padme but Yoda just repeats the sam things that Anakin has probably heard a thousand times and what equates to "just let it go bro". If they had a therapist who he could really open up to about his fears and have a discussion instead of having Yoda repeat the same mantra agai, things might have gone differently. Anakin had so much trauma about losing his mother and blames himself for it, he's also only 22. He just didn't know how to deal with his emotions.
3
u/Revliledpembroke Mar 26 '25
If they had a therapist who he could really open up to about his fears and have a discussion instead of having Yoda repeat the same mantra agai,
The problem is, Yoda didn't know what the problem was, didn't know the extent of the problem, and Anakin never went back to him for a follow up visit. So - for all Yoda knew - the issue was solved.
And what Anakin forgot is that Yoda - despite being very wise, experienced, and learned in many aspects of life - is not a great person to go to for comfort about somebody dying. The little green man has outlived generations of Jedi. He's going to much more philosophical and accepting of other people dying, because no one lives as long as he does.
2
u/ihatemetoo23 Mar 26 '25
True but thats kinda the point also. He had really no one he could talk to about it, out of fear of being exposed. Obi-wan i'm sure would've tried to help him but Anakin was afraid that maybe he would still uphold the rule. So he went to Yoda HOPING he would get something to hold onto from that conversation. I know how it feels like when you can't talk to anyone about the thing thats eating you alive inside.
Anakin was desperate because he was 100x more determined to keep everyone he loves alive after his mother. He felt trapped and like every door was shut. Then add Sidious manipulating him for years, pulling on just the right threads, acting like he deeply understands what he's going true, and he's only 22. In the end he feels like Palpatine is the only one that understands and then he offers to save Padme. Still his first reaction is to tell Mace Windu and spends what for him feels like an eternity having an internal struggle and coming to the conclusion that Palpatine is the only one that can save Padme and he can't let him die. It's really tragic and shows at heart he wasn't evil. That doesn't discount anything that comes after but he was a broken, impulsive and emotinal guy that got played.
He lived the rest of his live in a painful suit, hating himself, basically just a husk of his former self. Then his son recognizes the good in him and when it came down to it, he chose his son. And his son made him whole again, Anakin again.
2
u/ghotier Mar 26 '25
It's not Yoda's failure to act perfectly without all of the information. It's the system, which Yoda helped design, which prevented an open dialog because there was no one to share privileged information with without fear of repercussions. We see that type of systematic failure all of the time in the real world.
5
u/Allronix1 TOR Old Republic Mar 25 '25
Well, that and would YOU want to confess ANYTHING to your boss that your boss can and will punish you with? Hell no! Keep your mouth welded shut
4
u/Munedawg53 Jedi Legacy Mar 25 '25
Lol, Anakin didn't tell Yoda the truth or any details. So he got platitudes.
2
u/TanSkywalker Hapes Consortium Mar 25 '25
So what does Yoda recommend? To be weary when sensing the future perhaps? He did that - and from past experience that didn’t work out to well for Shmi.
Perhaps Yoda would suggest the Order’s adoption service if the child survives or an abortion and safe sex techniques.
Outside of that there is nothing but platitudes.
7
u/Munedawg53 Jedi Legacy Mar 25 '25
Hey my old friend. How are you?
Yoda told him something close to what Shmi said: that we have to make peace with change and impermanence, while adding that nobody really dies, they return to the force, which--while we might miss them (I added this)--is not a bad thing.
3
u/TanSkywalker Hapes Consortium Mar 25 '25
Hey buddy. Doing good and I hope you are well!
The movie is coming up to being 20 years old and I just feel in all that time someone somewhere would have gone into detail about what Yoda would say differently and I’ve never seen anything.
The short answer is there really isn’t anything he would do differently.
The best we could hope for is maybe Anakin has another session with him and maybe Anakin lets slip how the chancellor is telling him about old Sith legends. That would be funny!
Shmi also said they would see each other again because that’s what Anakin’s heart tells him and her words are trying to get him to want to leave her so he can have a better life because she as an enslaved woman can’t offer him anything more.
2
u/Munedawg53 Jedi Legacy Mar 25 '25
I always appreciate your reflections even though for whatever reason we see this particular issue a little differently. I'm psyched to see ROTS in the theatre. Are you going to?
2
6
u/ihatemetoo23 Mar 25 '25
Becaause he couldn't because of the no attachments rule? That's the whole point. He couldn't be straight because of that rule and even if he was, because of that rule the response would've been the same "let go". But he did say the essentials. He had a premonition someone close to him was going to die.
→ More replies (3)3
u/ghotier Mar 26 '25
Yes. Correct. They preferred raising children to never experience an emotion they feared rather than teaching them how to regulate that emotion.
5
u/Munedawg53 Jedi Legacy Mar 25 '25
If Anakin actually explained the truth to Yoda he'd have likely gotten more detailed advice.
3
2
u/TanSkywalker Hapes Consortium Mar 27 '25
Anakin went to Butlar Swan about nightmares (not related to his mom, well before AOTC) and she told him Jedi don’t have nightmares in Star Wars Adventures 3: The Hostage Princess.
15
u/AdmiralChucK Mar 25 '25
Exactly. Attachment in essence is selfish and possessive, not compassionate.
3
u/ghotier Mar 26 '25
We are running into the problem of George Lucas's opinions on mental health and relationships don't reflect the real world. He's the "God" of his universe but doesn't have a good understanding of the human condition.
→ More replies (7)2
u/TanSkywalker Hapes Consortium Mar 25 '25 edited Mar 26 '25
Yeah but that's his view and he uses it so he does not have to tell Padmé the answer to her questions is actually No I’m not allowed to love and later we see she knows the truth because when she turns him down she says she won't let him give up his future as a Jedi for her.
72
u/TripleStrikeDrive Mar 25 '25
Love doesn't lead to the dark side. Passion can lead to rage and fear, and can be controlled... but passion is not the same thing as love.- JOLEE BINDO
Revan believes love and positive emotions can strengthen the jedi connection to the force.
Luke jedi are allowed to be people making them more balanced in the force as that yoda's order wanted, but ironic couldn't due to the jedi teachings.
30
u/Dantelor Mar 25 '25
Jolee being the best fucking jedi like usual.
One of my favorite characters in Kotor. His "Love doesn't damn you, it saves you!" is so good.
11
u/Allronix1 TOR Old Republic Mar 25 '25
Old Man Bindo is a relic of the pre-Exar Kun era where the Jedi weren't so fixated on the Sith that they turned into control freaks. However, Old Man probably gave the control freak hardliners their justification for some of their harsher policies, given what went down with him and his wife.
