StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Darth Wong brought up a good point in another thread that got me to thinking.

The mystery of Padme's death is that there was no obvious physical cause. She got a vigorous trachea massage, but given that her voice wasn't even frogged afterward and the state of Star Wars medical care, she should have lived.

DW's speculation on the matter was that there could have been a force bond between the two of them, and given the way the scenes of Anakin's surgery were intercut with Padme's delivery, that his ordeal somehow transmitted enough trauma across the bond to kill her.

Cool notion, and it raises an interested prospect. We've all kicked on the Jedi for their attachment rules. But if close attachments can create force bonds, then the Jedi policy in that regard is a lot more sensible than it initially appeared. If, say, Shelly the Jedi tries to pull the horns off a Gundark and fails, it'd really suck that her kids are now orphans because her husband Bob just keeled over. Even worse, her children might be killed as well.

It's not even necessary that force bonds occur in all relationships, but if it is a common enough occurrence, then the risk is too great.

Viewed in that light, the no-attachments philosophy is not only logical, but ethically required.

Thoughts?

Thoughts: Post RotJ jedi do it just fine.

If one looks into the EU (IE KOTOR 2) this is not without presedence, but I would disagree with that being enough justification alone to do away with relationships. In both cases, the Jedi in question were extremely powerful as well as being prone to the dark side of the foce, something that cannot be said of a majority of Jedi. It is obvious that attachement has a great positive effect on Jedi, considering it allowed both Anakin and Luke to cast off and reject the dark side even when it had nearly consumed them, a feat considered virtually impossible in the Old Order.
The force bond might prove problematic, although it is not enough justification for abandoning attachment, more likely the Old Order rejected it out of the belief that it was an easy path to the dark side, a theory that is heavily flawed.

Probably only a dark side thing.

NecronLord wrote:Thoughts: Post RotJ jedi do it just fine.

And the post ROTJ Order is new enough and small enough that the problem may not have arisen yet. Hell, they might not even know that it is a problem until say Corran kicks it and then Mirax and his son also die, for example.

I would say the rule against attachement is more to prevent Jedi from using their power selfishly and thereby creating an opening for the dark side.

Mark S wrote:I would say the rule against attachement is more to prevent Jedi from using their power selfishly and thereby creating an opening for the dark side.

That's my take. It assure that they are servents. With no attachments, they rely on the Order and the Republic for their necessities, they need to serve to get the basics.

Well when I saw that seen I assumed it was the force chock. Some EU sources say that force lightning and chocks attack the sprit and not anything physical. I took the force lighting seen in ROTS as proof of this.

I just thought that she was just holding on till the baby(s) were born.

Petrosjko wrote:Thoughts?

There doesn't necessarily need to be any force bond. Medical patients can and some times do just die for lack of a will to live. I mean she's gone through enough shit to make her suicidal; her comments to Anakin before that imply as much.

I wouldn't rule the Force bond out, especially with Palpatine's line, but I don't see the need.

Knife wrote:

Mark S wrote:I would say the rule against attachement is more to prevent Jedi from using their power selfishly and thereby creating an opening for the dark side.

That's my take. It assure that they are servents. With no attachments, they rely on the Order and the Republic for their necessities, they need to serve to get the basics.

It certainly seems to be a religious dogma thing more than anything.

Even without the idea of a life bond in the Force, the reasons for attachments being forbidden in the Jedi Order are obvious. The question is to whether or not it's worth it.

Originally I thought it was to avoid the emotions that potentially lead to the Dark Side when things like the loss of a loved one happen. If this Force bond idea is true, though, then the reasons for disallowing attachments are far more concrete... and, in my opinion, justified.