EUFic General Fic Fluff and Background

[Darth Hoth]

Query, Hoth, did you want to go for the form of "Supreme Chancellor and President" or "President and Supreme Chancellor" (heh, evocative of Führer und Reichskanzler)? Alternatively, we could go with my love of trends and ambiguity and historiographical transition, and have both long forms and both short forms in use in different times and contexts. But we should have a "general" title. What do you prefer?

I went with the "Chancellor and President" title in my old pre-EUFic notes to manage continuity; this was before I read up on Publius. For me, it does not really matter all that much, it is just the model I am used to working with. You can take what you think best, and I can adapt accordingly.

(A reply to your reply to my reply to your criticism of my fluff piece is upcoming, but not tonight; it is getting late here.)

[Kartr_Kana]

The highest ratings are assigned to various command levels. Rather than being seperate ranks, they are NCO advisers and staff for their appropriate level, and judged by that. For example, you'll have Squadron Master Chief Petty Officers, Sector Group Master Chief Petty Officer, Oversector Command Master Chief Petty Officer, etc.

That's true but I still think we need to expand the enlisted ranks slightly. Maybe not to E-17, but at least up to E-12. If E-9 is the senior enlisted adviser to a small terrestrial force, then there should be a slightly higher rank for sector wide senior adviser, region wide, and fleet wide. Of course the Fleet wide can be the same rank as the region wide just "Senior Enlisted Whatever of the Fleet/Army/Marines".

[Darth Raptor]

The idea is that Pestage convened a rump Senate using his preogatives as Grand Vizier and used it to legitimize his Regency; then he later (probably the clone) dissolved it under Isard's advice (probably a major coup in PR and political legitimacy to the NR).

Ah, I see.

I like the idea of him in AOTC, that's all. We can easily replace him with any new character. Obviously Lucas' Jar Jar proper is no more.

So we rehabilitate him into an actual general and statesman? I can get behind that.

[Darth Hoth]

I see. The way I see it, it is a semi-sovereign knighthood order like the Knights of Malta today. It has Order property (like a church or corporation) as well as small grants of territory where it is semi-soveriegn. My suggestion was to call them Jedi Enclaves or something. And corresponding to special quasi-bisophric "seat" (in conjunction with traditional spheres of jurisdiction, etc.).

For example. Imagine a Chapter of the Order corresponding to the Corellian Sector. It has a Chapter Master who has jurisdiction over the local Jedi executive apparatus, and with some devolved legislative functions (each chapter able to manage some of its own budget and by-laws, though not effecting canon law?). There are a few traditional Jedi enclaves in the Sector, and the Chapter Master has dominion over them, and also is in charge of the property and employees of the Chapter, as well as directing general policy. Of course the scope of this will be determined by how many Jedi there are in total, and how many we'd expect in a first rate Great Power's Sector like the Corellian Sector.

I strongly oppose this level of power. Its too direct and strong.

All right; I said I was prepared to change it.

Again I oppose. Every knight gets a fiefdom? Where did the Jedi acquire the right to assign territories to their vassals, and how can they support self-determination. I oppose this as well.

Not every knight, just a few of the older and more powerful. Most would be serving Knight-Brethren of the Chapters. I am sorry if this was unclear.

Rather, consider the bishophric model, with each Chapter seat corresponding to a Bishop's see. I think the Jedi should be an organization, not a hereditary fraternity. The territories and preogatives are attached to the "seat" which passes from Chapter Master (bishop) down the line (Apostolic Succession).

This would be the formal organisation as such, I agree. Perhaps fiefs would be the province of the Old Jedi Families, who ruled worlds before the Republic, perhaps even before the modern Jedi as we know them? I do not view them as being many, certainly not the majority.

I support the idea the Jedi are aspect to protect or supervise the rehabilitation of certain states, especially those ravaged by dark siders.

Right.

Its simply unfair. The other States are not allowed to interfere of their own accord in other state's property and citizenry, and it would be wholly hypocritical for the Order to formally be a feudal theocracy with universal jurisdiction subject to no direct checks (in essence, your JO is more powerful than the Republic Authority despite having similar jurisdiction, a creature and dependent on the States through the Senate, while having sovereignty in of itself). The Jedi should be reviled as a state-sanctioned church, as excessively interfering, accusations of de facto feudalism/oligarchy/theocracy without it being absolutely true and enshrined in official law and documentation. That's not very ambiguous. They're the Fourth Estate or Branch of Government, they'll always be mistrusted.

I did not imagine it as being without checks and balances; Jedi interference in local affairs would be strictly monitored. Their own state would not be a vast empire, but a rather smallish polity where they could feel at home. But again, I essentially gave up on this version.

Owning planets is not the same thing as sovereignty. For example, the U.S. government does not OWN the entire property of the U.S., but it is sovereign territory of it. In other words, anyone can legally buy it, but their actions must be consistent with the laws of the sovereign. I can see the Jedi having a few semi-sovereign Vatican/Malta-type enclaves, but as I said, I see them tied to the sovereignty of a seat in similarity to a bishopric (compare to the sovereign co-princedom of Andorra owned by a Spanish bishop and the electorates and principalities controlled by bishops in Germany).

These Jedi polities (Akkara?) Would be tied to the Order as such, not any single knight or lord. I am fairly comfortable with using Malta as a model there. I am sorry if I conflated them with the Jedi-ruled worlds (which are governed by rulers who are Jedi, but not directly affiliated with the Order as states)

And rather than lording over any inhabitants, I see them maintaining a modern monarchy-type relationship with them, allowing them to govern themselves with minor interference, perhaps represented by a governor-general esque official whilst busy.

Why? The SW universe is not modern in its politics, but closer to Roman models, with privilege democracy and enlightened monarchies the norm for local governments (with a smattering of various other government models thrown in, Hanseatic business/guild oligarchies seemingly the most common at first glance). I do not think we see one truly liberal democracy in the modern sense, except Alderaan and arguably Naboo (might be a slight exaggeration, but the ratios for them are definitely not favourable). Leia says in The New Rebellion that the New Republic's elective system is often not compatible with the culture and traditions of local governments. If the general model is paternalist/authoritarian, if benignly so in many cases, why are the Jedi of all people required to be more democratic than most others? Or are they subject to such scrutiny that they have to be better by default?

And as I said, there can be Jedi states, but their relationship to them should be like that between the British Crown and the commonwealth realms. And they should be pretty few. Enough where there's ambiguity to aggravate anti-Jedi agitators, but enough where the Jedi aren't lording assholes.

I generally agree with this.

Agreed. Even a relatively small guard or retainer-force in the grand scheme can be an impressive fleet up close. Ultimately the TF fleet in TPM is the equivalent of shipping private security, and "trivial."

Right. I imagine the Jedi forces ("retainers"?) to be smallish, but elite (though perhaps with antiquated/ceremonial aspects).

I should add I want the Jedi who're doing "civil" things to be on secondment or inactive, both because the Order doesn't feel you can be a good knight while doing other shit, and because the Order doesn't want bad PR that you're doing the other job FOR the Order (of course, this ends up happening anyway). And of course, during crisis or corruption, lines become blurred and stuff happens anyway. We're talking about the general, normative situation, not particulars. I don't have a problem with a stronger, more imperial, and interfering Jedi Order precipitating the Ruusan conflict (can we push this back over more than 1000 years? We have 25ky to work with and the EU pushes everything into 5000).

All right; I can have my strong Jedi earlier. I can work with that. As for the actual relations between the Order and the Jedi-ruled states, I am prepared to work with looser, more informal models, as per above.

How do you intend the secondment to work? Jedi rank being purely honorary, as in permanently inactive, or them merely being in the reserve?

You're just being too generalizing and exacting. There's nothing wrong with Hoth using personal grants of loyalty, it should isn't something that needs to be codified explicitly in the Jedi constitution throughout their history. Add ambiguity and room for transition and phases of policy within the Order. Talk about how personality and the constitution permit strong and weak Grand Masters. Talk about how the loyalty is ambiguous. Have something like an oath to uphold the Code and vague constitutional precedents of "fealty" reaching from individual Knights to the Order. Have Hoth be doing something which is dramatic yet precedented, but arguably extraconstitutional. Think the constitution of the Roman principate under Augustus. Something like that.

Hoth was an example here, not the major point of it. Though I do like what you are talking about; it adds depth to that story, if I get around to writing it. I shall think this over.

So? The U.S. Armed Forces swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States; I don't see that causing them to turn into quarrelsome pockets of would-be constitutional lawyers. I'm saying its better for the Order's long-term stability if their fundamental loyalties rely on a culture and ethical system as opposed to a crudely direct Leadership Principle. Like I said, have Hoth be inspired by Augustus or something, using ostensibly precedented and legal mechanisms to really do something necessary but extraconstitutional. Have it controversial, debated, and ambiguous. The way you had it it'd just be a one paragraph devolution from "oh okay, we have to obey the Grand Master" instead of great debate and struggle and trying to fix a crisis the Order is not authorized to and that the Grand Master cannot wield the power necessary to work through.