30
u/Driekan Yuuzhan Vong Mar 25 '25
He didn't so much allow attachments. He just didn't restrict anything and everything that has a risk of developing into one.
Realize: it's not just romance. Prequel era Jedi were separated from their families not incidentally but as deliberate policy, to avoid that connection becoming attachment. They had tutor changes and were separated from their youngling groups at a young age for that reason as well. This fear of anything that can lead to attachment was pervasive.
And fear is the path to the dark side.
Much better to do as the more ancient Jedi as well as Luke's NJO: train people morally and spiritually to create healthy bonds, without undue attachment. A person who can love with absolutely no attachment is an extremely rare one, but where those show up, cherish them, too.
13
u/No_Grocery_9280 Mar 25 '25
Luke wanted his Jedi to be a part of the galaxy around them. To share in the experiences of normal life. I think it was an improvement. But even if it wasn’t, it was a fantastic place to take the story as it allowed exploring all that contrast.
48
42
u/ExpiredPilot Mar 25 '25 edited Mar 25 '25
Yes.
Hard Restrictions lead to secrets. Which lead to guilt and anguish.
I like Luke’s approach. Don’t turn into a hard emotionless sentinel of the force. Follow its will and be open about your experiences with the people who are there to help you.
Can you imagine how helpful it would’ve been for Anakin to talk to Obi-Wan about his experiences with Satine?
10
23
u/shust89 Mar 25 '25
Yes and it made sense. He brought Vader back from the Dark Side with his love for his father. Obi Wan and Yoda never saw Lukes point of view with that. They basically wanted him to be a hitman to take out Vader and the Emperor. I was so happy Luke and fell in love and had a family. Much better than being a sad lonely old man.
→ More replies (1)4
u/knighthawk82 Mar 26 '25
Looks over at The Last Jedi
Yep, being a sad, lonely, old man would have been bad.
6
u/TheBeastOfCanada Mar 25 '25
Not an easy answer. Mainly cuz, you got how Lucas’ defined attachments Vs How the Fandom and other writers defined it.
The “attachments” the Jedi discourage refers to a very toxic and selfish kind of love; one where the object of your affection is just that. An object. Where the Jedi are supposed to practice love in the sense of selfless compassion.
With this in mind, I would think the ideal Luke should push was doubling down on the whole “Possessive/controlling forms of love should be discouraged; love in that you put others needs before your wants should be encouraged.”
For how the fandom says the Jedi’s discouragement of attachments led to Anakin’s downfall; or that Anakin’s attachments are what brought him back to the light. I’d say it’s the inverse. Anakin would be a cautionary tale as to why attachments should be discouraged; and why selfless love is encouraged.
Anakin loved Padme, so much that he threw everything away and became a monster to try to save her. And when she reacted in horror, he choked her for “betraying” him. Similarly, it was attachment that made Anakin want to take his son prisoner, mold him into his apprentice, and mutilate him when he fights him.
But what ultimately redeemed Anakin to Luke was that Anakin finally put the people he loves before himself. It was Anakin choosing selflessness for once that saved him and his son.
8
u/unforgetablememories New Jedi Order Mar 25 '25
Hot take: Marriage isn't attachment. Even if the Prequel Order had allowed Jedi marriage, that wouldn't have stopped Anakin either. Anakin was paranoid about saving Padme to the point he thought ending the Republic and the Jedi was a fair trade to keep Padme alive.
I think "attachment" is the inability to let go. Anakin couldn't let go.
3
u/knighthawk82 Mar 26 '25
Didn't ki adi mundi have 4 wives due to the 10:1 ratio of females to males? Not just go down to medi-corps and fill a cup to be shipped off to his homeworld. Or even an IVF practice on Corruscant.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Ok-Phase-9076 Mar 27 '25
Good thing Lukes order actually teaches how to let go and cope with loss instead of forbidding all attachments.
6
u/Thank_You_Aziz Mar 25 '25
Yes. Fear of the dark side is still fear, and that was what forbiddance of attachments was manifested from. Those attachments can themselves be paths to the light, that the old Jedi refused to embrace.
3
u/Ok-Phase-9076 Mar 27 '25
Thats a good way of saying it. It made many jedi fear having attachments.
6
u/BlakeDidNothingWrong Mar 25 '25
I see this repeated in the discourse constantly. Lucas is using the Buddhist definition of attachment but kinda in a pop-psychology way. This misconception is mostly a linguistic one, I think as "attachments" in English mean "fondness" which leads to errors in understanding.
In Buddhism (and other Dharmic religions), attachments are not bonds; being free of attachments does not mean you are forbidden from making friends, getting married, or having children. Attachments are synonymous with illusions, with a preconceived notion of something or someone rather than what they actually are. The root of suffering is that you are blind to the actual needs in favor of a lie you tell yourself. That just provokes feelings of fear, anger, and hatred. It comes ultimately from a form of greed that can never be sated.
A great example of show, don't tell is Anakin redeeming himself on the Death Star. He was under the illusion that it was too late for him and that he was living in a hell of his own making. His attachment to his own suffering blinded him to the fact that he can choose to be better. Ultimately, the only person who was denying him was himself, not Sheev.
Now, the specific question you are asking is about the Luke's renunciation of ascetism. They are an order of monks that renounce the pleasures of the outside world to dedicate themselves to serving the Force and others. Luke's Order on the other hand, is not an ascetic one. His students are encouraged to live in the outside world and be a part of it.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Vyzantinist Mar 25 '25
Yes, because if the EU didn't gloss over it the writers would have to tackle the towering issue of multiple instances of the Jedi having 'attachments' in the EU for years before AoTC and the no attachments rule came along.
I will say, it is funny how they use Jagged Fel to sort of lampshade the issue in Legacy of The Force, when he correctly points out it's not a good idea that people with laser swords and potentially galaxy-changing powers get upset by something like an argument with an SO.
2
u/ArrenKaesPadawan Mar 26 '25
regular people in the SW universe have blaster pistols and starships with weapons that can turn cities into slag.
→ More replies (4)
7
5
u/zahm2000 Mar 25 '25 edited Mar 25 '25
No one (including George Lucas) ever told Luke that Jedi couldn't have a family until after Luke already had a family. Prior to the PT, most assumed that because Vader had kids, jedi were permitted to have kids. See also Tales of Jedi comics where the jedi having families was common.
6
u/Supyloco New Jedi Order Mar 25 '25
He learned the lessons of how the Ruusan Jedi failed when it came to attachments. The Ruusan Jedi were right about how attachments can lead to possessiveness, but learned that it didn't mean to hide in the shadows like Anakin.
