I don't know why this bothers me so much, but unless I'm severely mistaken the plural of Jedi is Jedi.
Yep. Like a herd of moose, or a bunch of sheep.I don't know why this bothers me so much, but unless I'm severely mistaken the plural of Jedi is Jedi.
How about "a conclave of Jedi?"So what is name of a lot of Jedi?
Like:
A murder of crows.
and
A thunder of dragons.
I really don't hope it is:
A council of Jedi.
Good enough.
I don't know why this bothers me so much, but unless I'm severely mistaken the plural of Jedi is Jedi.
So what is name of a lot of Jedi?
Like:
A murder of crows.
and
A thunder of dragons.
I really don't hope it is:
A council of Jedi.
Human's with no attachments quickly go insane. Possibly Yoda's species can actually do that, but humans are hardwired for social contact. Even the most introverted of humans needs SOME human contact to retain mental wellness. Hence why Hermits are either famous holy men with constant pilgrims popping in and out or outright insane.
Lack of attachment is quite possibly even more dangerous! Not only does the Force increase feelings of isolation and estrangement from others, but when a Jedi (unaccustomed to attachment) starts to feel attached, they don't have the experience to deal with it or keep it under control. That's why Anakin fell -- he felt attachment, it was amplified, he didn't have the tools to deal with it.
The key through all of this is the moral principle of Aristotle's 'golden mean'. Basically: vices lie on the extremes, virtue lies in the middle. Gluttony is bad, but so is anorexia. Eating a proper amount, with the proper mindset, is best. Profligancy is bad, but so is hoarding all your money. The virtue lies somewhere in between. This is why moderation or temperance is regarded as one of the four cardinal virtues.
There's a big difference between attachment and social contact. Social contact is fine, but binding yourself to others isn't. If you need proof that humans without attachment do not go insane, just look at all the human Jedi who have done that without going insane. Being compassionate and friendly towards others while reconciling the fact that forming attachments is forbidden is a common and acknowledged challenge that padawans have to go through, it is not an impossibility.Human's with no attachments quickly go insane. Possibly Yoda's species can actually do that, but humans are hardwired for social contact. Even the most introverted of humans needs SOME human contact to retain mental wellness. Hence why Hermits are either famous holy men with constant pilgrims popping in and out or outright insane.
I don't think I need a source for this. It's a basic and common aspect in the Star Wars setting, that of the Dark Side's seductive qualities and its corruptive nature. Ezra's a pretty good example of this, as he gets worse and worse the more he studies with the Sith holocron. As Kanan said, it offers quick results but it's a trap. The Dark Side consumes. The Light Side, like the Dark Side (and the Force in general), requires you to attune yourself to it to unlock its power, but unlike the Dark Side, it doesn't make you attuned to it. It's one of the reasons why "falling Jedi" is such a common theme while "redeemed Sith" is so much rarer in comparison, despite the two sides being equal in power.Source? Because it sounds like you're saying the only reason dark-siders become "power-hungry" is because their personalities are warped. I'm pretty sure "power corrupts" is not a matter of behavioral conditions by quasi-sentient metaphysical forces, but is pretty directly tied to human nature. In which case it would be the light side that warps your personality, by keeping "power corrupts" from influencing you quite as much.
Indeed, we are in agreement there. My argument was that the destruction of the Sith should be the highest priority, but that care should be taken that the methods to do so do not just give it power, like the Jedi did. Basically, I'm arguing in favour of the stance that Ciaran has taken.The Jedi cut down every tree to get after the Sith. And when the Devil turned round... they had nowhere to hide.
The rule is there to ensure those who follow it do not turn to the Dark Side, and in the Dark Woman's case who held no attachment, it succeeded. Your story's moral doesn't show the flaw of the No Attachments rule (Aurra's fixation on revenge is itself an attachment), but rather the importance of compassion and fighting to protect people.
I haven't once seen any example of this happening, not in the movies, not in the series, and not even in this game.Not only does the Force increase feelings of isolation and estrangement from others
I say it was the Dark Side's influence and his own rather lax attitude towards protecting himself from it. He started to feel attached, felt fear as a direct result of that attachment, and that fear fed and was fed by the Dark Side.That's why Anakin fell -- he felt attachment, it was amplified, he didn't have the tools to deal with it.