The idea of a vow of fealty to the Grand Master was partly supposed to be a remnant of the Order's feudal past as I first imagined it; as I said, it would not be in common use in modern times. If one were to call upon it, it would be very controversial, and it alone would probably not be enough - to use it successfully, a Grand Master would need to persuade his Knights. As I thought of it, a Grand Master in "rebellion" such as Lord Revan would turn "directly to the Order", bypassing the Council and reviving old allegiances or whatnots among the Knight-Brethren. It would be very much extraordinary and disrupting (e.g., the Jedi Civil War or the effective split of Hoth's Order that Path of Destruction hinted at). However, as I noted, I am prepared to revise it into something more ambiguous.

The problem with comparing the Jedi Code to the US Constitution is that the Code is a religious compilation, not a constitution or book of law. (I am going by the sources that hint at massive tomes of arcane writing, tales and commandments, rather than the simplistic depiction of a few nonsense verses that most of the EU supports - how would those make sense as rules for anything remotely organised?) Basically, it would be the Bible x100, with numerous passages that are unclear, outright contradictory or just plain nonsensical, allowing for a degree of local variation, heresy or reinterpretation over time. Swearing allegiance to such a Code would be problematic, as interpretation of it might force a pious knight into opposition to the currently ruling doctrines. Or are you imagining a more clearly worded summary or catechism, to be approved by the ruling Grand Master/High Council?

Meh, less Christian esque, please. Something seemingly inspired by how Luke tries to guide Isolder in the ways of the Force and Jedi philosophy in The Courtship of Princess Leia. Have it an autonomous communion of faiths and religious organizations which are bound to a common Jedi philosophical body (ultimately responsible to the Grand Master and High Council). They're just people who want guidance on Jedi philosophy and doctrine which they've adopted of their own accord as a quasi-Bhuddist faith or philosophy.

I like Christianesque. And why buddhist? The Jedi faith is not exclusively buddhist; the Order does not believe in reincarnation, nor is it (here, at least) comprised of a bunch of meditating monks in homespun robes. It very much recognises the objective presence of good and evil, and it treats the Force as an active (if impersonal) deity that affects the world and sends guidance, not merely the (scientifically verifiable, in SW) universal energy field it is described as. And I am uncertain of the sources that claim Jedi Knights to be sublimated into the Force upon death; are there not suggestions that they live on on another plane? Not to mention the Hell that Darksiders languish in. Whatever Lucas might originally have intended, the Jedi religion as it stands shows clear influences from Abrahamitic religions, Christianity in particular (also from other sources, of course).

It really makes no sense for it to be ritualized. People pray because they think a single conscious God intercedes on their behalf and that they have a covenant with Him because of their belief and his scripture. This is not comparable to the Force. So the church should really be something like Unitarian Universalists, self-operated and philosophical-charitable organizations who support the Jedi and follow their philosophy, which is advised by Jedi sages, but who otherwise are pretty hands-off.

That sounds much too disorganised and liberal for the faith that the stern Jedi Knights abide by (I presume the faith of the Knights and the Church are at least similar). How can it then support an Inquisition? Even if it is merely a glorified anti-Darksider police, it should have religious/dogmatic undertones. And the Force is viewed as a conscious entity, not an uncaring Brahma; in the films, it even produces an immaculate conception. Then, of course, there should be Force saints, the spirits of ancient Jedi who intercede to help believers (formalised versions of Vodo Baas helping the Jedi trainees &c.).

Yeah but yours really is unambiguously loathsome to any modern person. It should be something soft but ambiguous enough where Palpatine or his people or other opponents and powerful rivals resent and can exaggerate or insinuate negative things or perverse ties of power toward them, as opposed to codified explicitly. American leftists don't need business corporations to literally be incorporated into the governing and power complex to campaign against them and insinuate class-solidarity action and opposition to the others on their behalf.

Fair enough, although SW standards are different from ours. Of course, I understand the thematic implications as well. I am prepared to tone down the feudal side of the Order quite considerably.

I do like the idea that the Jedi feel rich and privileged superficially - I hate the monks in Kenobi's desert hermitwares -, and at times arrogant or imperious. But feel does not mean "Knights are granted fiefs of whole worlds of people" codified into Jedi practice. Its better left debatable, in my opinion.

Agreed in general; see above. Most Knights would not hold such powers - none, even, in the revised version, which would instead emphasise the Order's "soft power" as per how you imagined it - the Fourth Estate.

Think constitutional conventions, old precedents, and traditional prerogatives instead of explicitly codified relationships and laws. Not to mention this gives you wiggle room to show the Jedi shifting around and evolving and cycling through trends through time.

All right, I can agree with this.

See above. I do think the Jedi should have powerful prestige amongst people who follow their philosophy and people who've been saved by them (likely many converts). But I prefer the idea they predominantly avoid direct influence (of course in extreme circumstances, be they crisis or corruption, I can see that traditional prescription falling by the wayside - perhaps another of Kaan's exigencies of crisis).

It would be another example of "soft power"; the Order does not give orders to the faithful, but it will still be a passive - sometimes active, on very pressing matters - on their morality and general outlook. I thought a little of the Spanish Civil War, there - the Church of Jedi (or whatever we name it) would mostly just be generally moral, but in the times of the Clone Wars, it might preach against secession, for example.

I don't think civilly-serving Jedi should be bound in any way (aside from Jedi ethics and the Code; but the Jedi can't come over and imprison or kill you, just excommunicate you; unless you go and be a dark sider and violate Republic law and they're authorized to intervene as if you were any other tyrant or criminal). Of course, I do see informal links of power and influence, which can be exaggerated and derided depending on the times, and even abused for good or bad reasons during times of crisis or corruption.

That oath, if we do keep it, would mostly be a formality; Jedi influence would more be a matter of good relations and "soft power". I generally agree here.

I do like the idea of them having a lot of money.

Do you have suggestions for additional "Cabinet" positions?

I'd downplay the hereditary prestige for overall acclaim as a criteria, though it'd end up being a lot of hereditary Jedi Great Families anyway. One way I do things is propose a generalization from a critic, then I give counterexamples, but then I come and show there's a kernel of truth. This is a way I ambiguate things and leave room for various (even more important in our articles, which for now have the conceit of applying in general to these institutions over 25,000 years of back and forth!).

Hm, I believe I can address that.

I don't have a problem with a Cardinal-Electors analog. I like the idea that there are several bodies of power within the Order: the Grand Master as a "decider" and day-to-day manager with his staff; balanced with the High Council, a kind of Cabinet and head of Civil Service, ostensibly representing the Conclave - or an ecumenical council of the Orders' "Bishops"; and finally I think there should be some fundamentals where the entire full-fledged Knighthood has prerogatives. Maybe you could have a College of Cardinals or Electoral College for the Grand Master or High Council or both through some mechanism, sepeate from the High Council (which ostensibly represents and is a creature of the Conclave, which it is a presidium or central/standing committee of).

Something that was grafted on afterwards, you mean, when the Conclave's de facto uselessness was recognised? I suppose that would not be impossible to shoehorn in.

Fundamentals for the entire Order might be more difficult; what would you imagine, a parliament of sorts where every Knight has the vote? I personally do not think that meshes well with the structure of the Jedi as a religious order, where senior members are appointed (at least ostensibly) due to their connection with and understanding of the metaphysical forces. The Order as shown in the canon is quite clear on the fact that it is run top-down and as a religious movement, rather than a democratic organisation. Removing this subverts its image somewhat. I certainly agree that Knights have various entitlements and rights, but their part in the running of the Order should be limited.

And of course outside the Order they're conditionally responsible to States where they operate and such, they're responsible directly to the Senate collectively, and day-to-day to the Supreme Chancellor (all in theory), and ultimately subservient to the Constitution.

Right.

I see. Perhaps it could have original jurisdiction in cases of heresy or something by Jedi Masters at the archbishop level or something?

That would, in such a case, probably be a leftover from the Order's less formal origins, and something quite rare. As I imagine it, the judicial system they have in place would deal with most internal affairs. But it having original jurisdiction over the upper tiers of the Knighthood might work.

Perhaps he was chief justice of their Constitutional Court. Heh. (Not suggesting names, just delineating equivalent roles).

I think it would be up to the High Council to decide on dogma, even if it was long ago and they rarely do so formally these days. As I see it, the Order is, not being a democratic organisation in itself, even if it works with democracies, not that big on separation of power (they do have it, as evidenced, but not institutionalised from the start as in, say, the US Constitution). There is also the religious dimension to be considered; the Code of Jedi is not merely law, but also holy book.

[Illuminatus Primus]

All right; I said I was prepared to change it.

Okay, I didn't mean to come off irritable or domineering if that's how you felt.

Not every knight, just a few of the older and more powerful. Most would be serving Knight-Brethren of the Chapters. I am sorry if this was unclear.

I don't mind the Jedi having some sort of colonial administration (in conjunction with their chapter level quasi-federal components). Again, I feel this should be a rather minority assignment for a Jedi. And it should not be formally hereditary, because Force sensitivity should not be purely hereditary. Apart from concerns of fairness and authoritarianism, etc.

This would be the formal organisation as such, I agree. Perhaps fiefs would be the province of the Old Jedi Families, who ruled worlds before the Republic, perhaps even before the modern Jedi as we know them? I do not view them as being many, certainly not the majority.

Fiefs have to be granted by a liege to a vassal. Either you're positing a pre-Republic proto-Order who ruled a pocket sphere as theocrats and granted fiefdoms in perpetuity to vassal proto-Jedi. Anyway, in this model, these fiefdoms would never be able to join the Republic as individual members because they're not sovereign. Furthermore, Force sensitivity is not strictly hereditary. What would they do about heirs born without sensitivity to the Force? It functions better if the hereditary aspect is de facto as opposed to de jure. Cultural, not legal.