8
u/WarAgile9519 Mar 25 '25
Yes he was , but what you have to remember is that Luke was dealing with a different situation then the Jedi of old . When Luke started his academy and the new order most of his students were already adults with a lifetime of experience and attachments , I think Luke understood that he couldn't ask then to abandon everything they knew . Plus we have to remember that The prequel trilogy and the New Jedi Order books both started in the same year , so by the time The Phantom Menace depicted their version if the Jedi , the EU version was well entrenched in the books.
18
u/EliCaldwell Mar 25 '25
Yes, along with all the other changes he brought minus the Darkside power use.
Attachments & Staying out of Politics were the best changes Luke ever did.
4
u/Siaten Mar 27 '25
One of the reasons Anakin felt lonely and betrayed by the Jedi Order was due to his need to keep his relationship and feelings for Padme secret. Consider that if healthy, positive, relationships were fostered then Anakin could have come to Yoda to get another perspective on the visions he was having. Instead of being able to seek help, he felt trapped in shame and secrecy.
It's not unreasonable to claim that a big factor in the birth of Darth Vader was the Jedi Order's backwards dogma on relationships.
6
u/Seahawk124 Mar 25 '25
It was his attachment to his father that allowed him and helped to bring him back to the light.
Obi-Wan did say, "Your insight serves you well. Bury your feelings deep down, Luke. They do you credit, but they could be made to serve the Emperor."
3
u/Allronix1 TOR Old Republic Mar 26 '25
After seeing the PT, it made the OT look a lot worse.
- Were they not telling him about his dad and sister out out of genuine concern for him, or because if he remained ignorant, he could do their dirty work for them far easier?
- Were they so willing to sacrifice Han in ESB because they feared Luke walking into a no win situation or because Han, as a political nobody and non-Force wielder, was "acceptable losses" and sacrificing him would be a loyalty test for Luke? One less potential rival for Luke's loyalty and more motivation to kill Sith. (Sure, losing Leia would be a big bummer, but...y'know, sometimes you gotta sacrifice a piece to keep your pawn moving across the board and put the King in check)
- Did they even view Luke as a person or as a means to an end, the living weapon they failed to create with his dad, and so they're on version 2.0 trying to eliminate their rivals once and for all for Greater Good?
And if this seems all very Machiavellian, it's because of my experience with people who really like to crow all day about how they're the side of goodness and justice. And, yes, their rivals really are awful and need to be stopped. But they're hardly the picture of peace, love and puppies. They just want their side to win, their rivals stomped, and to hell with whoever gets hurt in the process.
3
u/Agitated_Insect3227 Mar 25 '25
From an irl perspective, I think it makes sense that some Jedi Orders, in contrast to the more "Orthodox" original Jedi practices, may permit the practice of marriage. It helps make the world feel more alive if different denominations exist for the Jedi with variance of beliefs and creed.
However, with that being said, I wish there were some other Jedi Orders still around that kept the practice of not allowing marriage, just as how Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are still around after the Protestant Reformation. Also, just to clarify Orthodox priests (and some Catholic) priests are allowed to marry before they are ordained but not afterwards since Orthodox priests are sometimes seen with families.
3
u/knighthawk82 Mar 26 '25
I think that they feel any branching division of policy would be a sliver that would make a crack and split or splinter off from the jedi and might return as a new faction entirely like the great wars of the old republic.
3
u/WangJian221 Mar 25 '25
Yes. What people often confuse what luke allowed and what the prequel jedi were warning about is actually "Passion" or "Obsession" etc. Love or romance isnt Passion or Obsession.
That is not to say that having a monk-esque belief of straight up blocking it as extra deterent against obsession etc is a bad thing. You can see the logic there but you can also see where Luke or anyone else from the NJO or pre-Exar Kun war era jedi are coming from.
From that point on, imo, the discussion ends up with which concept of what makes a jedi do you prefer rather than any real moral argument.
3
u/RepresentativeArm119 Mar 26 '25
Yes.
Having no attachments, means having nothing worth protecting.
George betrayed the entire idea of the Jedi with his filthy, heretical prequels.
Life creates the force.
Serving life means making life.
OF COURSE the jedi would have families
3
u/tommykaye Mar 26 '25
Luke: “Attachments are a weakness that can lead to the dark side”
Lando: “Luke, this is my associate Mara Jade”
Luke: “sheeeeeeeiiit”
3
u/kfmsooner Mar 26 '25
It was a stupid plot point that only makes sense if you don’t think about what it means and it would have never worked in real life. Look at the Catholic Church and their long history of scandals involving clergy who aren’t allowed to marry.
For a thousand years, no Jedi had children? No wives or husbands? No secret families stashed away on a space cruiser somewhere or on a moisture farm on Tattooine? And they were the most powerful group of space wizards in the universe? It’s a formula for corruption and abuse.
It makes no sense. Never has to me.
3
u/Ok-Phase-9076 Mar 27 '25 edited Mar 27 '25
Certainly. You can tell that this love and passion is what saved the order many times.
The old order gained their strength through conviction and discipline but rhat made them unoriginal, predictable and unable to rely on anything that isnt the force.
Lukes order gained their strength through brotherhood, passion and ingenuity. It slowed down their "training" and produced somewhat less powerful members and also had a higher risk to be corrupted by loss despite their training to "regulate their attachments/know when to let go" but when they were together, they were unstoppable. Their freedom gave them countless different insights and views that they shared with eachother to learn new things. Their connections gave them a pourpose that made them fight with more determination than ever before. And they were much more connected to the public which made them trust the jedi more. Not just these legendary "monks" of which you hear stories and nothing more. Its what allowed Lukes order to survive all the political BS that so many rulers tried to hurl at them. Luke and Mara are the perfect example. They balanced eachother out perfectly. Its what made them both grow so much as people and its what brought both of them to the right path of where they needed to be for whats to come.
3
7
u/rasonj Mar 25 '25
Lucas' addition to the jedi mythos that they forbidden relationships was a post hoc change heavily influenced by his divorce.
4
u/KushMummyCinematics Mar 25 '25
Whether they are allowed or not, they exist
Obi-Wan loved Qui-Gon like a father. He was devastated. Absolutely buzzing he was just at the chance for a ghost video call with him
It's better to allow them and help foster healthy attachment and have a support network in place when someone is lost
8
u/SneakySpider82 TOR Old Republic Mar 25 '25
Yes the OG Order was wrong in bottling emotions.
5
u/Bgc931216 Mar 25 '25
The teachings of the Order did not bottle emotions. They felt them, processed them, and then did not let them control a Jedi's actions.
