Opinions on the “No Attachments” policy for Jedi?

[godisawesome]

This was popping up on here and other forums, and I think it’s a fun debate point.

How do you view the no attachments policy? Is it antiquated and misguided dogma? Genuinely intelligent application of the “rules” for the Force? A cheap excuse for forbidden love/no romance? A fun part of the lore that should be kept? Moved on from? Reformed? What?

I mean, I’m from the old Legends EU, where they embraced the whole “Luke’s attachment to his father saved Anakin Skywalker and thus the Galaxy, while the rule itself causes needless hassle, so we ditched it” idea. And I prefer that. But how do you guys and gals see it?

[Immortal Weapon]

It should be abandoned as the rule caused more harm than good. Anakin attachment is what made Ahsoka who is she and she is far better for it. I'm sure he would have never fallen to the dark side if he was able to be open with his relationship with Padme.

Maintaining this rule will only open up a new order to the same failings again

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

I'm cool with it being a choice rather than a rigid enforcement.

[Vic Vega]

It really needs to be trash can'd.

Lucas' misunderstanding of eastern philosophy was embarrassing enough no need for later writers to triple down on it.

It's been noted that that entire concept wasn't even a thing in any of the post Return of Jedi extended universe media.

And I question the business sense of creating lore that makes Mara Jade Skywalker impossible given how popular she is/was and only being a character in novels to boot.

It also doesn't help any that the whole thing from Prequel Trilogy on really sounds like Lucas came up with it after salty contemplation of his first busted marriage.

[Frontier]

I can kind of understand it in a sense of trying to maintain personal balance and make the Jedi seem more of the world than as an individual...like the emotional detachment and reserve kind of defines the Prequel era Jedi and how they operate, and we kind of saw the extremes of what that can lead to in people like Anakin or Mace, while others were able to figure out that balance (Ahsoka and Obi-Wan).

But it was never really feasible in the long run, because they're still humans or people at the end of the day. Like, even the Master-Padawan relationship kind of stretches it.

[Tofali]

The "no attachment" rule needs to stand. What was the undoing of the Jedi is them being an arm of the senate instead of Independent peacekeepers.

Anakin and Kylo should not even be considered in the discussion, they were dark little demons that were already disturbed.

[godisawesome]

The biggest issue the rule has is that this is ultimately escapist adventure fiction with a romantic edge (in the sense of the French Romances, not love stories) - this is not a franchise of emotionally detached or celibate heroes. Yes, I know Lucas thought that Jedi could avoid the latter designation while fulfilling the former… but there is a good reason people have been so loathe to pursue physical Jedi romances that can never have commitment as an element, whether under Lucas or Disney.

So, even beyond the philosophical reasonings for and against the attachment rule… you’re always going to have creators deploying romances where the longer they go on and the more rewarding they are, the more likely it is that the creator will just end up ignoring the rule, or otherwise subverting it’s precepts.

Like, Dave Filoni effectively got away with Kanan and Hera being a de-facto married couple.

Lucas himself intended to have Ventress die loving Quinlan Vos and pulling him back from the darkside in doing so, adding another case of love redeeming a character in the audience’s eyes.

And even LFL’s own preferred toxic, story-derailing ‘ship, Rey and Kylo, seems to have been carried out while at best sneaking back the no attachments rule as part of LFL’s Latham towards Rey actually being trained or, Post-TFA, even be focused on.

The philosophical idea is already fairly weak when Jedi are still expected to do other things that don’t fit a life of detachment. It’s arguably impossible to maintain when the very nature of the franchise encourages breaking it.

[godisawesome]

Someone elsewhere pointed out that the idea is supposed to be that “attachment” is possessive and therefore unhealthy, which is true enough…

…But the problem is that in Star Wars, selfless love gets lumped in with “attachment” whenever the writer is lazy and wants to manufacture drama or avoid relationship building they don't want.

[Frontier]

The biggest issue the rule has is that this is ultimately escapist adventure fiction with a romantic edge (in the sense of the French Romances, not love stories) - this is not a franchise of emotionally detached or celibate heroes. Yes, I know Lucas thought that Jedi could avoid the latter designation while fulfilling the former… but there is a good reason people have been so loathe to pursue physical Jedi romances that can never have commitment as an element, whether under Lucas or Disney.

So, even beyond the philosophical reasonings for and against the attachment rule… you’re always going to have creators deploying romances where the longer they go on and the more rewarding they are, the more likely it is that the creator will just end up ignoring the rule, or otherwise subverting it’s precepts.

Like, Dave Filoni effectively got away with Kanan and Hera being a de-facto married couple.

