Jedi, sith, Grey Jedi, Force Adepts, Dark Acolytes, etc.

[Master Rel]

The Taris Padawan Massacre begs to differ.

I had never heard of this. It requires much consideration and research before I could have a reasonable response, beyond thanks for sharing your EU knowledge 

[Nhylus]

I had never heard of this. It requires much consideration and research before I could have a reasonable response, beyond thanks for sharing your EU knowledge  

this story also cannot speak for all the Jedi. Those masters acted out of fear. Out of the dark side.

[chicago.jedi]

I think that Jedi marriage results in one unforeseen problem. Force-sensitivity is known to be hereditary. A Jedi who has a family starts a family of Jedi. This is acceptable as "local color" on some planets, such as Corellia and Cerea. But if everyone starts doing it, the Jedi Order will become an organization with membership by birth, not by merit. The Jedi are NOT meant to be an aristocracy. And they will degenerate into one.

I do not see this becoming the case. It is not uncommon in our universe for a son to follow in his father's footsteps. I know plenty of families where a certain set of skills just seems to run in the family. There are the children who employ those skills and there are children who go their own path. I am sure that there could very well be a Force sensitive person who was indifferent to his or her skills and would choose a different path than that set forth by his or her parents.

Now, on another note, your idea of the Jedi as an aristocracy already did exist in a way, just without the birth right part. Force sensitive children were given up to the Order by their parents at a young age and the child had no say in it. This is probably the one and only objection I have to the Jedi way. I think the choice to be a Jedi should rest on the individual. We all know people who were forced into a way of life and deeply resent it. And we all know people who worked hard to get to a way of life that would not ordinarily have been offered to them. The latter certainly appreciates what they have achieved on a much greater level.

I think if the Jedi Order allowed people to join later in life (no more "too old to being the training") they would have stronger and more devout members who would not feel like they missed out on something in life since they would have had a chance to get it out of their system beforehand. In this, the Jedi order would be a true calling and not forced upon, parental arrangement.

[Oramac]

There is an element of self-sacrifice, that much is beyond debate.  The intent and mindset of the good samaritan is pretty crucial in defining this moment, though.
This also speaks to the principle of "no attachment."  Tanzan helps the girl, but thinks nothing of it beyond that moment.  He does not do it for a reward, he does not do it because it betters himself, and he does not do it for the approval of others.

Further, this highlights the need to remain grounded despite holding onto lofty and grand ideals of purity.  Ekido was focused on maintaining his path of purity, and avoiding all temptation.  In many ways, this is admirable, but it is also what would have kept him from helping out a fellow human being when they needed it.  Tanzan helped her, and then moved on.

"No attachments" does not mean you forsake absolutely everything and every possibility of interaction to the point of becoming cold and removed from the world.  It simply means you don't hang onto everything you come across.  You help the girl cross the mud, and continue on your path.

This post may be moderated due to the content.  I certainly hope it doesn't, but it very well might.

I'm well aware of the Good Samaritan ideas, and the laws regarding them.  I was a lifeguard for 6 years in high school/college and, thankfully, never needed to truly use my training.

That said, I think you've missed one of the major points of my post, as many, many people also miss.  The part that said " Especially if the "help" I provide is defined by some ambiguous third party."  

Tanzan actually did great in that story, I think.  He actually traded value for value with the woman.  She got carried to a place she couldn't reach otherwise, and he got the satisfaction of providing a needed service.  Where the problem I have comes in, is the situation in which, for the sake of argument, the King (whom Tanzan has never met) decrees that he must carry all ladies across the intersection without any compensation.   Sure he may still be satisfied that he helped the girl, but his value received is significantly diminished now that he is forced to carry the lady, instead of choosing to do so.  

[TheHobbitofDune]

Jedi hold the core and essence of things. That is why the other systems are similar in fundamentals. They are shared truths.

We lack the additions. The rituals and trappings. But there is history to the grasp of an innate ethic, of the cherished and ubiquitous life-force.

We believe in cause-and-effect, which is really the definition of Karma.

No luck; no accidents.

That is an interesting way of looking at it. I agree with the first three sentences in particular. But to say that you lack rituals and trappings... Well, first, what does that mean to you? What about the knighting ceremony? And as far as trappings go, the Jedi do hold an air of confidence, and they do elicit a subtle hint of superiority, in a way. Not that the Jedi intend for that to happen, of course, but it is only natural.

If I interpreted the last few sentences properly, then I definitely agree that the Jedi do have a moral obligation to do right, and that it is sort of hard-wired into their being. I also agree that they are strongly attuned to the living Force, but then again, they are Jedi.

[Aurentis]

The lesson of the Muddy Road isn't that you should help people just on the merit of helping people, though that's understandably something you can take from it.  The lesson is more about attachment.  It was just conveniently relevant to your post.