Well, she might light sider, But I can´t understand how to abandon a little girl to death and/or slavery is in any way less EVIL than the shit the Sith does in everyday basis, and they at least have the excuse of being the irredeemable bad guys in the setting.The rule is there to ensure those who follow it do not turn to the Dark Side, and in the Dark Woman's case who held no attachment, it succeeded. Your story's moral doesn't show the flaw of the No Attachments rule (Aurra's fixation on revenge is itself an attachment), but rather the importance of compassion and fighting to protect people.
Oh, what she did was definitely bad, there's no question about that, I'm just saying that what she did wrong is not what you think she did wrong.Well, she might light sider, But I can´t understand how to abandon a little girl to death and/or slavery is in any way less EVIL than the shit the Sith does in everyday basis, and they at least have the excuse of being the irredeemable bad guys in the setting.
You're making the mistake of assuming the No Attachment rule was meant to be the be-all end-all rule of the Jedi. Obviously the No Attachment rule on its own would be a bad one, and that story illustrates why there's more to just following that rule and no others. The Dark Woman's fault wasn't in following the No Attachment rule, but in failing to follow other rules such as "show compassion" and "don't be a dick" alongside the No Attachment rule.And as I said, if the Dark Woman had felt a little of attachment for her Padawan, dozens of Jedi would not have died, you can still fuck things up following the No Attachment rule and follow it to the letter doesn´t prevent you at all to become an evil bastard and a general thundercunt as lady Kuro was.
You say that like it'd be a bad thing.Decentralising the Jedi is the worst thing you can do. Leaving God knows how many separate orders like that with that much independence will inevitably lead to a large amount of ideological drift
Per the wiki page you link:EDIT2: I'm reading about Thame Cerulian and he was apparently a Corellian Jedi but he was also a Coruscant Jedi?
Corellia, like all Republic worlds, are subject to the same laws that give the Jedi legal permission to take any Force-sensitive infant back to their Temple. Thame Cerulian didn't have much of a choice in the matter. It appears that his classification as a "Corellian Jedi" on the wiki has more to do with his receiving a Jedi Credit, which was a Corellian tradition, not exclusive to the 'Green' Jedi sect centered on Corellia proper.A male Human, Thame Cerulian was brought to the Coruscant Jedi Temple as an infant and sorted into the Thranta Clan as a Jedi Initiate, receiving his early lessons from Grand Master Yoda himself.
I had written:I watched Phantom Menace and all I remember him doing was complimenting him on his efforts against the bad guys. Hardly "getting his claws" into him.
The movies and TV series only hint at it, but other sources do show how the Chancellor became a close mentor to the little kid from Tatooine:
Pretty much as soon as Anakin graduated from 'Initiate' to 'Padawan', Palpaine started working him over -- the above is actually from the canon wiki. Also remember that, at the beginning of Revenge of the Sith, Palpatine directly references Anakin's slaughter of that tribe of Sand People -- his greatest shame, his greatest failure as a Jedi, and his greatest secret, revealed only to his wife Padme and apparently to Palpatine himself. That's a pretty clear indication that Palpatine had cast himself as Anankin's father figure and confidant, and that is explicitly confirmed on multiple occasions by the EU.Later, Skywalker struggled to learn the skill of taming creatures when Kenobi told him that the Chancellor wanted to see him. The two arrived at the his office, where Palpatine requested that Skywalker accompany him on an errand, declining Kenobi's company. Left alone, Skywalker escorted Palpatine to Club Kasakar in Level 2685, all the while listening to Palpatine express concern for the situation on the sub-surface levels of Coruscant,[17] the inability of the Jedi to respond efficiently,[21] and the corruption that plagued the Senate, such as Colandrus—subtly, and unbeknownst to Skywalker, marking the beginning of his influence over him.[16] At the end of the errand, Palpatine asked if Skywalker was happy as he was. Though Skywalker answered that he was and that "training to become a Jedi [was] all [he] ever wanted", it did plant a seed of doubt in his mind.
And if the Council doesn't give its allowance? Or if it gives poor or unsatisfactory direction?
And despite these flagrant violations, most of these Jedi did not fall to the Dark Side.