Lucas himself intended to have Ventress die loving Quinlan Vos and pulling him back from the darkside in doing so, adding another case of love redeeming a character in the audience’s eyes.

And even LFL’s own preferred toxic, story-derailing ‘ship, Rey and Kylo, seems to have been carried out while at best sneaking back the no attachments rule as part of LFL’s Latham towards Rey actually being trained or, Post-TFA, even be focused on.

The philosophical idea is already fairly weak when Jedi are still expected to do other things that don’t fit a life of detachment. It’s arguably impossible to maintain when the very nature of the franchise encourages breaking it.

Well, we know now that the Jedi weren't actually celibate, they just couldn't date people .

I don't think Lucas was advocating for it as an ideal philosophy at least in a strict sense because we know the Prequel Jedi were intentionally flawed. Like in some respects you can see where some level of detachment is important like with Obi-Wan where, despite still loving Satine, he didn't become consumed over her death after Maul killed her because he was the quintessential Jedi. So it's not so much banning love or relationships so much as learning balance and controling ones emotions, something Anakin always had trouble with but other Jedi didn't, but the Order was too overly strict in general.

It's also interesting reading some High Republic novels because we have a good mix of Jedi crushing on people, having one-night-stands, and Avar and Elzar's sexual tension and playing around with how that works around the Jedi's tenets.

[ZeroBG82]

I mean, I’m from the old Legends EU, where they embraced the whole “Luke’s attachment to his father saved Anakin Skywalker and thus the Galaxy,

Luke's attachment to his father saved HIMSELF. When he severs Vader's hand and realizes that it's also a prosthetic, the same as he uses, that reconnection pulls Luke back from lure of the Dark Side. His love for Anakin rescued him from Anakin's fate. And with that, he spared his father's life and became a true Jedi.

It's Anakin's attachment to Luke that saves the galaxy. When Palpatine then tries to murder the last Jedi, Anakin's love for his son finally wins out. It's the exact same flaw that damned him in the first place, only at the last Anakin finally acts selflessly rather than only for himself. Trying to live up to his son's example.

In his final moments, Anakin Skywalker finally learns to put aside his self-obsessed needs and act for someone else.

That's the lesson the Jedi are trying to teach when they tell their Knights to put aside attachments. It isn't about not connecting with people, it isn't about not feeling love or companionship. It's about being selfless in all things.

Being a Jedi isn't a job someone does. It's a religious calling. It isn't for everybody, and just because you can touch the Force doesn't mean it's the path for you. Being a Jedi isn't an honor, it's not a path to glory. It's an act of sacrifice. It's what makes being a Knight matter.

Otherwise they are just ordinary people with super-powers. And that's lame.

Also, the fundamental flaw of the PT Jedi isn't that they ban attachment. It's that they are so cold, so emotionally isolated in their monastic dogma and so cut off from the common citizen of the Republic that they can't even recognize that a teenage boy in their midst is struggling with emotional baggage and trauma, and certainly aren't equipped to help him deal with it in a healthy and self-actualizing way.

The Jedi absolutely need to maintain the no attachments philosophy. Without it they are incapable of truly doing what they have been called to do. Serve the Force, serve the people and ultimately serve life itself. Which might mean losing those you love or never seeing them again. But they also need to maintain a connection to the people of the galaxy whom they serve. The answer is much more Kung Fu (the television series) than anything else, be of and among those you serve.

[Tofali]

I mean, I’m from the old Legends EU, where they embraced the whole “Luke’s attachment to his father saved Anakin Skywalker and thus the Galaxy, while the rule itself causes needless hassle, so we ditched it” idea. And I prefer that. But how do you guys and gals see it?

So one lucky exception should become a rule just because one untrained Jedi disobeyed his two Masters and by chance became successful and saved a galaxy? That's one data point that's flawed logic to me.

[godisawesome]

Luke's attachment to his father saved HIMSELF. When he severs Vader's hand and realizes that it's also a prosthetic, the same as he uses, that reconnection pulls Luke back from lure of the Dark Side. His love for Anakin rescued him from Anakin's fate. And with that, he spared his father's life and became a true Jedi.

It's Anakin's attachment to Luke that saves the galaxy. When Palpatine then tries to murder the last Jedi, Anakin's love for his son finally wins out. It's the exact same flaw that damned him in the first place, only at the last Anakin finally acts selflessly rather than only for himself. Trying to live up to his son's example.

In his final moments, Anakin Skywalker finally learns to put aside his self-obsessed needs and act for someone else.

That's the lesson the Jedi are trying to teach when they tell their Knights to put aside attachments. It isn't about not connecting with people, it isn't about not feeling love or companionship. It's about being selfless in all things.