I, too, think Tanzan did well in the story, but I think I'm viewing his "doing well" in a different manner as you, which is totally okay too.  It's all about perspective.
Ekido's attachment to the event clouded his mind and festered until he couldn't contain it anymore and "lashed out" (and I do use this term loosely) at Tanzan.  Ekido, who didn't even have anything to do with the event other than being a witness, couldn't let it go because he was so focused on seeing what his companion had done as 'wrong.'  Meanwhile, Tanzan did it, and left it on the side of the road where he set the girl down.  He continued, free of concern.

Relating this to the ideal Jedi vs. the actual Jedi, I can understand having a level of disagreement or even disdain for the Council.  The Council could be compared to Ekido -- Masters who are focused on the highest of ideals and believe they should be pursued above all else, almost to the point of cloistering oneself.  This is fairly evident in any of the Council Assembly scenes, particularly when they are addressing Qui-Gon.
Qui-Gon would be the best movie Jedi to compare to Tanzan, I think.  He has things he wants to see happen, but his driving force (pardon the pun) is the Living Force, or as we might call it in our world, the will of the universe.  Thus, he is not acting out of personal desire, so much as he is following the path to which he is guided by the Force.
Tanzan is similar in that he is acting simply out of coincidence and the fact that another person needs help.  Right time, right place and all that -- the universe provides.

I can understand your point about the hypothetical king.  This also raises the (admittedly very fair) question of how people perceive the Jedi Council, and what they actually do.  Like Obi-Wan says in Episode VI, "many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."  It's understandable that someone would view the Council as something akin to this hypothetical king.

I'll let someone else address the Council question before I start rambling about that one.  

(P.S. I didn't actually mean to bring the Good Samaritan laws or anything into the debate, I was mostly just using the term.  Still, that's totally my bad.  Sorry!)

[Simonblackfell]

It seems to me that they pretty much outright state that ability with the force is often passed from parent to child.  Perhaps this is one of the reasons that there was a statement made that the ability to use the force had become stunted?  That the force users in question had not been allowing their members to reinforce the lines of ability and hence those of ability had been vanishing? 

The idea that many would find the rigid thinking of the council and the chaos of feeling rather than thinking of the Sith both as distasteful is not that far fetched.  Jealousy and greed would be the major corrupting factor of the Sith.  While apathy and the inability to bend is the major limiting factor on the Jedi.   Even when looking at things like the Gray Paladins, they were censured by the Council for not agreeing with them on how they should go about using the force and training the adepts of the force, showing that the Council was unable to accept aberrations.  The Sith are a constant aberration and would embrace only the things that would bring them more power both within the force and within the mundane world.  Those that choose a more flexible path that casts off the rigidity of the Council but eschews the chaos and self centered attitudes of the Sith.

Of course there is the idea of helping people.  Choosing to teach and allow people to stand on their own two feet rather than becoming a crutch for them to always rely upon.  Perhaps an order that views the meddling of the council in Galactic affairs as unseemly and  overly invasive into the lives of the common person of the republic.  Jedi essentially being above the law.  Think about the statement that Anakin makes in the scene in the bar after Obi Want cuts off the hand of the assassin.  "Jedi business, go back to your drinks."  I would think that it hints at the idea that the jedi can do anything that they feel they need to do.  Answering only to the Council itself.  Where there would be the idea as well that the citizens of the republic would become overly dependent on the peace keeping of the Jedi order and without them or if they are unable to be as effective (our ability to use the force has been diminished for example) that things unravel.  Perhaps an order that would take a different ideal, teach the people to stand on their own and to get them to care for each other and themselves rather than depend on a third party to do it all for them.  Which would differ drastically from the teaching of the council or the mad passion of the sith.  That whole idea of giving a man fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he sits around and drinks beer all day.  ;-)

Of course I could see the ideas of a few force users that emotion has its place but that the emotion itself should be modulated and controlled so as to not fall to the dark side.  That feelings and emotions are good and to be trusted but not allowed to eradicate the limiting factor of logic and control.  But not suppressed or removed entirely as the Council Jedi seems to have as a goal.  But of course those would be few and far between or would (like Qui Gon or Count Dooku) be connected to one side or the other in an attempt to find that balance within themselves and try to add a voice of reason to the otherwise rigid thinking of the two extremes.

Just me spit balling here and conjecturing.

[Oramac]

The lesson of the Muddy Road isn't that you should help people just on the merit of helping people, though that's understandably something you can take from it.  The lesson is more about attachment.  It was just conveniently relevant to your post.