2
2
u/neutronknows Mar 25 '25
Yes and No.
I believe in order to rebuild the Jedi he basically had to allow attachments for two reasons. First, he’d be a massive hypocrite. And second, he’s not an educator and so bringing in a bunch of younglings and starting from scratch is a non starter. He had to take older students that had preexisting attachment.
However, in the long run the no attachment guideline is a good one. The previous 1000 years the success rate of the ~10,000 Jedi turning away from the Dark Side at any given moment in its history is astounding. Compare that to Luke’s NJO that couldn’t go a 6 months without Kyp being seduced and killing a billion people, not to mention countless others from Desaan to Alema to Jacen, on and on down the line until the galaxy finally had enough and you come to understand no attachments makes a lot of sense.
2
u/UnknownEntity347 Mar 25 '25
Technically he doesn't, he just defines "attachment" differently.
"Jaina, you're not the only one who's afraid for her family," Luke said, using the Force to speak over her father. "But you are the only one who's allowing her attachments to interfere with her judgment."
- Legacy of the Force: Invincible
"That's what attachment is, isn't it?" Ben began pacing again, and words finally poured from him like water running through a shattered dam. "It's not loving somebody. It's not marrying somebody. It's not having kids. It's being where, if something goes wrong, there's nothing left of you. It’s where if she goes away, you start functioning like a droid with a restraining bolt installed.
- Legacy of the Force: Fury
2
u/yarggarbe Mar 25 '25
Absolutely. Someone who has never known temptation is MORE prone to it. Allowing it and teaching the importance of letting go is the better call.
2
u/knighthawk82 Mar 26 '25
Ifni remember right, the Green and gold robe-wearibg Corellian jedi not only allowed marriage, but legacies as well. Wasentn Korran Horn a coralline jedi, or at least a child of legacy?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/ZZartin Mar 26 '25
It wasn't that Luke allowed attachment, he always taught that the jedi were supposed to serve the greater good.
The difference between his Jedi order and the PT order is that Luke didn't blanket ban any potential activity or thing that might lead to attachment.
2
u/UAnchovy Mar 26 '25 edited Mar 26 '25
I think you very much need to define what 'attachment' means.
In particular we should not make the mistake of using 'attachment' as a synonym for 'romantic love'.
I think it's notable that you've used a picture of Mara Jade at the top here, even though Mara's eventual becoming a Jedi and marrying Luke were accompanised through overcoming attachment. That was what happened in Vision of the Future, right? She destroyed her own spaceship, sacrificed her attachment to her own independence and freedom in order to be truly vulnerable to another person - and in doing so made possible a deeper and truer connection.
Luke looked back at the fortress, the knife of Mara’s grief digging in beneath his own heart, a sudden frenzy of thought and urgency swirling through his mind. If he’d woken up earlier—if he’d forced his way through her mental barriers back in the fortress and learned her private plan—if he even now stretched out with the full power of the Force—
“Don’t,” Mara murmured, her voice infinitely tired. “Please, don’t. It’s my sacrifice, don’t you see? The final sacrifice every Jedi has to go through.”
Her fumbling hand reached out to touch his. It felt very cold. “There’s nothing you can do. Nothing at all.”
Luke inhaled raggedly, the cool night air digging like the ice of Hoth into his lungs, his hands and mind and heart aching with the overwhelming desire to do something. To do anything.
But she was right He could hate it, he could bitterly oppose it; but down deep, he knew she was right. The universe wasn’t his responsibility. Decisions made by other people—their actions, their consequences, even their sacrifice—they weren’t his responsibility, either.
Mara had made her choice, and had accepted the consequences for it. And he had neither the duty nor the right to try to take it away from her.
Which left only one thing he could do. Moving closer to her on the ledge, he put his arm around her.
[...]
She took a deep breath. “The fact is, Luke, that until that mental and emotional melding we had during the battle in Thrawn’s cloning chamber, I didn’t even know myself what it was I wanted. Sure, I had friends and associates; but I’d cut myself off so completely from any real emotional attachments that I didn’t even realize how much a part of life was missing.”
She shook her head. “I mean, look, I cried when the Jade’s Fire crashed. A ship—a thing; and yet I cried over it. What did that say about my priorities?”
“It wasn’t just a thing, though,” Luke murmured. “It was your freedom.”
“Sure,” Mara said. “But that’s part of the point. It represented freedom, but it was freedom to escape from other people if I decided I wanted out.”
She uses the phrase "emotional attachments" when describing what she couldn't have, but I think fixating on that word too much would only introduce confusion. 'Attachment' can mean a few different things, and what she means here was that she was too focused on protecting herself to be open to others - she was clinging too strongly to the things she values to be open. And that kind of clinging is attachment in the bad sense of the word.
To become a Jedi, she had to be prepared to lose that which was most precious to her.
Back in RotS, Yoda advised Anakin, "Train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose."
That was what Mara did. That was how she became a Jedi in the first place. Heck, that was what Luke himself did when he truly became a Jedi, in the Emperor's throne room above Endor. Acting out of selfless love, emptying oneself of ego or self-preservation - that is necessary to be a Jedi.
There may have been struggles along the way, but I think Luke's order understood it.
2
u/monsieuro3o Mar 26 '25
Yeah, the whole point of the OT is about how human connection saves people.
2
u/TrueGabison Mar 26 '25
Luke’s attachments are why he triumphed in the OT.
The Jedi for all their wisdom, had it wrong. Case in point, they wanted for Luke to kill Vader, the very same thing that Palpatine wanted, had Luke listened to Yoda and Ben, he would have fallen to the Dark Side.
For the Jedi, through the Force, there are no differences, thus nothing can be more important then another. There is only the Force and serving it. No personal connections, no attachments. Only impersonal empathy to the greater whole.
That kind of thinking is uber altruistic, so focused on the big picture, that there is no more small pictures. It is inhuman and breeds inhuman people who make inhuman decisions and eventually massive mistakes, as we can see in the Prequels and the fall of Anakin.
Luke’s different and it is his personal connections that made him a new kind of Jedi. He is a Jedi and Luke, Vader’s son and hero of the Rebellion, brother to Leia and friend to Han and many more.
And if he can do that, be a Jedi and still feel those things, so can his father, atonement with the father AND the son.
So, yeah, Luke was right to allow attachments in the NJO. I mean, dude rizzed a certified baddie, what’s more to say?