My view was there'd be Jedi who happened to be from Old Families, not Old Families of Jedi. The Jedi are supposed to be good guys; certainly there can be things about them which are flaws but making them institutional rather than cultural means the actual Jedi we work with in the PT have more limited personal responsibility. Even if we were to keep your model of the politics of the galaxy, the Jedi should represent the better side of it, not the good, bad, and the ugly.

I did not imagine it as being without checks and balances; Jedi interference in local affairs would be strictly monitored. Their own state would not be a vast empire, but a rather smallish polity where they could feel at home. But again, I essentially gave up on this version.

How could they be monitored? The only intercessor in your model I noticed is basically the Supreme Chancellor at the Grand Master's level. That makes for little accountability and responsibility at the ground level.

If Akkara is a Great Power or even Regional power, it'd still give them a smallish polity they could call home, without the de facto sense of a Jedi Empire - at least that's the feel I got -. Remember generalization; if we're talking about the Order throughout its history it should be relatively ambiguous and oscillatory and liable to cultural transition and exigencies. I wouldn't mind a Jedi Order much more powerful and expanded extraconstitutionally during the Ruusan crisis.

These Jedi polities (Akkara?) Would be tied to the Order as such, not any single knight or lord. I am fairly comfortable with using Malta as a model there. I am sorry if I conflated them with the Jedi-ruled worlds (which are governed by rulers who are Jedi, but not directly affiliated with the Order as states)

Yes but the Jedi-as-leaders should not have formal legal bonds to serving the Order while executing their office. Don't you think these states would have laws against leaders which violated their sovereignty? And if they always lacked sovereignty, they could not be admitted as Member States to the Republic.

Why? The SW universe is not modern in its politics, but closer to Roman models, with privilege democracy and enlightened monarchies the norm for local governments (with a smattering of various other government models thrown in, Hanseatic business/guild oligarchies seemingly the most common at first glance). I do not think we see one truly liberal democracy in the modern sense, except Alderaan and arguably Naboo (might be a slight exaggeration, but the ratios for them are definitely not favourable). Leia says in The New Rebellion that the New Republic's elective system is often not compatible with the culture and traditions of local governments. If the general model is paternalist/authoritarian, if benignly so in many cases, why are the Jedi of all people required to be more democratic than most others? Or are they subject to such scrutiny that they have to be better by default?

Did we not go through an earlier discussion about how the EU/PT-portrayed Old Republic was irredeemable? Was your only dispute with it that it attempt to portray a liberal democracy - only a dishonest and dysfunctional one? Your solution is to institutionalize and officialize it; just say that's the way it is. To me maintaining the exact ways the EU and PT chose to portray it is secondary to thematic and spiritual concerns: making Obi-Wan seem at least credibly a noble former knight of the old golden kingdom of freedom and traditional liberty. Should it be childish? No. Should it be unambiguous? No. But should Obi-Wan seem more alike to whining spoilt privilege of the Corrinos at the end of Dune? The best analog in high fantasy and mythology for the Fall of the Old Republic (and I mean in very general theme and feel) is the fall of King Arthur and Camelot to Mordred and decline. It revolves around similar principles; treachery and corruption in a previous order of honor and chivalry (broadly, Palpatine in the Senate, Anakin in the Jedi). The assail of barbaric elements and the fall of the old kingdom; a house divided against itself.

Right. I imagine the Jedi forces ("retainers"?) to be smallish, but elite (though perhaps with antiquated/ceremonial aspects).

I see several categories of broadly distinct Jedi and pro-Jedi forces: officially incorporated Jedi auxiliary and support organizations (the Antarian Rangers, for example), the Armed Forces of Akkar, personal retainers and loyalists to Jedi seats or belonging to Old Families to which some Jedi belong, ceremonial and elite forces to high Jedi officials - the Swiss Guard to the Pope analogy, without it being as sad as the Swiss Guard. Then of course you have conditional sequestrations of Republic Authority assets - be they Sectorial assets, Regional assets, or Galactic assets, or you have donations by sympathetic Member States.

All right; I can have my strong Jedi earlier. I can work with that. As for the actual relations between the Order and the Jedi-ruled states, I am prepared to work with looser, more informal models, as per above.

Its not that it couldn't exist, its just if these states aren't genuinely sovereign than they should not be Member States.

How do you intend the secondment to work? Jedi rank being purely honorary, as in permanently inactive, or them merely being in the reserve?

Being in reserve. However there is legal provisions against them simultaneously serving actively and in accordance with their oaths of fealty and etc while serving in secular office. They are required to divest themselves of such responsibilities in order to return to active service.

Hoth was an example here, not the major point of it. Though I do like what you are talking about; it adds depth to that story, if I get around to writing it. I shall think this over.

Right. Excessive institutionalization makes it harder to rehabilitate any sundry characteristics we like from the canon. Also, it makes it more awkward to explain transition and fluctuation over history. And lastly, its simply very difficult to do, because the more precise and deterministic you try to be about SW characteristics you're going to work yourself into irritating areas of unrealism and contradiction. Vagueness is your friend sometimes, because you don't have to explain something in such depth that it may betray an essential lack of credibility in some fashion. We are fashioning fiction for fun, remember. Our big problem is to an educated person, the canon as it stands is very superficial and its endemic credibility-breaks are really apparent. Some of the contrivances and essential characteristics of SW are not realistic or credible. However, we're trying to lend a story verisimilitude. As long as those aspects are pushed out of the obvious lime-light (again, my "benefit of a doubt" and "discourage awkward questions" principles) and buried under vagueness, it is good, and as long as the bigger problems are pushed aside for reasons which are narratively and thematically justifiable. Its very difficult for me to portray Palpatine as a realistic person and somehow simultaneously keep Obi-Wan's romanticism even barely credible and somehow explain how Palpatine singlehandedly ruined the Republic and built the Empire. Granted a lot of these things will be shaded and ambiguous, subordinated in our fluff to the disparate opinions of opposing schools of history and individual historians and subject to their limited awareness and knowledge; likewise in story, everything will be subordinated to the particular point-of-view and limited perspective and knowledge of individual characters. Resist the urge to be deterministic, especially when different thematic and narrative and plot and scientific/liberal art realism demands pull you in different directions. Avoid using your fluff to preach "THE WAY IT HAPPENED" full stop, in the universe. You'll just work yourself into difficult logical pits and you'll also deny yourself the ability to entertain multiple-points-of-view with ambiguous clarity and "narrative truth value" to each; allowing you to have your cake and eat it too.

I'm using this extensively in how I flesh out the Republic, the Clone Wars, and the Rise of Palpatine/the Empire.

The idea of a vow of fealty to the Grand Master was partly supposed to be a remnant of the Order's feudal past as I first imagined it; as I said, it would not be in common use in modern times. If one were to call upon it, it would be very controversial, and it alone would probably not be enough - to use it successfully, a Grand Master would need to persuade his Knights. As I thought of it, a Grand Master in "rebellion" such as Lord Revan would turn "directly to the Order", bypassing the Council and reviving old allegiances or whatnots among the Knight-Brethren. It would be very much extraordinary and disrupting (e.g., the Jedi Civil War or the effective split of Hoth's Order that Path of Destruction hinted at). However, as I noted, I am prepared to revise it into something more ambiguous.

Yeah, this sounds better.

The problem with comparing the Jedi Code to the US Constitution is that the Code is a religious compilation, not a constitution or book of law. (I am going by the sources that hint at massive tomes of arcane writing, tales and commandments, rather than the simplistic depiction of a few nonsense verses that most of the EU supports - how would those make sense as rules for anything remotely organised?) Basically, it would be the Bible x100, with numerous passages that are unclear, outright contradictory or just plain nonsensical, allowing for a degree of local variation, heresy or reinterpretation over time. Swearing allegiance to such a Code would be problematic, as interpretation of it might force a pious knight into opposition to the currently ruling doctrines. Or are you imagining a more clearly worded summary or catechism, to be approved by the ruling Grand Master/High Council?

Well I imagine there are several aspects. There is the standing catechism, but this would largely just be the "official" interpretation of the administration, and not an authoritative (ex cathedra) declaration. There'd be a body in charge of interpretation of canon law. There'd be different schools of legal, ethical, doctrinal, and policy perspectives. Like I said, I would not mind keeping Lucas' Jedi as a monistic sub-order of the Jedi, like the Franciscans or something. More arcane and ritualistic Jedi, with oaths of poverty and plain clothes. Ones who are more concerned with prophecy and this and that. Whereas the average Jedi might be a much more cosmopolitan and modern-realistic figure. The Catholic Church in real life is a complex and diverse thing. There's no reason to be very well-defined and deterministic. It only limits your options, and often opens plot holes.

I like Christianesque. And why buddhist? The Jedi faith is not exclusively buddhist; the Order does not believe in reincarnation, nor is it (here, at least) comprised of a bunch of meditating monks in homespun robes. It very much recognises the objective presence of good and evil, and it treats the Force as an active (if impersonal) deity that affects the world and sends guidance, not merely the (scientifically verifiable, in SW) universal energy field it is described as.