Err... didn't @Fanhunter696 just demonstrate that most Jedi did not go without attachment, that they found it necessary to form attachments (through friendships and master-padawan bonds) in order to not go insane?If you need proof that humans without attachment do not go insane,just look at all the human Jedi who have done that without going insane.
I was asking for a source for your specific claim that such corruption causes dark-side users to turn power-hungry. My point was that seeking power is a default human condition -- which is why you see it so commonly among non-Force sensitive politicians. The Force may amplify those desires (my argument), but they hardly generate them out of nothing.
Source? Where's your evidence that the Light Side has no effect on its wielders' personalities? If you must attune yourself to the Force to use it properly (whatever alignment), then it makes sense that the quasi-sentient Force would 'encourage' such attunement.The Light Side, like the Dark Side (and the Force in general), requires you to attune yourself to it to unlock its power, but unlike the Dark Side, it doesn't make you attuned to it.
I'm tempted to call "toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe" on this. What you call "the Dark Side's influence" I call "his feelings of attachment were amplified" (not to mentioned manipulated by a Sith master). The big difference is, you blame Anakin's failure on "his own rather lax attitude toward protecting himself" (namely, his failure to get rid of his emotions). I'm inclined to blame it on the Jedi's failure to teach Anakin how to deal with emotion in a healthy way. Because repressing or removing emotion is not a healthy way of dealing with things, which is why the EU and the latest entries in the Star Wars canon have moved so far away from Lucas's original quasi-Buddhist ramblings.I say it was the Dark Side's influence and his own rather lax attitude towards protecting himself from it.
...What? You're redefining "desire for revenge" as "attachment"?
That's fair, but the decision to centralize everything certainly didn't help. Part of the blame for that rests in Tarsus Valorum and his 'Ruusan Reformation'; part of the blame lies in the Jedi's abandonment of the 'Lords' structure.The Rim being poorly governed is an obvious and perennial problem in Star Wars. I don't think that can be laid entirely at the Jedi's feet
Again, I'm commenting on the need for reform, not proposing that we (Ciaran) actually push such reforms in this quest.Is it actually the Jedi's responsibility to keep the rim in line with a federalized system of Jedi Lords? As far as I'm concerned that's the Senate's purview, and that we really don't want to give the Jedi more authority.
Er... have to disagree with you here. We're both on board with the "Jedi Order is optional", but Palpatine is pushing the "you can be a Force User without the Jedi" (aka, join a Sith) while we're pushing the "you can be a Jedi without the Order" (aka, join some other light-side faction).Ciaran's is not a great counterbalance to Palpatine in swaying Anakin. Both of us are on board the "Jedi Order is optional" train
Good point bringing this up. Considering just how many relationships and attachments were formed in the New Jedi Order, how many of those resulted in a Fall? And with Jedi recruits being old enough to have normal experiences and have the tools for dealing with normal emotions, how many problems did that cause? (From what I can tell, most of the 'Darths' and dark lords of the post-trilogy EU originated in a desire for power, not an inability to deal with attachment).Two of the most important reforms that he did to the New Jedi Order in Legends was to eliminate the No Attachments rule and that the recruitment of apprentices would be strictly from volunteers old enough to know what they were getting into.
Which is a perfect illustration of the 'golden mean' principle. Feeling too much attachment to others can lead to evil. Feeling too little attachment (or no attachment at all!) does the same. And frankly, of the two, I know which one I consider to be worse.I can´t understand how to abandon a little girl to death and/or slavery is in any way less EVIL than the shit the Sith does in everyday basis, and they at least have the excuse of being the irredeemable bad guys in the setting.
On this, it worked for a long time because Jedi candidatess are usually taken from the very young. They are thus raised in a culture where the majority of their bonds share their beliefs, and it reinforces the zen monk type of attitude towards loss by the time they become adults and grow set in their ways. They were tied to the Jedi as a group more than to individuals ever since they could remember.I agree with both of you, it is impossible to a sentient being to live without attachments and remain sane and functional, this is something that Luke saw very clearly. Two of the most important reforms that he did to the New Jedi Order in Legends was to eliminate the No Attachments rule and that the recruitment of apprentices would be strictly from volunteers old enough to know what they were getting into.