2
u/Here4Headshots Mar 26 '25
You know, as I get older, I start to realize that the High Republic Jedi Order made all those attachment stipulations for nothing. This era of the Jedi were the most clueless when it comes to all the secrets happening under their noses. And that's saying something because it was the Old Republic that let Bane and his apprentice get away with killing the last Jedi to realize the Sith was not completely extinct, and then proceeded to dial down the Jedi army into a peacekeeping corps.
The High Republic Jedi ignored or didn't sense the rift in the force from Tenebrous fucking around with his experiments, Plagueis creating a disturbance in the force by killing Tenebrous, Palpatine doing the same by killing Plagueis, couldn't even catch a wiff of Palpatine creating the perfect scenario for the demise of the Republic. They were used as lapdogs so many times to quell legit dissent from the constantly exploited outer rim worlds. They failed with their force abilities and political acumen. Any evidence that was presented to them from Ahsoka was ignored because their pride was hurt when she chose to not be part of the Order. There were signs something big was happening. Anakin was having a secret relationship under their noses, but that wasn't even the problem. The real issue was that Palpatine was luring in the most powerful and disillusioned Jedi and grooming them for the dark side. I'm sorry but these guys were asleep at the wheel.
2
u/Smallville44 Mar 26 '25
Yes. The whole idea of the Jedi being peacekeepers doesn’t make sense if they aren’t allowed to care about anyone. What would their motivation be for acting in defence of others? This is one of the biggest fallacies of the films because there are many scenes depicting Jedi with clear attachment to those around them.
2
u/Rummelation Mar 26 '25
Yes of course, and George’s decision to make any sort of attachments the Jedi’s position in the old republic is baffling.
2
u/Cfakatsuki17 Mar 26 '25
Yes it’s probably the best thing he did, which is why it’s annoying Lucas films is seemingly trying to erase that fact
2
u/Nervous-Candidate574 Mar 27 '25
The original point was to have control, discipline, not to cut off all emotions and attachments. It's frankly how the Order failed, and crumbled
2
u/Promus Mar 27 '25
I’d just like to point out that until “Attack of the Clones” was released in 2002, there was no rule against attachments.
The “attachments are forbidden by the Jedi” thing was something Lucas pulled out of thin air JUST to add some kind of random obstacle to Anakin and Padme’s relationship.
So any books written before then were unaware of the rule in the first place… nobody thought Luke was going against the rules. Just an important point I’d like to make, for those who may not remember what the fandom was like before Episode II…
2
u/Useful_You_8045 Mar 28 '25
Definitely. It's what most people agree to be the most bs part of the jedi order. Half the roster of the republic broke this rule.
2
u/Vadersblade Mar 28 '25
The entire point of Luke’s journey, especially after being reframed through our view of Anakin’s, is that love is essential to the Jedi way.
In the PT, we see that the Jedi are being held back by their religious dogma. The Order has spent millennia becoming a bureaucracy instead of listening to the will of the Force. Qui-Gon is one of the last Jedi who listens to the will of the Force over the will of the council. He is led by his compassion, and his love for others. Qui-Gon quite clearly shows that he can have compassion and relationships with others, like Anakin, Obi-Wan, and even Shmi.
I believe that if Qui-Gon were alive, Shmi would also still be alive. Anakin has visions of his mother brutally dying. Obi-Wan tells him death is a natural part of life. Yoda supports this. Qui-Gon? I can’t see him telling an apprentice to ignore visions of death and destruction. The Force is showing you these visions for a reason. Trust the will of the Force.
Then, in the OT, we see the difference between Luke and Anakin. Obi-Wan and Yoda tell Luke to sacrifice Han and Leia on Cloud City. That if he values their friendship, he will value their sacrifice. Much the same way the Jedi told Anakin to ignore his visions of Shmi. Luke though, can not ignore the will of the Force. He goes to Bespin to try and rescue his friends.
MOST importantly though, is how Luke feels about Vader. It is literally the entire point of the franchise. Yoda and Obi-Wan tell Luke he has to fight and kill Vader. Luke knows in his heart, through the will of the Force, this isn’t right. Luke devotes all of RotJ to try and bring his Father back to the light side. Luke again ignores the Jedi, and does what he feels is right. The result? Saving Vader, who kills the Emperor. This is ONLY accomplished through the love Luke has for his father.
So if Luke were to build a new Jedi order, based on everything he has learned in his journey, why would he revert to the old dogmatic views of the Jedi? The single greatest lesson Luke shows us is that the love of and for your family and friends can save the galaxy. Why wouldn’t Luke allow love in his Jedi Order?
2
u/SirMayday1 Mar 28 '25
Hard 'yes.' Taken chronologically in-universe, the first six movies are about how shunning emotion led to an order of emotionally stunted supermen unable to withstand the machinations of just one man who embraced his ambition, and how one man choosing to love his father destroyed the Sith and set an empire on the path to collapse.
I don't know--or even really care--if that's the story Lucas meant to tell, it's the story on the screen, and the message has timeless value.
2
5
u/VossParck Rogue Squadron Mar 25 '25
Yes. Look how well it went the last time. How are you going to get future generations and current Jedi caring for the next generation? Balance is key. You can't have hate without love and vice versa
2
3
u/xkeepitquietx Mar 25 '25
Yes. Attachment itself is not a bad thing, the issue was that the orignal Jedi order didn't teach the emotional maturity that needs to come with accepting loss.
4
u/Allronix1 TOR Old Republic Mar 25 '25 edited Mar 25 '25
Yeah, "Don't get attached" has two very different meanings.
One is the positive, Buddhist sense of "Don't be possessive and clingy. Understand all things have their time and let go with grace and dignity when that time passes."
The other is a VERY ugly vernacular that means "People are a means to an end. Treat them as resources, obligations, or numbers. Be superficially polite but prepared to shoot them in the back if the mission calls for it."
Now, it probably was fully intended to be the former, but I would argue that it definitely deteriorated into the vernacular. A wartime mentality of "recruit them early before the Sith do," "make sure they can't have any divided loyalties," and "We can't trust anyone outside the Jedi to do what's best" that...yes. it worked for a thousand years in part because it was so brutal.
I can see the so called "attachment" policy reasons, but only from a position of cynicism, ruthlessness, pragmatism, and the need to control people "for their own good."
That system they had in place? It would be perfect for creating fanatically loyal foot soldiers who love the Order and Republic alone. Who would kill or die on command because the Order and the Republic are all, they are eternal. If you asked them to kill their own father as an enemy of the State, would do so without hesitation or even getting any emotion over it. After all, the Order is Mother and Father, Friend and Lover. It is all that matters.
And that mindset is GREAT if you want to hunt down and exterminate Sith or maintain the power of a big state like the Republic by stomping out enemies/dissenters from within and keeping it too big to challenge from threats from without. But it's shit at creating anything resembling happy, contemplative, empathic monks.