All true. But the fundamental aspect of Christianity is the fact that God is considered a personal intelligence, who has a covenant with Man, and can intervene and effect in one's fate and life provided the believer petitions with prayer and sacrament. This has no influence on the Force. Without a covenant and without prayer and sacrament as tools of petition and relationship with a personal diety, all of the characteristics of Christianity are irrelevant. I mention Bhuddism because its not strictly religious, but philosophical. Also, the Jedi do not hold in personal identity upon death and life everlasting; rather they stress belief in symbosis and natural pantheism if anything. It bares some resemblance to animistic naturalism (popular conceptions of Native American religion), to Bhuddism and Chinese religion (stablity, balance, focus, self-control, etc., etc.; not strictly a theological religion, but a mystical philosophy), and other influences. Its not like Abrahamism.

And I am uncertain of the sources that claim Jedi Knights to be sublimated into the Force upon death; are there not suggestions that they live on on another plane? Not to mention the Hell that Darksiders languish in. Whatever Lucas might originally have intended, the Jedi religion as it stands shows clear influences from Abrahamitic religions, Christianity in particular (also from other sources, of course).

Sources disagree. Dark siders are said to be consumed into a realm of chaos, like madness without respite. In other circumstances, they are suggested to be annihilated completely (as "Chaos" itself would also somewhat imply). But Qui-Gon Jinn was the first to discover (rediscover?) the ability to retain personal identity after death amongst the Jedi. More importantly, normal people would not be subject to either circumstance. Further, as I said, it is compliance with principles and ways of life which make a difference, and even those don't buy you a ticket to life everlasting. This is not trivial, its the quintessential factor in Abrahamism.

That sounds much too disorganised and liberal for the faith that the stern Jedi Knights abide by (I presume the faith of the Knights and the Church are at least similar). How can it then support an Inquisition? Even if it is merely a glorified anti-Darksider police, it should have religious/dogmatic undertones.

Because dark siders really are hateful and destructive beings. And furthermore, who says that the Inquisition's doctrinal preferences are universally adopted, including by the civilian religion? One would think this would be a natural cause/product of their at-times distant relationship from the rest of society and even the Order. Besides, its not a doctrinal inquisition - Raptor said "heretical beliefs are permitted, heretical practices are not." They prosecute Force magi who use the dark side of the Force and those who assist and support them. I imagine the Jedi has a distant but not intolerant relationship with other Force sects provided they keep to themselves and they don't use the dark side. (Again, texture, it could be our Jedi dogmatics or inquisitors don't like them and keep a close eye or even infiltrate, and some of the most extreme advocate inquistion, but the majority are willing to let be as long as they don't compete with the Order directly and don't use the dark side).

And the Force is viewed as a conscious entity, not an uncaring Brahma; in the films, it even produces an immaculate conception.

We must keep that? Further, I'd say the "Will of the Force" has more to do with destiny and concepts of cosmic balance from Eastern religion than Western "the Will of God."

Then, of course, there should be Force saints, the spirits of ancient Jedi who intercede to help believers (formalised versions of Vodo Baas helping the Jedi trainees &c.).

That's quite a leap from you partially justifiable immediately prior argument. Sainthood is not even universal amongst Christianity, much less Abrahamism. May I suggest that we can have de facto saints (lower-case s), as opposed to full on, Catholic/Orthodox "Saints"? I think they should venerate famous Jedi and philosophers and sages, but more in line with the Chinese veneration of Master Kung and what have you. One can argue that America's Founding Fathers are a case of secular statolatrous "sainthood." I can deal with historically venerated Jedi Knights and Sages. I can't deal with them having feast days and prayers and icons.

Fair enough, although SW standards are different from ours. Of course, I understand the thematic implications as well. I am prepared to tone down the feudal side of the Order quite considerably.

Right. Keep in mind ambiguity. Like I said, across tens of thousands of years, I can see times when your Order may have existed de facto if not de jure, even your religion during epochs of "Great Awakenings" and dogmatic Jedi theocrats. I also see room for Lucas' Jedi on the side. But as the mean around which the galaxy oscillates? I would prefer not.

Agreed in general; see above. Most Knights would not hold such powers - none, even, in the revised version, which would instead emphasise the Order's "soft power" as per how you imagined it - the Fourth Estate.

I like making things arguable and posing questions - not in the hypocritical and dishonest way implemented by Traviss the Hack but sincerely and effectively. And of course, it often saves you the awkward trouble of deterministically working out HOW THINGS REALLY HAPPENED, and adds a historical verisimilitude (the fact is in real life, no one knows anything for sure and everything is debated; even Stalin and Hitler have their partisans yet; the idea of a fully deterministic conception of history is alien and unrealistic). Furthermore, it also avoids preaching from the pulpit about your own ideological and political preconceptions.

All right, I can agree with this.

Common law, its a great excuse for precedent, tradition, and changes, which aren't just useful suggestions.

It would be another example of "soft power"; the Order does not give orders to the faithful, but it will still be a passive - sometimes active, on very pressing matters - on their morality and general outlook. I thought a little of the Spanish Civil War, there - the Church of Jedi (or whatever we name it) would mostly just be generally moral, but in the times of the Clone Wars, it might preach against secession, for example.

Right, I would expect secession to be one of the few things it openly opposed. Its partnership and support for the Union is probably fundamental ideology. I imagine Windu's Republicanism-at-any-cost, protect-civilization paternalism in ROTS as a stronger trend but part of a general truth. Of course we could have genuine Jedi secessionists - the Jedi down "on the street" who sympathize with their immediate charges and thus radical reformation against the Republic (and even Order).

That oath, if we do keep it, would mostly be a formality; Jedi influence would more be a matter of good relations and "soft power". I generally agree here.

Fair. Invoking the lapsed oaths while a seconded Jedi is serving in civil responsibility, and him using his office to comply (as opposed to merely immediately resigning and reactivating his "commission") would be extremely controversial (but tolerated if politically necessary in times of crisis).

Do you have suggestions for additional "Cabinet" positions?

I'm thinking.

Hm, I believe I can address that.

Like I said, it aids verisimilitude and can let you have your cake and eat it too.

Something that was grafted on afterwards, you mean, when the Conclave's de facto uselessness was recognised? I suppose that would not be impossible to shoehorn in.

Right. Again, I'm sure there are precedents for all kinds of conventions, ecumenical councils, conclave orders, etc., etc. in different contexts and interpreted differently. Their constitution taken as a whole mass of canon law is probably a big mess. They're mystical guidance and Code, along with being sincere is what kept them going more than well-defined institutions (which periodically bites them in the ass).

Fundamentals for the entire Order might be more difficult; what would you imagine, a parliament of sorts where every Knight has the vote? I personally do not think that meshes well with the structure of the Jedi as a religious order, where senior members are appointed (at least ostensibly) due to their connection with and understanding of the metaphysical forces. The Order as shown in the canon is quite clear on the fact that it is run top-down and as a religious movement, rather than a democratic organisation. Removing this subverts its image somewhat. I certainly agree that Knights have various entitlements and rights, but their part in the running of the Order should be limited.

The Catholic Church is pretty top-down, but for certain matters it must call Ecumenical Councils. I think for some extreme things like seceding from the Republic or something crazy, its accepted that a majority vote of all full-fledged Knights through a convention or something must be necessary. Something that practically never happens. Probably an ecumenical council would serve other purposes.

I think it would be up to the High Council to decide on dogma, even if it was long ago and they rarely do so formally these days. As I see it, the Order is, not being a democratic organisation in itself, even if it works with democracies, not that big on separation of power (they do have it, as evidenced, but not institutionalised from the start as in, say, the US Constitution). There is also the religious dimension to be considered; the Code of Jedi is not merely law, but also holy book.

Like I've been saying, in terms of structure and organization, ecclesiology is your friend here. Canon law provides precedent for us.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Query, Hoth, did you want to go for the form of "Supreme Chancellor and President" or "President and Supreme Chancellor" (heh, evocative of Führer und Reichskanzler)? Alternatively, we could go with my love of trends and ambiguity and historiographical transition, and have both long forms and both short forms in use in different times and contexts. But we should have a "general" title. What do you prefer?

I went with the "Chancellor and President" title in my old pre-EUFic notes to manage continuity; this was before I read up on Publius. For me, it does not really matter all that much, it is just the model I am used to working with. You can take what you think best, and I can adapt accordingly.

I would accomodate both conceptions in my blurb on the office. I'll leave the title of the chapter "President and Supreme Chancellor of the Galactic Republic."

[Illuminatus Primus]

Hey, Hoth, Raptor, everyone, I'm still around and I'll be contributing, its just have some real life stuff. I hope to see some of the material you guys have hinted at. Keep up the good work.

[Darth Raptor]

No worries. Are you and Hoth going to hash this out some more, or can I start on the second draft of the Jedi writeup? The politics of the Order are somewhat integral to the first vignette. The other two take place in the post-Endor era. If so, I can work on the Domus Publica/TNOiP reference. Makes no difference to me.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What DP/TNOiP reference? Your catalog listing individuals and factoids? I think I've made my intentions pretty clear. Do you have a feeling one way or another in our differences of opinion? Or a third way? Complexity isn't bad. I'm just waiting on Hoth myself.

[Darth Raptor]

What DP/TNOiP reference? Your catalog listing individuals and factoids?

Yeah. It's still not done.

I think I've made my intentions pretty clear. Do you have a feeling one way or another in our differences of opinion? Or a third way? Complexity isn't bad. I'm just waiting on Hoth myself.