But I must add that the most of the Jedi did not follow rule of No Attachments, the Jedi had friends inside and outside of the order, they became basically a parent or an older sibling to their padawans, and it was not so uncommon for them to have lovers, all of this goes against the No Attachments rule that basically is "You can love, but you can´t love someone more than anyone else in the galaxy" And despite these flagrant violations, most of these Jedi did not fall to the Dark Side.
Returning to this topic for a little bit, it's less that there's evidence outright denying that the Light Side changes people and more that there is a distinct lack of evidence that the Light Side affects its wielders' personalities, plus there's the fact that you have way more people falling to the Dark Side than people ascending to the Light. In Ezra's case, we clearly see what learning from the Sith Holocron does to his personality, but his personality change while learning the ways of the Jedi looks more like the typical, mundane effects of a kid learning from his teacher.Where's your evidence that the Light Side has no effect on its wielders' personalities? If you must attune yourself to the Force to use it properly (whatever alignment), then it makes sense that the quasi-sentient Force would 'encourage' such attunement.
Here he was not given the chance to act as a skilled warrior and a talented leader, his abilities were not put to greater use than leading his people, he has not gained glory, and the name of Grievous was not spread."General," you say with authority. "I am aware that you are a skilled warrior and and a talented leader. I would ask that you join me in the hopes that your abilities can be put to greater use. In turn you would have the chance to gain glory and spread the name of Greivous across the galaxy. What do you say?"
Terror of the Underworld: After his brutal rampage that effectively destroyed the Black Sun, the name "Grievous" has now become synonymous with "death incarnate" among circles in the underworld. +2 Intrigue
AndDarth Bane: Rule of Two said:"There are many good people who fear the Jedi and what they are capable of. They see the Jedi as instigators of war. You claim your actions are guided by the Force, but to those who cannot feel its presence it appears as if your Order is not accountable to anyone or anything."
"And so you want the Jedi to answer to you." Farfalla sighed. "The Chancellor and the Senate."
"I want you to answer to the elected officials who represent the citizens of the Republic,"
Valorum is saying this, telling Farfalla to "answer to the elected officials", and to "assume your rightful place as... advisers" in the context of four hundred years of Jedi being those elected officials, as Jedi Lords and as Supreme Chancellors. Valorum is presenting Farfalla with a fait accompli -- the Jedi will no longer hold elected office."Let the Jedi show their commitment to this peace. Cast aside the trappings of war and assume your rightful place as counselors and advisers. "
"This will be the beginning of a new era for the Republic. We will enter a new age of prosperity and peace. Let the Jedi show their commitment to this peace...."
"That is why I brought you here to discuss the recommendations before we vote on them," Valorum answered. "I wanted you to understand why this has to be done."
And with each conflict, more civilians are swept up in your web of war. Innocent beings die as armies align with you or your enemies. Worlds loyal to the Republic break away, fracturing a once united galaxy. It is time to put a stop to this cycle of madness."
On the one hand... it's possible Farfalla is being serious, that this is the Jedi Council's real critique. In which case... huh? What a load of garbage!"As I suspected," the Master said with another sigh. "The Jedi Council does not approve of this, Johun. They see it as an act of pride and arrogance."
"Is it arrogant to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice?" Johun asked, staying calm. He was a Jedi Knight now; the Padawan who would fly off the handle at the slightest provocation was long gone.
"Requesting a memorial to honor your former Master smacks of vanity," Farfalla explained. "In elevating the man who first trained you, you in effect elevate yourself."
"I doubt the Council will be in any great hurry to take action in this matter," he warned.
...
"The Council will not help you, Johun. Therefore we must go to Tython ourselves."
For all that Farfalla was a member of the Jedi Council, he was also one of the few Coruscant Jedi willing to join the Army of Light -- sacrificing his own political ambitions (election as Supreme Chancellor) in the process. Farfalla was Lord Hoth's deputy, the general who took command of the Army of Light after Hoth's death. He is one of those go-getters, and for the first time in ten years, he has something to do!"I swore a vow to General Hoth," Farfalla explained, his voice taking on the hard tone of military comand he had not used since the disbanding of the Army of Light. "I promised I would not rest until the Sith had been cleansed from the galaxy. I still intend to honor that vow.
If you feel the need to ask that question then your omake hasn't reached them yet.What are the minimum requirements for an omake to be made canon or get a +10 bonus?