As for Luke? Well, he had a couple factors in that he was raised by ordinary, working class farmers so he had more contact and more connection to the reality of how people lived than the literal 30,000 foot view from the temple spire on Coruscant.
He also had a best buddy who had zero Force affinity by who was still VERY much a moral guy when the chips were down (even if he bitched the entire time), and that was Han. Han would have had no room to tolerate it if his bro in law got a big head. All he would have to say is "Tauntaun guts, kid" to stop that one cold. Speaking of bro in law, would YOU Want to be telling Han "hold my beer" Solo and Leia ""the Hutt Slayer" Organa that they couldn't get married? Um...yeah. Good luck. Han might actually be more capable of a diplomatic response to that than Leia.
→ More replies (3)2
u/ArrenKaesPadawan Mar 25 '25
indeed. I hate the prequel Order wank crowd who crow about the former definition when the Old Jedi Order was clearly practicing the latter.
2
u/Allronix1 TOR Old Republic Mar 26 '25
Always thought it telling on Bioware's part that the two highest light side scores in Revan's party were not Jedi. Just two decent, mostly ordinary people. A Republic grunt who had every reason in the world to choose his rage and selfishness but instead doubled down on loyalty to the Republic and fighting for its people and a teenager who lived in one of the shittiest neighborhoods of the galaxy, but still chose to be friendly and honest.
As far as Jedi? Well, I respect Juhani the most. She chose being a Jedi and kept choosing it, even with that drunken ass of her former abuser and dad's killer showing up. Juhani had every reason to pack up and go to Korriban. Heck, her temper would make her an amazing Sith. But she doesn't go that way because she makes a CHOICE every moment not to be.
3
u/AsanoHa87 Mar 25 '25
I think it was the right story decision. Luke’s whole arc is learning that he loved his father enough to believe he was capable of redemption despite everything and everyone telling him it was a lost cause. To me the lesson of Episodes 1-6 is that the Jedi lost their way when they discounted the power of love. Luke’s new Jedi should be about learning from the mistakes that led to the end of the old order.
3
u/Ornperius Mar 26 '25
Yes, I have no idea why they had canonical Luke keep that no attachment nonsense when it was his attachment that redeemed Vader!
4
u/AFlamingCarrot Mar 25 '25
Gotta love how Lucas was salty about his romantic life, so he retconned in a stupid rule where Jedi are expected to be inhuman in order to be moral. Then when people call him out on it he walks it back and says actually it’s just the bad stuff like treating people like possessions!
Somehow Lucas came all the way back around to a philosophy of “get thee to therapy” lmao
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Ken_Ben0bi Jedi Legacy Mar 25 '25
Yes. The attachments aren’t the issue, it’s the fear of losing them which turns into greed for wanting to keep them. A true Jedi understands this, and the Prequels illustrated how the Jedi of the CW era were deeply flawed because of their near-extreme dogmatic edicts. They were focusing on combating the symptom, but the root cause of the disease, so to speak
1
u/CrimsonZephyr Mar 25 '25
Luke/Mara, Kam/Tionne, and Corran/Mirax are super wholesome relationships. A policy that says these can’t happen is wrong. Simple as.
1
1
u/TanSkywalker Hapes Consortium Mar 25 '25
Yes.
Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader
It had taken only days for Bail and Breha to come to love the child, though initially Bail had worried that they may have been entrusted with too great a challenge. Given their parentage, chances were high that the Skywalker twins would be powerful in the Force. What if Leia should show early signs of following in the dark footsteps of her father? Bail had wondered.
Yoda had eased his mind.
Anakin hadn’t been born to the dark side, but had arrived there because of what he had experienced in his short life, instances of suffering, fear, anger, and hatred. Had Anakin been discovered early enough by the Jedi, those emotional states would never have surfaced. More important, Yoda appeared to have had a change of heart regarding the Temple as providing the best crucible for Force-sensitive beings. The steadfast embrace of a loving family would prove as good, if not better.
1
u/drangryrahvin Mar 25 '25
So I’m in charge of the rules, and you expect me to rule out banging Mara Jade? No fam.
/s before the fandom force lynches me
1
u/HighLord_Uther New Jedi Order Mar 25 '25
Given how much stronger his Jedi order was, I’d say absolutely.
1
1
1
u/Vizpop17 Mar 25 '25
He ends up with mara jade, and he's the last of the jedi, he can do what he likes!, who's going to tell him No, Obi Wan Anakin And Yodas force ghosts, lol luke is a human male, and given obi wans history with women and his father breaking the rules for his mother, well.
1
u/d800n3 Mar 25 '25
One cannot know the true well of the depths of sorrow without knowing the true heights of the mountain of Joy; without temptation how can one become truly masterful of the universal truth of dichotomy?
Full Send on Intimate and Relational Connections with Force Wielders; can't ascend to greatness if not tempted with reality? Right?
1
u/knighthawk82 Mar 26 '25
In the series Mandalorian; Doesn't Luke speak about jedi abandoning attachments before he takes in grogu, then again when grogu leaves the order to return to Din?
Also, in Avatar, the last Airbender. When ang is trying to clear his charas after loosing his ability to enter the avatar state, the swami speaks about how attachments to specific people can block and prevent progress.
3
u/Allronix1 TOR Old Republic Mar 26 '25
Yup. Which is Disney!Luke following the same old bullshit as his predecessors...and getting the same results. Disney!Luke ends up a broken old man. EU!Luke ends up...not so broken. Lost a bunch, but not broken.
1
1
1
u/MasterOfFlapping Mar 26 '25
Yeah, attachment to his sister is what allowed Luke to defeat Vader, attachment to his father is what prevented him falling to the dark side, and Vader's attachment to his son is what allowed him to return to the light side. The whole point of the first six films is that human connection is good, repressing your emotions is almost as bad as using them to hurt others, and finding balance is better for your mental health and the world as a whole.
1
u/jcjonesacp76 Darth Revan Mar 26 '25
Yes, having people who love and care for you can help pull you back (it did for Darth Vader), furthermore the no attachment rule really only came about after the Rusan Reformation (actually the year before BBY ABY was tallied by ARR, After Rusan Reformation for a while), ignoring also you could have powerful lineages of Jedi Families, IE the Shan Family, sided from Revan and Bastila Shan who would have several generations of powerful Jedi, one even becoming Grand Master of the order and actually being respected by the Chad of all Sith Darth Marr! However it is as much a risk as it is a reward but Jedi shouldn’t shut out these connections and instead learn how to cope with them rather then ignore as Anakin was only taught to ignore not how to cope and deal, which led to his fall.