I'm pretty much in concurrence with you on the matter, but I also think I can accommodate aspects of Hoth's more blatantly-feudal, Christian-esque Order as remnants of and throwbacks to the extremely ancient, pre-Union Knights. Microcosms of that prehistoric Order can still be found on the various Jedi worlds but it has long since vanished as the general state of affairs for the galaxy-wide organization. In short, I think I can come up with a workable synthesis that will be agreeable to everyone.

[Darth Hoth]

Right, sorry if I am letting you wait. I have a lot to do right now, but I am working on my reply. I am digging into the old Jedi sources to see what comes up.

[Darth Raptor]

That's not a problem either. Like I said, I have multiple things I could be working on. Take all the time you guys need.

[Vehrec]

Was thinking recently about Form VII and how to reconcile the extreme age of the galaxy with a new standardized form being invented by Mace Windu. Two options seem to present themselves: Either he took an existing 'form' and codified it, or he is the first Jedi to practice it in a long time, making him responsible for its partial rebirth as a fighting style. I personally prefer the later because it evokes a tool discarded when it wasn't needed and regained when it was, as the Republic began to backslide into war and instability. Windu could reconstruct it from Holocrons, texts and his own experience as a fighter and mastery of the other major forms of Lightsaber Combat.

Also, a large part of me wants to draw a comparision between him and another powerful Jedi with a purple lightsaber a couple generations later. :p I'd often thought that persuing ancient Jedi martial lore would have been much more productive for Jaina than going to Bobba Fett.

[Illuminatus Primus]

A bigger challenge than rehabilitating the Jedi: rehabilitate the Mandalorians.

[Darth Raptor]

Myself in 1998 assumed that the Mandalorians were the belligerent party and greatest threat of the Clone Wars. Even before AotC came out and I saw all the posters and stuff, I assumed the Mandalorian was leading an army of Mandalorian proto-stormtroopers, not some guy and the Republic army that was cloned from him. Prior to the Wars, they should be a galactic power on the scale of the Hutts, if not greater. Pre-PT canon consistently portrays them as, next to the Sith Empires, the single greatest external threat to the Republic.

I envision the size and disposition of their organization as similar to that of the Jedi Order. There's normally not large, multi-sector swaths of "Mandalorian Space" but rather they're found throughout the galaxy. They're the roving bands of mercenaries to the Jedi's chivalrous knights. While they can be the galaxy's most elite fighting force of non-magi, their dissolution, lack of territory and infrastructure and dependence on the galactic economy keeps them from being a threat to the whole Republic (at the regional level, a Mandalorian incursion should prompt an "oh shi-", but they normally can't do more than tickle the entire Galactic Republic). Once they start gaining territory through external support, that all changes, and during the Clone Wars, the Republic gets one of their periodic "barbarian invasions" (I imagine the Mandalorian invasions as analogous to the Huns from the Republic's perspective, not that they're actual pre-modern primitives) but on an unprecedented scale and the single greatest external threat to the Republic since the last Sith Empire.

[Vehrec]

I still think the Mandelorian star should have passed-with Boba Fett being not particularly willing to carry on the legacy and letting it all but vanish. Their great days are behind them even durring the PT, and those that remain are seeking to reclaim the glory of faded conquests. No single great threat, but one that is still hated and mistrusted.

[Darth Hoth]

A bigger challenge than rehabilitating the Jedi: rehabilitate the Mandalorians.

Same as with Nagai and various Invaders Of The Month in my book: Power up, lessen the impact, make ends meet halfways.

[Kartr_Kana]

copied and pasted this from my post in the "Republic Blockade Runner" thread in PSW.

Maybe the reason the Mandalorians and other "invaders of the week" can pose such a threat to the Republic is the same reason the Republic never explored/settled the Unknown regions. The Mandalorians and other races were/are in constant conflict out there. While the Republic could hold them at bay under normal circumstances when the Sith Empire or other factions destabilized the Republic it left them vulnerable. Like England in 1066, Harold Hadrada(spelling?) invades from the north of the Island right before William invades from the south.

The fact that there's constant conflict amongst Mandalorian and other factions plus their penchant for raiding Republic worlds keeps the area from being properly opened up and gives the Mandalorians their reputation. This could also explain the multi-species aspect and the "tribalness". Different warlords who usually fight amongst themselves unified by a strong leader who leads them to attack the Republic so they don't destroy themselves.

[montypython]

Best that Fett stay dead and digested in the Sarlacc, the whole 'bring him back' thing ticked me off to no end.

[Kartr_Kana]

I liked it how they brought him back. Not the way he's been written since mind you just that he didn't die such in such a stupid way.

[Darth Hoth]

Okay, I didn't mean to come off irritable or domineering if that's how you felt.

Not at all, I just wanted to be clear.

I don't mind the Jedi having some sort of colonial administration (in conjunction with their chapter level quasi-federal components). Again, I feel this should be a rather minority assignment for a Jedi. And it should not be formally hereditary, because Force sensitivity should not be purely hereditary. Apart from concerns of fairness and authoritarianism, etc.

I never thought that Order titles or offices should be hereditary; then I was speaking of the individual fiefs of the quasi-feudal system that would have been carried over from an early proto-Order.

Fiefs have to be granted by a liege to a vassal. Either you're positing a pre-Republic proto-Order who ruled a pocket sphere as theocrats and granted fiefdoms in perpetuity to vassal proto-Jedi. Anyway, in this model, these fiefdoms would never be able to join the Republic as individual members because they're not sovereign. Furthermore, Force sensitivity is not strictly hereditary. What would they do about heirs born without sensitivity to the Force? It functions better if the hereditary aspect is de facto as opposed to de jure. Cultural, not legal.

It would be the former. This would not be strictly tied to the Order as it stands, but generally a leftover of an earlier, more feudal, era.

My view was there'd be Jedi who happened to be from Old Families, not Old Families of Jedi. The Jedi are supposed to be good guys; certainly there can be things about them which are flaws but making them institutional rather than cultural means the actual Jedi we work with in the PT have more limited personal responsibility. Even if we were to keep your model of the politics of the galaxy, the Jedi should represent the better side of it, not the good, bad, and the ugly.

Hm, perhaps. The EU does show Jedi families, though, with long traditions and great prestige in the Order (arguably the Qel-Dromas and what have you), implying that Force-sensitivity is hereditary to a large extent. Could we have Old Families with particularly strong Jedi associations?

How could they be monitored? The only intercessor in your model I noticed is basically the Supreme Chancellor at the Grand Master's level. That makes for little accountability and responsibility at the ground level.

Well, to be fair I did not detail that. I did imagine it, though, and I believe I hinted at the Republic/Jedi relationship being very intricate and carefully regulated. Anyway, the point is moot since I do not really argue for such a model anymore, but only wished to elaborate and explain it better.

If Akkara is a Great Power or even Regional power, it'd still give them a smallish polity they could call home, without the de facto sense of a Jedi Empire - at least that's the feel I got -. Remember generalization; if we're talking about the Order throughout its history it should be relatively ambiguous and oscillatory and liable to cultural transition and exigencies. I wouldn't mind a Jedi Order much more powerful and expanded extraconstitutionally during the Ruusan crisis.

I can go with this, and the Jedi ruling only a few (one?) planet directly. We could then use your model of having a larger empire (Akkara?) being supporters and sponsors of the Order, without being ruled by it.

Yes but the Jedi-as-leaders should not have formal legal bonds to serving the Order while executing their office. Don't you think these states would have laws against leaders which violated their sovereignty? And if they always lacked sovereignty, they could not be admitted as Member States to the Republic.

How about the revised oath I proposed, which would be considered inactive during the secondment of a Jedi ruler, but could be called upon in emergencies, though that would be considered highly unusual and politically unpalatable?

Did we not go through an earlier discussion about how the EU/PT-portrayed Old Republic was irredeemable? Was your only dispute with it that it attempt to portray a liberal democracy - only a dishonest and dysfunctional one? Your solution is to institutionalize and officialize it; just say that's the way it is. To me maintaining the exact ways the EU and PT chose to portray it is secondary to thematic and spiritual concerns: making Obi-Wan seem at least credibly a noble former knight of the old golden kingdom of freedom and traditional liberty. Should it be childish? No. Should it be unambiguous? No. But should Obi-Wan seem more alike to whining spoilt privilege of the Corrinos at the end of Dune? The best analog in high fantasy and mythology for the Fall of the Old Republic (and I mean in very general theme and feel) is the fall of King Arthur and Camelot to Mordred and decline. It revolves around similar principles; treachery and corruption in a previous order of honor and chivalry (broadly, Palpatine in the Senate, Anakin in the Jedi). The assail of barbaric elements and the fall of the old kingdom; a house divided against itself.

There are definitely the thematic concerns there. At the same time, I do not feel comfortable with throwing everything of the old EU depiction of the Republic out right away, especially when it considers the Bantam era (which as noted, we should not make major plot changes in, merely coordinations/rationalisations). I also find it odd that the Republic would necessarily force its own political system upon the member worlds, many of which are not human at all and may not appreciate, or even function under, liberal democracy. If these cultures genuinely do not want democracy, would it launch crusades to "civilise" them? That sounds more like the Empire to me (per Admiral Rogriss and various EU figures). Which also adds depth to the story, in that the Empire actively carries out a modernisation and civilisation effort, while the Old Republic is much more hands-off.