Being a Jedi isn't a job someone does. It's a religious calling. It isn't for everybody, and just because you can touch the Force doesn't mean it's the path for you. Being a Jedi isn't an honor, it's not a path to glory. It's an act of sacrifice. It's what makes being a Knight matter.

Otherwise they are just ordinary people with super-powers. And that's lame.

Also, the fundamental flaw of the PT Jedi isn't that they ban attachment. It's that they are so cold, so emotionally isolated in their monastic dogma and so cut off from the common citizen of the Republic that they can't even recognize that a teenage boy in their midst is struggling with emotional baggage and trauma, and certainly aren't equipped to help him deal with it in a healthy and self-actualizing way.

The Jedi absolutely need to maintain the no attachments philosophy. Without it they are incapable of truly doing what they have been called to do. Serve the Force, serve the people and ultimately serve life itself. Which might mean losing those you love or never seeing them again. But they also need to maintain a connection to the people of the galaxy whom they serve. The answer is much more Kung Fu (the television series) than anything else, be of and among those you serve.

Most people answering a religious calling in the real world still have families. “Incapable” is blatant over-application, even in Eastern philosophies and religions.

And to some extent… yeah, I want Jedi to be able to be salt of the earth and relatable. The cloistered monk should be able to be matched by the humble local vicar, and the enlightened master can be in an ivory tower or a humble hut, and alone or with companions.

The coldness that the Old Jedi Order suffered from is too easily and logically tied to applying a “one size fits all” approach to relationships. A healthy emotional life comes in different forms, particualrly in dealing with the realities of life and death. Obi-Wan had the maturity to to go beyond mere dogma and recognize that Satine likewise reflected a commitment to a cause he couldn’t fully dedicate himself to, but I’d argue that both Dooku and Anakin show the different extremes of the attachment issues; Anakin has no one capable of helping him learn to let go of attachements among the Jedi because of the rule, but Dooku’s detachment is pitch perfect reflection of the dogma encouraging him to become an arrogant elitist.

The simple fact is that it works as a flawed over-application where good writers should be able to move people away from it and still have good Jedi, in the same way good writers could show the dogma working or even making situations worse.

[Vic Vega]

There is a reason I liked Star Wars: Visions so much.

In the hands of Japanese creators whose culture Lucas swiped for the Jedi's philosophy, I finally got the Jedi that I always wanted: Jedi as traveling Samurai types.

I have watched enough Wuxia to know that the non attachment thing was ONLY an artifact of the prequels. Lucas didn't get that from those movies or the Samurai flicks.

So It's not even a trope of the media Lucas was cribbing from.

It's not even reflective of how actual monks live either( who are allowed to visit family), for what it's worth.

If the original idea was that the prequel Jedi were fatally flawed and needed to be done away with to produce something better, that I could buy.

But the last episode of Boba Fett has Luke espousing the same prequel dogma. And Ashoka doesn't call him on it. So none of that makes any sense to me.

Yes Luke gave the muppet a choice. He shouldn't have had to.

The whole issue seems a Prequel Era lore/story flaw that creatives keep doubling down on. It makes the Jedi less likeable and interesting, in my view.

[Frontier]

There is a reason I liked Star Wars: Visions so much.

In the hands of Japanese creators whose culture Lucas swiped for the Jedi's philosophy, I finally got the Jedi that I always wanted: Jedi as traveling Samurai types.

I have watched enough Wuxia to know that the non attachment thing was ONLY an artifact of the prequels. Lucas didn't get that from those movies or the Samurai flicks.

So It's not even a trope of the media Lucas was cribbing from.

It's not even reflective of how actual monks live either( who are allowed to visit family), for what it's worth.

If the original idea was that the prequel Jedi were fatally flawed and needed to be done away with to produce something better, that I could buy.

But the last episode of Boba Fett has Luke espousing the same prequel dogma. And Ashoka doesn't call him on it. So none of that makes any sense to me.

Yes Luke gave the muppet a choice. He shouldn't have had to.

The whole issue seems a Prequel Era lore/story flaw that creatives keep doubling down on. It makes the Jedi less likeable and interesting, in my view.

Although the last Visions segment kind of highlighted the entire reason for the "no attachment" edict because his attachment screwed over the lead Jedi in the end.

[godisawesome]

And I think the general counseling of a Jedi acolyte in such advice, particularly if they have certain personality flaws is a valid point…

…But in practice, it tends to just be a handy “cheat code” for creating drama when they want to, that they then ignore when they don’t. Sometimes more intelligently, sometimes less so.