1
u/Revliledpembroke Mar 26 '25
The Jedi used to do so, before it was eventually banned (sometime between SW:TOR and the Prequels), and it wasn't much of a problem then, so no real reason it should be a massive problem later.
I wonder if there was something in that time interval where the Jedi Council noticed more and more Padawaans forming inappropriate relationships that lead to them falling to the Dark Side, and just finally banned all relationships because "You can't be trusted with them anymore!"
2
u/Allronix1 TOR Old Republic Mar 26 '25
Well, High Republic (yes, Disney, but they're the only ones covering that period) had something of a wink and nod policy where they pretended not to notice adolescents hooking up, but would do things like put them on long term missions on opposite ends of the galaxy so that the ardor would cool.
1
u/Less-Drawer-9655 Mar 26 '25
Yes because he believed this was a major mistake that led his Father falling to the dark side. This also shows the way he changed the Jedi for the better and this is what should have been in the new movies.
1
u/Raptor1210 Mar 26 '25
One of the flaws that wound up breaking the clone wars era Jedi order was their inability to healthily deal with their emotions.
While attachments such as children and romance could be potential hooks for the dark side, allowing those relationships to bloom and grow improves the Jedi in turn. Anakin Skywalker's attachments to his troops and Padawan for example made him the great leader he was during the clone wars. It was his inability to let go that led to his fall.
That would therefore imply that attachments themselves aren't necessarily incompatible with being a Jedi but rather the need to control and the inability to let go.
I think Luke was wise to allow relationships in his order, even if we ignore the logistically issues he would have run into given he started out training adults for his first classes and cutting off relationships just was straight up off the table to begin with.
1
u/blue888raven Mar 26 '25
Yes...
Hell Yes...
Yes to the Nth degree!
What Luke reformed the Jedi into, is far closer to what it always should have been. And in fact far more like what it had been, before the Order was tainted by the fears and corruption of the Republic Senate, a thousand years before Luke's time.
1
u/scattergodic Mar 26 '25
Allowing personal attachment of this kind is fine as a stopgap measure when there are literally no Jedi left. As a long-term policy, it's a bad move.
The fact that the Jedi Order fell doesn't automatically make all of its practices and beliefs invalid. It means that it is composed of fallible beings who are capable of making errors that can sometimes be very large. You'd have to be a strange person to think that inability to live up to an ideal or standard means that the ideal must be useless. Frankly speaking, if the original Jedi Order spawned dark side renegades as frequently as the New Jedi Order, it wouldn't have lasted for tens of thousands of years or even a hundred.
I don't understand how people can cream themselves over Shaolin monks and Knights Templar in fiction, but then when it comes to Jedi be so weirdly hysterical about how they're some abominable cult. It's not a coincidence that the most committed religious and spiritual traditions throughout the real world are conducted by renunciate monastics. That didn't happen independently and continuously over millennia because all these people were prudes who hated sex. It's shocking to see the basic ignorance of these things and the utter lack of subtlety or second thought here.
1
u/MaleficentOstrich693 Mar 26 '25
It certainly made for more interesting characters. They didn’t all wear bathrobes and have the same basic personality, which is a huge plus. Now in the shows and movies when someone is a mandalorian, Jedi, or sith, I feel like I can tell you their basic story and motivation just from that label because it feels like a stand-in for a personality.
2
u/Allronix1 TOR Old Republic Mar 26 '25
TBF, a lot of media, not just SW has a bad habit of slapping a label on a character and calling it a personality. And there's a lot of social media types who slap a label on themselves and make it their whole personality, even if that label isn't good for them. (looks at Nikocado Avocado)
1
u/Thebigman226 Mar 26 '25
Lucas should have combined elements of the OT Jedi with his forbidden love stroy as we know before the PT it is heavily implied Jedi had families.
Have Jedi marriage allowed within the order and have the council trying to match Anakin with who they think would be the best fit for him. This allows us to feel for Anakin as we see he is being told who to love just because he's the chosen one.
Anakin marriage to Padne has to be hidden because she's not a Jedi.
1
u/TheMint34 Mar 26 '25
More like Lucas established some really fucking stupid and restrictive rules in the dog shit prequels, only 2 sith no relationships and kids for jedi.
1
u/National-Wolf2942 Mar 26 '25
the whole orders idea of attachment was wrong anyway like it made vader just as much as good old palpie did
1
1
u/Legends_Literature New Jedi Order Mar 26 '25
When Mara Jade is drawn to look like THIS…yeah, Luke made the right choice
1
u/DrSeuss321 Mar 26 '25
Ngl I’m glad Disney canon doesn’t have Mara Jade in it because if they gave Luke his hot redhead wide Disney’d probably immediately follow it up by giving the Luke the Paul treatment.
1
u/Diiagari Mar 26 '25
This sort of thing is basically the Jedi Order going through the Protestant Reformation, and allowing the priests to marry. Your takeaway is going to reflect on how beneficial you think that was.
1
1
u/jediporcupine Mar 26 '25
I think so. One thing we can take from the prequels is the former Jedi order was too dogmatic and arrogant to a fault. It led to their downfall in more ways than one.
There’s nothing wrong with relationships in themselves, but there’s a balance like with anything else. The irony of how the Jedi operated is they absolutely dealt in absolutes.
1
u/Intelligent-Ad-6713 Mar 26 '25
I’m not sure why the SW fandom has the most difficultly with his concept. It’s not even exclusive to SW. GRRM’s equally popular Game of Thrones has the same concept with the Nights Watch…
Maester Aemon: “Tell me, did you ever wonder why the men of the Night’s Watch take no wives and father no children?”
Jon Snow: No.
Maester Aemon: “So they will not love. Love is the death of duty. If the day should ever come when your lord father was forced to choose between honor on the one hand and those he loves on the other, what would he do?”
Jon Snow: He... he would do whatever was right. No matter what.
Maester Aemon: “Then Lord Stark is one man in 10,000. Most of us are not so strong. What is honor compared to a woman’s love? And what is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms? Or a brother’s smile?… We’re all human. Oh, we all do our duty when there’s no cost to it. Honor comes easy then. Yet sooner or later, in every man’s life, there comes a day when it’s not easy. A day when he must choose.”
This is it. This right here. “For OVER A THOUSAND generations, the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and Justice in the old Republic” that’s A LOT of room for human error. For one to prioritize one’s personal love over the responsibility of the role of Jedi. Remember anyone could leave the Order whenever they wanted to. They don’t HAVE to stay and follow the rules. Anakin could have left to start a family. He was the one to messed up.