All that aside, I do agree that democracy should be better represented in the galaxy (though at those levels, the government will likely never be very close to the people anyway). I consider the oligarchic/monarchic governments to be either the old powers, which have entrenched their privileges in the system, or the alien or Rimwards powers with their more primitive structures of government. The majority of human worlds should probably be democratic.

My point was that in this galaxy, the Jedi ruling a single planet as a religious order (per Malta) would not be unheard of, and it would not be utterly loathsome to the powers that be, nor to the public. Nor should it be terrible to the typical reader; I can see why people would disagree with a Jedi empire, but them ruling a single world? The Jedi would not keep slaves (why would they in a 'droid economy, by the way, but that is a separate question), have great labour camps and press gangs or whatnots; the inhabitants of such a world would be there voluntarily, and free to leave whenever they wished to. They would effectively be employed by the Order, under military terms - obeying its law while they served it, &c. Why must there be a modern liberal democracy on the one world the Order can call its own? And as it is likely to be inhabited only by pro-Jedi people anyway, what is the point, other than it looking nice to the media? It would rather likely be a rubber stamp. Also, what would be the separation of powers - would the "civil" government have legislative authority over the Jedi on this one world they have been granted in perpetual lease from Akkara or whatever the pro-Jedi power should be called? Would they control the planet's military, or the Order?

I see several categories of broadly distinct Jedi and pro-Jedi forces: officially incorporated Jedi auxiliary and support organizations (the Antarian Rangers, for example), the Armed Forces of Akkar, personal retainers and loyalists to Jedi seats or belonging to Old Families to which some Jedi belong, ceremonial and elite forces to high Jedi officials - the Swiss Guard to the Pope analogy, without it being as sad as the Swiss Guard. Then of course you have conditional sequestrations of Republic Authority assets - be they Sectorial assets, Regional assets, or Galactic assets, or you have donations by sympathetic Member States.

Right, I was thinking of something along those lines. No argument.

Being in reserve. However there is legal provisions against them simultaneously serving actively and in accordance with their oaths of fealty and etc while serving in secular office. They are required to divest themselves of such responsibilities in order to return to active service.

All right, I suppose that is reasonable.

Right. Excessive institutionalization makes it harder to rehabilitate any sundry characteristics we like from the canon. Also, it makes it more awkward to explain transition and fluctuation over history. And lastly, its simply very difficult to do, because the more precise and deterministic you try to be about SW characteristics you're going to work yourself into irritating areas of unrealism and contradiction. Vagueness is your friend sometimes, because you don't have to explain something in such depth that it may betray an essential lack of credibility in some fashion. We are fashioning fiction for fun, remember. Our big problem is to an educated person, the canon as it stands is very superficial and its endemic credibility-breaks are really apparent. Some of the contrivances and essential characteristics of SW are not realistic or credible. However, we're trying to lend a story verisimilitude. As long as those aspects are pushed out of the obvious lime-light (again, my "benefit of a doubt" and "discourage awkward questions" principles) and buried under vagueness, it is good, and as long as the bigger problems are pushed aside for reasons which are narratively and thematically justifiable. Its very difficult for me to portray Palpatine as a realistic person and somehow simultaneously keep Obi-Wan's romanticism even barely credible and somehow explain how Palpatine singlehandedly ruined the Republic and built the Empire. Granted a lot of these things will be shaded and ambiguous, subordinated in our fluff to the disparate opinions of opposing schools of history and individual historians and subject to their limited awareness and knowledge; likewise in story, everything will be subordinated to the particular point-of-view and limited perspective and knowledge of individual characters. Resist the urge to be deterministic, especially when different thematic and narrative and plot and scientific/liberal art realism demands pull you in different directions. Avoid using your fluff to preach "THE WAY IT HAPPENED" full stop, in the universe. You'll just work yourself into difficult logical pits and you'll also deny yourself the ability to entertain multiple-points-of-view with ambiguous clarity and "narrative truth value" to each; allowing you to have your cake and eat it too.

I'm using this extensively in how I flesh out the Republic, the Clone Wars, and the Rise of Palpatine/the Empire.

All this makes sense. I confess to not having thought that through as deeply as you apparently have, though I broadly shared some of the ideas.

Well I imagine there are several aspects. There is the standing catechism, but this would largely just be the "official" interpretation of the administration, and not an authoritative (ex cathedra) declaration. There'd be a body in charge of interpretation of canon law. There'd be different schools of legal, ethical, doctrinal, and policy perspectives. Like I said, I would not mind keeping Lucas' Jedi as a monistic sub-order of the Jedi, like the Franciscans or something. More arcane and ritualistic Jedi, with oaths of poverty and plain clothes. Ones who are more concerned with prophecy and this and that. Whereas the average Jedi might be a much more cosmopolitan and modern-realistic figure. The Catholic Church in real life is a complex and diverse thing. There's no reason to be very well-defined and deterministic. It only limits your options, and often opens plot holes.

Heh, I actually like the idea of a sect of Lucasy Jedi that everyone else thinks are a little crazy. If we go by that idea, throwing together a few Jedi of various sub-orders and letting them try to escape the Jedi Purge together, Dark Lord-style, could be rather fun if done right.

All true. But the fundamental aspect of Christianity is the fact that God is considered a personal intelligence, who has a covenant with Man, and can intervene and effect in one's fate and life provided the believer petitions with prayer and sacrament. This has no influence on the Force. Without a covenant and without prayer and sacrament as tools of petition and relationship with a personal diety, all of the characteristics of Christianity are irrelevant. I mention Bhuddism because its not strictly religious, but philosophical. Also, the Jedi do not hold in personal identity upon death and life everlasting; rather they stress belief in symbosis and natural pantheism if anything. It bares some resemblance to animistic naturalism (popular conceptions of Native American religion), to Bhuddism and Chinese religion (stablity, balance, focus, self-control, etc., etc.; not strictly a theological religion, but a mystical philosophy), and other influences. Its not like Abrahamism.

Fair enough, I suppose, although the Force is rather ambiguously portrayed across the canon - it can range from cosmic balance to generic New Age mumbo jumbo to a semi-personal entity which guides one's step (as per Qui-Gon Jinn, who almost appears to suffer Job's fate in some old comic). It also speaks in prophecy to some (DE, Leia's vision in Planet of Twilight, &c.). But no, you are right, it is never a strictly personal deity that is responsive to prayer.

Sources disagree. Dark siders are said to be consumed into a realm of chaos, like madness without respite. In other circumstances, they are suggested to be annihilated completely (as "Chaos" itself would also somewhat imply). But Qui-Gon Jinn was the first to discover (rediscover?) the ability to retain personal identity after death amongst the Jedi. More importantly, normal people would not be subject to either circumstance. Further, as I said, it is compliance with principles and ways of life which make a difference, and even those don't buy you a ticket to life everlasting. This is not trivial, its the quintessential factor in Abrahamism.

We must keep the "Qui-Gon researched the first Force ghost" rubbish? That is just one more needless Lucas retcon that serves no purpose and works badly with virtually the entire EU and arguably the OT itself (Vader appearing - whence did he pull uberduper magical Whill training?). And normal people do live on as distinct spirits/entities after death - look at Prince Denin and Princess Vila in Marvel Star Wars, for example. Also, if Jedi were the only ones to live after death and ordinary folks were left to be annihilated in some buddhist hocus pocus, is that not the ultimate expression of the Jedi elitism that we wish to avoid? "The afterlife is ours, screw the rest!"?

Because dark siders really are hateful and destructive beings. And furthermore, who says that the Inquisition's doctrinal preferences are universally adopted, including by the civilian religion? One would think this would be a natural cause/product of their at-times distant relationship from the rest of society and even the Order. Besides, its not a doctrinal inquisition - Raptor said "heretical beliefs are permitted, heretical practices are not." They prosecute Force magi who use the dark side of the Force and those who assist and support them. I imagine the Jedi has a distant but not intolerant relationship with other Force sects provided they keep to themselves and they don't use the dark side. (Again, texture, it could be our Jedi dogmatics or inquisitors don't like them and keep a close eye or even infiltrate, and some of the most extreme advocate inquistion, but the majority are willing to let be as long as they don't compete with the Order directly and don't use the dark side).

Hm, fair enough, I suppose. I can see some story potential there as well. I would, however, expect the church that services the actual Knights themselves to be somewhat stricter.

We must keep that? Further, I'd say the "Will of the Force" has more to do with destiny and concepts of cosmic balance from Eastern religion than Western "the Will of God."

No, we must not; I used it as an example. Still, the Force has some traits of a personal deity, even if it is a rather distant one if so. Did not someone refer to it as having humour, even?

Part of this is me being simplistic and wanting a clear difference between Jedi and Sith - the Jedi would be more religious, approaching the Force from a religious perspective, while the Sith would be more "pure science" and not acknowledge it as anything more than a source of energy to draw upon.

That's quite a leap from you partially justifiable immediately prior argument. Sainthood is not even universal amongst Christianity, much less Abrahamism. May I suggest that we can have de facto saints (lower-case s), as opposed to full on, Catholic/Orthodox "Saints"? I think they should venerate famous Jedi and philosophers and sages, but more in line with the Chinese veneration of Master Kung and what have you. One can argue that America's Founding Fathers are a case of secular statolatrous "sainthood." I can deal with historically venerated Jedi Knights and Sages. I can't deal with them having feast days and prayers and icons.