I, too, think Tanzan did well in the story, but I think I'm viewing his "doing well" in a different manner as you, which is totally okay too.  It's all about perspective.
Ekido's attachment to the event clouded his mind and festered until he couldn't contain it anymore and "lashed out" (and I do use this term loosely) at Tanzan.  Ekido, who didn't even have anything to do with the event other than being a witness, couldn't let it go because he was so focused on seeing what his companion had done as 'wrong.'  Meanwhile, Tanzan did it, and left it on the side of the road where he set the girl down.  He continued, free of concern.

Relating this to the ideal Jedi vs. the actual Jedi, I can understand having a level of disagreement or even disdain for the Council.  The Council could be compared to Ekido -- Masters who are focused on the highest of ideals and believe they should be pursued above all else, almost to the point of cloistering oneself.  This is fairly evident in any of the Council Assembly scenes, particularly when they are addressing Qui-Gon.
Qui-Gon would be the best movie Jedi to compare to Tanzan, I think.  He has things he wants to see happen, but his driving force (pardon the pun) is the Living Force, or as we might call it in our world, the will of the universe.  Thus, he is not acting out of personal desire, so much as he is following the path to which he is guided by the Force.
Tanzan is similar in that he is acting simply out of coincidence and the fact that another person needs help.  Right time, right place and all that -- the universe provides.

I can understand your point about the hypothetical king.  This also raises the (admittedly very fair) question of how people perceive the Jedi Council, and what they actually do.  Like Obi-Wan says in Episode VI, "many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."  It's understandable that someone would view the Council as something akin to this hypothetical king.

I'll let someone else address the Council question before I start rambling about that one.  

I think you and I are on the same page actually.  Or, at least, reading the same book.  lol.

(P.S. I didn't actually mean to bring the Good Samaritan laws or anything into the debate, I was mostly just using the term.  Still, that's totally my bad.  Sorry!)

Don't apologize!  I was just using that as a way to try to relate to what you said.  I didn't take any kind of offense at it whatsoever. 

Jedi essentially being above the law.  Think about the statement that Anakin makes in the scene in the bar after Obi Want cuts off the hand of the assassin.  "Jedi business, go back to your drinks."  I would think that it hints at the idea that the jedi can do anything that they feel they need to do.

Overall in your post, I think you've hit on several good points, but I wanted to hit on this one specifically. 

If we had something akin to that in our current world, I personally would immediately distrust them.   Same with the Grammaton Clerics in Equilibrium or really any other "above the law" person or group.  Whether they're doing good or not is largely irrelevant. 

[Aurentis]

I do so enjoy our discussions, Oramac.  They're fun for me. 

[chicago.jedi]

If we had something akin to that in our current world, I personally would immediately distrust them.   Same with the Grammaton Clerics in Equilibrium or really any other "above the law" person or group.  Whether they're doing good or not is largely irrelevant. 

   
I am not so sure I would call the Jedi above the law. If you think of them as peace officers, then consider our own police, it is not a stretch. Police officers have the authority to do things you and I can not do. This is not above the law as they have their own rules to follow as well, but the things they can do above the average person are supposed to be for the greater good. The military is the same way. There are things soldiers are expected to do that would get you or I arrested. Does this make the soldier wrong and should not be trusted?

I think the Jedi have a sort of a Judge Dread thing going on. In a universe that vast, how could you not have that? If you think of the Jedi as having a higher understanding of right and wrong because of their strong tie to the Force, then it would not be out of line to give them such authority. This is not to say the Jedi can not make mistakes. We elect officials and give them power over us with a certain level of trust that they will not abuse the power or stray in their duties, and they fail as well. This does not mean the entire system is at fault, just the person.

I am going to offer this quote I heard years ago when I was an apprentice in the construction trades (it seems appropriate to this discussion). A journeyman and I were doing layout work and the control lines had been marked wrong and redone but it was not clear which were right. He started to lay out according to one set of lines and I asked him how he knew that was the right set of control lines to use. He replied, "I don't. But you have to believe in something."

[Aurentis]

Also, I think it's worth noting that it was Anakin who said this particular line, and at the time, he was an extremely troubled, headstrong padawan.  He asserts himself over his master several times prior to this scene, and ignores Obi-Wan's direction again immediately after.
I think it would be fair to say it is one example of many in which he oversteps his bounds.  In AOTC, he really takes many aspects of the Jedi for granted.

[Oramac]

I am not so sure I would call the Jedi above the law. If you think of them as peace officers, then consider our own police, it is not a stretch. Police officers have the authority to do things you and I can not do. This is not above the law as they have their own rules to follow as well, but the things they can do above the average person are supposed to be for the greater good. The military is the same way. There are things soldiers are expected to do that would get you or I arrested. Does this make the soldier wrong and should not be trusted?

That makes a certain amount of sense, except that the Jedi don't answer to Republic Law.  They answer to the Council.  If a Jedi could be prosecuted under Republic law for breaking that law, just the same as any other person, I would agree with you.  As it is, I can't.