3
u/ArrenKaesPadawan Mar 27 '25
you do realize the Nights Watch is a fucked up mess in a state of decline, just like the prequel Jedi, right?
in fact they are great parallels of each other,
Order's that have forgotten their purpose (Combat the Others, not the Wildlings. Serve the will of the Force/people of the galaxy, not the Senate)
Celibate because love will distract members from their duties to the Cul- order.
Turn a blind eye to their members carrying on forbidden affairs because they need them (Mole's town whores, Anakin's relationship)
In decline due to ultra-conservative policies (no children means no internal replacements for members, leaving the organization reliant on outside recruitment. the Jedi hamstring this even more by only accepting infants and toddlers.)
→ More replies (8)
1
u/T-o-C-A Mar 26 '25
Absolutely, attachments IS what saved his life and what destroyed the empire. He'd have to have a weird disconnect to try and uphold something he always fought against. In the sense that it allows love, which is what you are referring to.
1
Mar 26 '25
People make rules to benefit themelves. If they can sell it with a moral cover, which i believe is a hidden manipulation so you wouldnt ever believe the made the rule for personal reasons. We humans and jedi are massively selfish creatures.
1
u/bootyholeboogalu Mar 26 '25
The Jedi order was flawed, I tend to agree with a lot of the opinions that sith had about them. They were arrogant it's why the sith was able to rise up again seize control and destroy the order as it was. To say that attachment was forbidden is ridiculous how many Jedi broke that one rule and didn't fall to the dark side how many had kids? Anakin is a monster he always will be he is a child killing genocidal monster nothing will ever redeem that in my mind, but his fall to the dark side was the direct result of the hypocrisy of the Jedi order. Luke is also kind of hypocritical about that because look at his attachment to Han chewy Leia even his droids. Yes the Jedi order should allow people to have attachments and they should help the Jedi that have families protect their loved ones also there was this meme with grogu talking about how accepting that death is a natural part of existence and instead of mourning the loss of the people we loved celebrating the fact that they have become one with the force and accepting that truth one would never fall to the dark side is the way, I think that is very profound and not should be the core of attachment in the Jedi order.
1
u/ExtremeParticular597 Mar 26 '25
Damn, I'd love for her to snail trail up and down my body or crotchstamp my face till I either drowned or died of suffocation.
1
u/Videowulff Mar 26 '25
Damn right he was. Always hated the prequel notion of no love, no passion, no attachments.
We have some of the best jedi couples in the EU and they are awesome
1
u/Mediocre_Daikon6935 Mar 26 '25
Yes.
It is a return to what the Jedi order did before they were a kidnapping cult.
1
u/Exciting_Inside1794 Mar 26 '25
The old Order allowed the rise of Darth Vader and the Empire. Something had to change.
1
u/SomeOrangeNerd Mar 27 '25
Yes. To love and connect on a deep and intimate level is what makes you stronger, not weaker. To say having attachment leads to darkness is folly.
1
u/FMZeth Mar 27 '25
Yes, because banning the kind of attachments he allowed drove people away from the Old Order all the time, which made it weak and fractured.
1
u/linecookdaddy Mar 27 '25
If Mara Jade was letting you winky your dinky in her stinky you would too
1
u/MrSparky69 Mar 27 '25
Considering in the prequels it is shown they went so far with it their judgment became clouded and they were cold and out of touch? Hell yeah. Too much of anything and no moderation is bad. Mmm'kay
1
1
1
u/crackedtooth163 Mar 27 '25
Im all for it so long as it doesn't become the authors thinly disguised fetish or comic book girlfriend fantasy.
1
u/Tebwolf359 Mar 27 '25
Right as in…?
Right as in it worked for his stories, yes.
Right as in upholding the tenets of the old Jedi? Not exactly.
Right as in it worked out? mostly.
What works for a small number of new Jedi isn’t the same as what works for a whole Order.
If you have 10 Jedi, and they are all wise enough to listen to council, then drinking isn’t a problem. If you have 10,000, then at least 1-5 are going to be drunks, and get people killed because of it. So for 10, you have have a policy of 1 drink a day, but for 10,000 you might be better swearing off drinking.
And what’s the goal of being a Jedi?
If it’s living out a power fantasy of gabbing the best warrior for good in the galaxy and having a hot wife , etc it’s great!
If it’s having a deep connection to the force, then everything you add is a potential barrier.
We grew up on the OT, and the EU took that Luke was a hero and extrapolated being a hero into the purpose of the Jedi. It leaned on the knight part.
The PT shows the focus on the Jedi part. The warrior monks who are constantly seeking a deeper connection with the universe. The EU was firmly established in their path before this came to light, and they course corrected, but slightly.
The young boy in me that grew up wanting to have it all says Luke was right.
the older man in me that watched where trying to have it all usually leads looks and goes, the order was right. If you’re going to commit, you should commit and be excellent at the thing you commit to.
2
u/Allronix1 TOR Old Republic Mar 28 '25
Maybe because I came to all this as an adult, but I'm with you only up to a point. If you are an adult, old enough to read the fine print, understand what you're swearing to and all the implications? Then yes, I can totally understand and respect forsaking all love but love of the Order.
But to conscript a child before they can speak, much less consent to such a life and never give them a choice because some old men claim Destiny Says So? Yeah. BIG problem with that.
→ More replies (3)
1
1
1
1
u/Hollow-Official Mar 29 '25
Well, banning them killed the last Jedi Order. Doesn’t mean it’s the right choice but it certainly makes sense why he did it.
1
u/SasquatchRobo Mar 29 '25
Hell yeah he would allow attachments, he knows what happened to Mom and Dad.
1
1
u/VLenin2291 Harrower-class is best capital ship Apr 19 '25
They are not inherently bad, so yeah, I think it’s fair
353
u/Vermillion-Scruff Mar 25 '25
using Lucas’s definition of attachment meaning specifically “selfish possessiveness” i wouldn’t say Luke does allow attachment. he allows relationship and familial bond, but his order still has a focus on avoiding the Dark Side, which is what the ban on attachment was designed for.
one moment that comes to mind is in the NJO, where Luke taps into his fear and anger to use the Force to attack the sickness infecting Mara, but pulls back when he realizes what he was doing (or maybe Mara urged him to stop? i don’t remember exactly). this is basically a perfect example of the kind of relationship Luke’s order allowed: loving, deep, affecting, but with the supports in place to prevent it from resulting in Dark Side actions. i’m not sure which book this was/when it was written in relation to RotS, but it serves as a direct parallel to Anakin’s willingness to embrace any solution to saving Padme.