Well, all right.

I like making things arguable and posing questions - not in the hypocritical and dishonest way implemented by Traviss the Hack but sincerely and effectively. And of course, it often saves you the awkward trouble of deterministically working out HOW THINGS REALLY HAPPENED, and adds a historical verisimilitude (the fact is in real life, no one knows anything for sure and everything is debated; even Stalin and Hitler have their partisans yet; the idea of a fully deterministic conception of history is alien and unrealistic). Furthermore, it also avoids preaching from the pulpit about your own ideological and political preconceptions.

I am not a fundie Catholic who wants the Jedi to be Conservative Catholic Mary Sues, if that is what you mean with the last line. I merely took a lot of influence from Jedi vs Sith and similar sources in my view of the Order.

Otherwise, no arguments.

Common law, its a great excuse for precedent, tradition, and changes, which aren't just useful suggestions.

Right.

Right, I would expect secession to be one of the few things it openly opposed. Its partnership and support for the Union is probably fundamental ideology. I imagine Windu's Republicanism-at-any-cost, protect-civilization paternalism in ROTS as a stronger trend but part of a general truth. Of course we could have genuine Jedi secessionists - the Jedi down "on the street" who sympathize with their immediate charges and thus radical reformation against the Republic (and even Order).

I imagine there would be such conflicts, even if our Republic is not as dysfunctional and morally bankrupt as the canon prequel one. Jedi might feel that government interferes too much or too little, they might defect after the introduction of clones, they might be Lucasy pacifists and what have you. More story potential.

Fair. Invoking the lapsed oaths while a seconded Jedi is serving in civil responsibility, and him using his office to comply (as opposed to merely immediately resigning and reactivating his "commission") would be extremely controversial (but tolerated if politically necessary in times of crisis).

So you have no problem with that, then?

I'm thinking.

Just tell me if you think of anything good.

Like I said, it aids verisimilitude and can let you have your cake and eat it too.

Right.

Right. Again, I'm sure there are precedents for all kinds of conventions, ecumenical councils, conclave orders, etc., etc. in different contexts and interpreted differently. Their constitution taken as a whole mass of canon law is probably a big mess. They're mystical guidance and Code, along with being sincere is what kept them going more than well-defined institutions (which periodically bites them in the ass).

This fits my take on it rather well. Of course, this too might be subject to periodical fluctuations over the millennia.

The Catholic Church is pretty top-down, but for certain matters it must call Ecumenical Councils. I think for some extreme things like seceding from the Republic or something crazy, its accepted that a majority vote of all full-fledged Knights through a convention or something must be necessary. Something that practically never happens. Probably an ecumenical council would serve other purposes.

If it is something very special like that, arguably. Though that would seem more like a case for the Conclave (If they think it is too large to call in, what nightmare would a meeting of all Knights be?). Perhaps we should add in another level between Chapter Masters and the High Council?

Like I've been saying, in terms of structure and organization, ecclesiology is your friend here. Canon law provides precedent for us.

Agreed. Regrettably, I am not all that well-versed in it. Do you have any books to recommend?

[Darth Hoth]

Best that Fett stay dead and digested in the Sarlacc, the whole 'bring him back' thing ticked me off to no end.

Does not work, we are not throwing things out in the post-RotJ EU, merely rationalising them. Though I suppose, you could have post-Sarlacc Fett an impostor. . .

[Illuminatus Primus]

I never thought that Order titles or offices should be hereditary; then I was speaking of the individual fiefs of the quasi-feudal system that would have been carried over from an early proto-Order.

Yeah, but how would such an Order exist? You'd have to have proto-knights who were swearing fealty to a liege of sorts and being granted fiefs in return for service. Therefore by necessity you'd have to at one point have the Grand Master's or Order's legal predecessor be a feudal liege and have dominion over territory he was granting to his vassals as fiefs.

It would be the former. This would not be strictly tied to the Order as it stands, but generally a leftover of an earlier, more feudal, era.

See above. Its all good and fine to say its a holdover, but if they really do rule fiefs in fact, and owe fealty to a liege, than its not really a formality or leftover, is it? There are real legal obligations.

Hm, perhaps. The EU does show Jedi families, though, with long traditions and great prestige in the Order (arguably the Qel-Dromas and what have you), implying that Force-sensitivity is hereditary to a large extent. Could we have Old Families with particularly strong Jedi associations?

Sure, but as I said, having heredity enshrined goes against a on-the-books meritocratic order and is contrary to the possibility a Jedi's heirs are incompetent or unsuited or not Force sensitive.

Well, to be fair I did not detail that. I did imagine it, though, and I believe I hinted at the Republic/Jedi relationship being very intricate and carefully regulated. Anyway, the point is moot since I do not really argue for such a model anymore, but only wished to elaborate and explain it better.

If you don't mind, I'd like to discuss where we'd actually like to frame and establish it.

I can go with this, and the Jedi ruling only a few (one?) planet directly. We could then use your model of having a larger empire (Akkara?) being supporters and sponsors of the Order, without being ruled by it.

I think a big problem here is we're all still largely in the dark and working with diffuse and guesswork as to how the actual society in SW works between the city-to-planet level and the galactic institutions level.

I mean there might be several layers of government going both ways. In the Republic, you have the all-galaxy government and ministries. You then have the regional governments, which are devolved governments dealing with regional issues and with associated security and defense formations (the various different tiers occupy different competencies and overlap, but do not "outrank" each other). Below that of course is the sectoral devolved governments and security apparatus. There are on the order of ten thousand sectors (I think at least fourteen thousand sectors, with two thousand per galactic region - the "regions" containing "thousands" of sectors the Imp Sourcebook describes).

Now the member states are semi-sovereign in their own right, with the galactic union being a fully-fledged federal government and the member states having particular prerogatives and powers and jurisdictions guaranteed under the constitution. They themselves have wide discretion within certain limits and laws to conduct their own affairs and to select senators to represent their interests. They also select delegates to the assemblies of the various devolved governments to which they belong. The member state itself may govern anywhere from a handful to maybe a few thousand permanently inhabited star systems in its own right as part of its integral territory. Among star systems (the only real major fundamental unit of territory in an astrographic context), you can have habitable planets and moons, space colonies on gas giant planets, terrestrial planets, moons, comets, asteroids, dwarf planets, etc., and space stations. Then you can have uninhabited/transiently inhabited star systems; basically property. You can have a situation where Member State A controls System X as a part of its integral sovereign territory, and Citizen 1 of Member State B owns System X as private property, consistent with the laws and regulations and tax codes of Member State A. The member states may have their own federal government system, and may have their own constitution within broad limits set under federal guarantees of civil or sapient rights. They may commission their own armed forces.

Now you also have the other Internal Areas, which are not member states. They may belong to broad categories of territory. Many are probably historically small, immature, dependent polities, which are often governed as mandates. These mandates may be held in trust and governed directly by the Republic Authority (through the responsible devolved government and its attendant level of colonial administration). Then there are resettled colonies and other given entities (like the U.S. insular areas and UK crown dependencies). Others may be assigned to member states individually or even as condominions. Then you have non-self-governing territories which have no direct relationship with the Republic Authority, but rather are colonies or member states or clients of the member states themselves in their own right (not on the Republic's behalf as an assigned mandate).

Things get tricky when you realize there is this level of complexity and greater. Great Powers are individual Member States with extraordinary concentrations of wealth and power. They may have already controlled a constellation of treaty-allied powers and trading partners before the Republic (compare to the Italian Socii of pre-Sulla Republican Rome) and been leaders in supranational and regional unions or organizations (compare to the European Union, the Commonwealth of Independent States, Mercosur, NAFTA, etc.). These Member States have well-defined clienteles of lesser states around them (but are fully-fledged Member States in their own right, NOT official, de jure client states or dependencies), and may even tried to restrain them and their membership in the Great Power's Senior Senatorial delegation with treaties (which may be unconstitutional in fact).

Of course even this system outlined is highly generalizing, and across a million member states, fifty million or more dependent polities, and unknown number of external associated and independent states, and tens of thousands of devolved governments across a thousand generations of historical cyclical trends and erstwhile crises, there's a lot of room for variation, transition, and complexity.

The military is very odd in this system. The Republic of course controls armed forces with a pan-galactic nigh-universal jurisdiction and area of responsibility. But in essence, with their state being essentially self-contained and universal within its area of the universe, has no real mandate to conduct genuinely expeditionary operations. Its job is to defend against the occasional barbarian raid from the halo (or even the void) and otherwise to keep the peace and maintain the security and stability of the galactic balance of power; it is an essentially quasi-paramilitary/gendarme force if one compares the Republic as a whole to a contemporary terrestrial nation-state. Quoting Dr. C. Saxton:

In a galactic society, enormous resources are potentially available to criminals, insurrectionists, centrifugal political movements, or even mutinous armed forces. The ruling government needs possession of immodestly powerful vessels in order to cow or convincingly overcome all possible threats to the peace, preferably by means of preventative intimidation. Assertion of control over spacelanes and maintaining the security of fixed assets demands vaster resources than staging spasmodic and opportunistic raids to deny control to another force. The Imperial Starfleet was not built merely to fight an equal force; it exists for the more extensive task of sustaining social and economic equilibrium across the entire galactic civilisation. The rebels' accusation that the Starfleet was designed in overkill as an instrument of terror is unfair; physical and psychological dominance are essential to the role of such a security force.