I think the Jedi have a sort of a Judge Dread thing going on. In a universe that vast, how could you not have that? If you think of the Jedi as having a higher understanding of right and wrong because of their strong tie to the Force, then it would not be out of line to give them such authority. This is not to say the Jedi can not make mistakes. We elect officials and give them power over us with a certain level of trust that they will not abuse the power or stray in their duties, and they fail as well. This does not mean the entire system is at fault, just the person.

Right and wrong according to whom?  Your right/wrong is surely not the same as mine, and both of ours won't match exactly with Aurentis's sense of right/wrong.  This is why we have the Constitution, and laws.  They define right/wrong.   Not the elected officials (who are wrong more than right, by my reckoning).  I'd personally say in a universe that vast, how could you have a Judge Dredd?  There's too much area to cover for too few people.  Better to allow the people to individually police themselves. 

[/quote]I am going to offer this quote I heard years ago when I was an apprentice in the construction trades (it seems appropriate to this discussion). A journeyman and I were doing layout work and the control lines had been marked wrong and redone but it was not clear which were right. He started to lay out according to one set of lines and I asked him how he knew that was the right set of control lines to use. He replied, "I don't. But you have to believe in something."
[/quote]

That I will agree with.   Put another way: "if you believe in nothing, you'll fall for anything".

Aurentis makes a good point as well.  This whole discussion could be moot if Anakin's statement is not a true representation of how the Jedi handled things. 

[chicago.jedi]

Right and wrong according to whom?  Your right/wrong is surely not the same as mine, and both of ours won't match exactly with Aurentis's sense of right/wrong.  This is why we have the Constitution, and laws.  They define right/wrong.   Not the elected officials (who are wrong more than right, by my reckoning).  I'd personally say in a universe that vast, how could you have a Judge Dredd?  There's too much area to cover for too few people.  Better to allow the people to individually police themselves.  

I think in general, most people can agree on what is right and what is wrong. There are some differences from culture to culture but most things are universal. The Jedi are in a way, superior beings by nature of their connection to the Force so in the galaxy far, far away, it makes sense to the people of that universe to let the Jedi "protect." I think if we over analyze this, it does not make sense to us, but if we accept that this is the way their universe is, then it is easier to swallow. In any sense, having the Jedi police the galaxy seems to me to be a better idea then just letting everyone police themselves, as you put it. This seems more like lawlessness. Think about Solo vs Greedo in the bar. Regardless of who shot first, no one thought anything of it. Imagine living your entire life where that was the case and nobody keep order but you watching out for yourself. I think people need to have a sense that someone is keeping them in line even if they are not watching 24/7. The idea of concequences in the back of someone's mind is sometimes enough to keep them in line.

And as for Anakin, I think he was out of line and not a good example. A young kid with a little authority who was drunk on his own power. I do not think he is typical of the Jedi in any way.

I hope we are not getting too far off topic here, but I have never really been sure of the actual direction of this thread to begin with other than talk about Force users in general. Sorry if we are straying,  Relmeob.

[Kitra]

That is an interesting way of looking at it. I agree with the first three sentences in particular. But to say that you lack rituals and trappings... Well, first, what does that mean to you? What about the knighting ceremony? And as far as trappings go, the Jedi do hold an air of confidence, and they do elicit a subtle hint of superiority, in a way. Not that the Jedi intend for that to happen, of course, but it is only natural.

If I interpreted the last few sentences properly, then I definitely agree that the Jedi do have a moral obligation to do right, and that it is sort of hard-wired into their being. I also agree that they are strongly attuned to the living Force, but then again, they are Jedi.

Hello Sorry for the long delay.
This is basicly a short roundup of the Jedi church (i know church sounds misleading but it was needed to get a permit from the state...) which i deem myself a member off. You maybe read about all the guys n gals in Australia which voted Jedi on a nationwide questioning for their believes? These are a bunch of people with many more in London, Germany, Canada, America, Mexico and so on.
The basic believes Lucas used to create the Jedi originate from believes and ideals which are already millenia old.
So this group is a lot older than star wars but the title made it accessible for everyone.

Not many people read about religions as well as morale ideas in their pasttime but nearly everyone have heard of star wars and since the core believes are exactly what many of us already implemented into their lives it was a small step for a renaming.

Dont want to take to much of your time so here is the short answer sir.

Very respectfully

Kitra

[Rina Ascura]

If we had something akin to that in our current world, I personally would immediately distrust them.   Same with the Grammaton Clerics in Equilibrium or really any other "above the law" person or group.  Whether they're doing good or not is largely irrelevant. 

In my headcanon, it's not so. Even the Jedi Shadows, the mose secret police-like of all Jedi, had to consult with secular Republican courts of law before making an arrest, in my canon.