However, the central military establishment from Coruscant will concern itself primarily with pan-galactic policy issues. It will concern itself with the training and equipment and organization of formations throughout the galaxy; but those units assigned to "colonial service" within the devolved-government's jurisdictions will be responsible to local strategic policy. At the all-galactic level, intervention will be infrequent, when lower echelons fail at their duty, or policing such concerns as pan-galactic piracy and criminal or subversive elements. The regions and sectors may raise colonial forces of their own as auxiliaries to the colonial service assigned units of the Republic armed forces. Further, the Member States will raise their own armed forces; the Great Powers may be capable of coordinating defense policy with its attendant constellation of states, developing a common defense force and command with full expeditionary capability, protecting the assets of the Power and its subordinates throughout the galaxy, and securing basing rights and legal and political prerogatives in devolved governments.

How about the revised oath I proposed, which would be considered inactive during the secondment of a Jedi ruler, but could be called upon in emergencies, though that would be considered highly unusual and politically unpalatable?

I still think the idea of a personal oath is quite premodern and unnecessary and unsuited for a Jedi Order consistent with admirable qualities and principles. I think vaguer concepts of constitutional or canon law and traditional prerogatives are more compelling. Perhaps Kaan invoked since lapsed constitutional prerogatives of the Grand Master?

There are definitely the thematic concerns there. At the same time, I do not feel comfortable with throwing everything of the old EU depiction of the Republic out right away, especially when it considers the Bantam era (which as noted, we should not make major plot changes in, merely coordinations/rationalisations). I also find it odd that the Republic would necessarily force its own political system upon the member worlds, many of which are not human at all and may not appreciate, or even function under, liberal democracy. If these cultures genuinely do not want democracy, would it launch crusades to "civilise" them? That sounds more like the Empire to me (per Admiral Rogriss and various EU figures). Which also adds depth to the story, in that the Empire actively carries out a modernisation and civilisation effort, while the Old Republic is much more hands-off.

Meh, it should at least encourage liberal democracy, or whatever the appropriate cultural equivalent - the idea that the rulers should acquire the consent of the ruled, and that laws should be consistent and fair is hardly radical. And the fact is there is a Supreme Court; clearly individual citizens have some Republic-level civil, civic, and sapient rights. Furthermore, the Republic is by far the dominant galaxy-bestriding institution. However, especially as you go further out, the number of member states as a percentage of polities may decline, with an increasing number of unincorporated states, be they client states, associated states, or outright independent states. You don't HAVE to be part of the Republic, much less a voting member.

All that aside, I do agree that democracy should be better represented in the galaxy (though at those levels, the government will likely never be very close to the people anyway). I consider the oligarchic/monarchic governments to be either the old powers, which have entrenched their privileges in the system, or the alien or Rimwards powers with their more primitive structures of government. The majority of human worlds should probably be democratic.

Right. I think Alderaan should be standard-barer of the human Core worlds.

My point was that in this galaxy, the Jedi ruling a single planet as a religious order (per Malta) would not be unheard of, and it would not be utterly loathsome to the powers that be, nor to the public. Nor should it be terrible to the typical reader; I can see why people would disagree with a Jedi empire, but them ruling a single world? The Jedi would not keep slaves (why would they in a 'droid economy, by the way, but that is a separate question), have great labour camps and press gangs or whatnots; the inhabitants of such a world would be there voluntarily, and free to leave whenever they wished to. They would effectively be employed by the Order, under military terms - obeying its law while they served it, &c. Why must there be a modern liberal democracy on the one world the Order can call its own? And as it is likely to be inhabited only by pro-Jedi people anyway, what is the point, other than it looking nice to the media? It would rather likely be a rubber stamp. Also, what would be the separation of powers - would the "civil" government have legislative authority over the Jedi on this one world they have been granted in perpetual lease from Akkara or whatever the pro-Jedi power should be called? Would they control the planet's military, or the Order?

How about a UK type government, with a House of Knights and a House of Commons, with the Grand Master or High Council sovereign (represented by a Governor?).

All this makes sense. I confess to not having thought that through as deeply as you apparently have, though I broadly shared some of the ideas.

A lot this is produced from notes and concepts, and a lot of discussions with Publius and others. If you could, I could really use more help on the Clone Wars in the other thread. I'd like to come up with a convincing link between the Thrawn Trilogy and the Clone Wars (though I am cludging both Zahn's version with the Lucas' version - with Palpatine acclaiming as Emperor at the end of destroying the Republic's constitution with extraordinary war powers; though fighting against clones, not droids, and although deploying clones cynically himself - perhaps the Jedi Order's clone commission by Dooku is used against them).

Heh, I actually like the idea of a sect of Lucasy Jedi that everyone else thinks are a little crazy. If we go by that idea, throwing together a few Jedi of various sub-orders and letting them try to escape the Jedi Purge together, Dark Lord-style, could be rather fun if done right.

Yeah, you see what I'm getting at? We don't have to clean-slate things, or even completely repudiate stuff. We just don't need the Jedi at the top being like ANAKIN IS JESUS YAY. We can have some semi-nutty monks who think he is a prophesied messiah and have Mace Windu as Grand Inquisitor be a Jedi hardliner and political animal who has contempt for LucasJedi mysticism doctrinally. Juice it up, he isn't just a dick to Anakin for being a dick, he thinks he's letting a bunch of crazy oracle nonsense go to his head.

Fair enough, I suppose, although the Force is rather ambiguously portrayed across the canon - it can range from cosmic balance to generic New Age mumbo jumbo to a semi-personal entity which guides one's step (as per Qui-Gon Jinn, who almost appears to suffer Job's fate in some old comic). It also speaks in prophecy to some (DE, Leia's vision in Planet of Twilight, &c.). But no, you are right, it is never a strictly personal deity that is responsive to prayer.

Right, which eliminates the essential value of most Abrahamic ritual and worship.

We must keep the "Qui-Gon researched the first Force ghost" rubbish? That is just one more needless Lucas retcon that serves no purpose and works badly with virtually the entire EU and arguably the OT itself (Vader appearing - whence did he pull uberduper magical Whill training?). And normal people do live on as distinct spirits/entities after death - look at Prince Denin and Princess Vila in Marvel Star Wars, for example. Also, if Jedi were the only ones to live after death and ordinary folks were left to be annihilated in some buddhist hocus pocus, is that not the ultimate expression of the Jedi elitism that we wish to avoid? "The afterlife is ours, screw the rest!"?

Well I'd throwaway the Lucas "only Qui-Gon figured it out" crap. I'd make it a special Jedi thing. And no, I wouldn't let other people come back. Its a burden for a Jedi for a special purpose, and they cannot remain long. Perhaps to a Force sensitives or in special circumstances non sensitives can appear transiently once or right after death. Obi-Wan had to stick around for Luke and it was clearly special, he had to leave in Heir to the Empire.

Hm, fair enough, I suppose. I can see some story potential there as well. I would, however, expect the church that services the actual Knights themselves to be somewhat stricter.

Right. They consider the Force sensitivity a burden and responsibility as much as - if not more than - a blessing and gift. They should hold the practitioners to high standards of conduct, ethical strength, and philosophical purity.

Part of this is me being simplistic and wanting a clear difference between Jedi and Sith - the Jedi would be more religious, approaching the Force from a religious perspective, while the Sith would be more "pure science" and not acknowledge it as anything more than a source of energy to draw upon.

I do think the Jedi by virtue of their age and size and circumstance are more likely to have mysticized and ritualized their practices and pomp and circumstance. The fundamental difference between the Banite Sith and the Jedi Order is that the Sith consider the Force to be a tool for the pursuit of power, and that power is its own end; the Jedi believe that their talent must be subordinated to self-control and bound to service.

I am not a fundie Catholic who wants the Jedi to be Conservative Catholic Mary Sues, if that is what you mean with the last line. I merely took a lot of influence from Jedi vs Sith and similar sources in my view of the Order.

I didn't mean to imply that at all. I think Publius did a great job of avoiding preachiness and "THIS IS HOW I THINK" in his fiction. I have other sources of influence which while interesting in tone and form, are difficult to tolerate through their political proselytizing.

I imagine there would be such conflicts, even if our Republic is not as dysfunctional and morally bankrupt as the canon prequel one. Jedi might feel that government interferes too much or too little, they might defect after the introduction of clones, they might be Lucasy pacifists and what have you. More story potential.

Yup. All good stuff.

So you have no problem with that, then?

Yeah, but I'd rather the oath be more nebulous than I MUST SERVE THE WILL OF THE GRAND MASTER. His ability to declare a state of canon law where he can command the Knights on his own from his chair at the head of the Order should to be stretched and controversial. Constitutional exigencies.

Agreed. Regrettably, I am not all that well-versed in it. Do you have any books to recommend?

Honestly, I'm talking out of my ass. The best authority I'm aware of is probably Publius. You could shoot him a line looking for good sources on ecclesiology.

[Pelranius]

Maybe instead of having Caamas getting firestormed by Palpatine's private army, Naboo is the target instead?

[Crayz9000]

That's a nice explanation for why we never hear about it again...

Which planet is Palpatine from again, anyway? Are we sticking with him being from Naboo? (That would be rather ironic, in a way, his becoming so evil he has his own homeworld destroyed...)