| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DoubtBreak
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 60
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| masque wrote: | | Committed relationships in themselves aren't a problem, it seems, as long as one is capable of maintaining them. |
Absolutely. As I understand it, the problem doesn't come from being in love with someone; the problem is that you've made a committment both to being a husband/wife, and to being a Jedi. Sooner or later, you may be in a situation where you're forced to choose between acting as a good husband/wife, and acting as a good Jedi. In a situation like that, you're screwed (and not in the fun way).
| masque wrote: | | I also wouldn't equate promiscuity with "I want this, so I'll just take it." That sounds more like rape, and is certainly DSP worthy. Promiscuity just means you like to screw a lot, it doesn't mean you force yourself on people. If the hypothetical promiscuous Jedi is careful to not hurt anyone emotionally, I see no problem with it whatsoever. |
Rape is certainly a more clear case of "I want this, so I'll take it," but promiscuity is still allowing your emotions and physical desires to control your actions. It's a lack of self-restraint, and using another person for self-gratification, even if that person is willing. I suppose the issue as far as DSPs comes down to whether you're hurting someone else emotionally by being promiscuous.
| masque wrote: | | I don't see a problem with having a Jedi who is more like an Eastern tantric, who have no problem with the more "earthly" pleasures, and in fact use them the same way the ascetic uses stillness and abstention. |
That's actually a really interesting idea. Thanks.
| Chandra Mindarass wrote: | | Ki-Adi Mundi was allowed to have a big family with multiple wives and kids. I think it was because the Cereans were dying out, but I'm not sure where I read that - prolly Wookiepedia. |
I saw that in the Episode 2 Visual Dictionary, I think- if I remember right he actually has more than 1 wife, and at least 1 child.
| Chandra Mindarass wrote: | | Before Ruusan and after Endor things like a celibate for Jedi are unheard of. |
That's helpful to know. Do you know of a particular reference I could look for, on this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
masque
Captain
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 626
Location: Houston, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DoubtBreak wrote: | | masque wrote: | | Committed relationships in themselves aren't a problem, it seems, as long as one is capable of maintaining them. |
Absolutely. As I understand it, the problem doesn't come from being in love with someone; the problem is that you've made a committment both to being a husband/wife, and to being a Jedi. Sooner or later, you may be in a situation where you're forced to choose between acting as a good husband/wife, and acting as a good Jedi. In a situation like that, you're screwed (and not in the fun way). |
While that situation can come up, the evidence of other married Jedi says that it's not universal. I'm guessing it depends on the customs prevalent in whichever time period one is playing in. The taboo seems to be in force in the prequels, hence Anakin hiding his marriage (which was more trouble than it was worth), but even then, exceptions are made. The Tales of the Jedi era and the New Republic era don't seem to have the same taboos. It comes down to whether the inidividual Jedi can handle the dual responsibility, as far as I'm concerned.
| masque wrote: | | I also wouldn't equate promiscuity with "I want this, so I'll just take it." That sounds more like rape, and is certainly DSP worthy. Promiscuity just means you like to screw a lot, it doesn't mean you force yourself on people. If the hypothetical promiscuous Jedi is careful to not hurt anyone emotionally, I see no problem with it whatsoever. |
| DoubtBreak wrote: | | Rape is certainly a more clear case of "I want this, so I'll take it," but promiscuity is still allowing your emotions and physical desires to control your actions. It's a lack of self-restraint, and using another person for self-gratification, even if that person is willing. I suppose the issue as far as DSPs comes down to whether you're hurting someone else emotionally by being promiscuous. |
One can engage in pleasure without letting it take control. Promiscuity has a common association with a lack of control, but that lack isn't necessary. It is easier for someone to completely abstain, and avoid the situation entirely, but a Jedi who can indulge but cut it off when necessary, that shows real control. Obviously a Jedi who suffered from something like sexual addiction would have serious problems, but I'm not talking about that type of situation.
As for causing emotional pain, that is to some degree unavoidable in relationships, but as long as the Jedi acts as honorably and considerately as is possible, I don't see any conflict after that as DSP worthy. Jedi don't have restrictions against pissing people off, they did it all the time. As long as there's no malice in it, and the Jedi behaves in a responsible manner, I see no problem.
_________________
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DoubtBreak
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| masque wrote: | | It comes down to whether the inidividual Jedi can handle the dual responsibility, as far as I'm concerned. |
I agree. I probably should have clarified- I'm not saying that it's impossible, it's just not something a Jedi should take lightly.
I think we've got some differences in our definitions of "promiscuous," though.
| masque wrote: | | One can engage in pleasure without letting it take control. Promiscuity has a common association with a lack of control, but that lack isn't necessary. |
I'm not sure I can agree with that. It's like saying "one can act in anger without letting anger take control." Clearly, when Anakin kills Dooku, his anger isn't in control of him- he makes a conscious decision to act on his anger, which really is not much better.
More to the point, though, the various definitions of promiscuity ("promiscuous," actually) involve terms like "indiscriminite," "lacking standards," and "random." (And if a person is making a conscious and controlled decision to find a random partner, he/she has some bigger problems than a lack of control.)
| masque wrote: | | a Jedi who can indulge but cut it off when necessary, that shows real control .... as long as the Jedi acts as honorably and considerately as is possible, I don't see any conflict after that as DSP worthy. |
That's not being promiscuous; it's being rational. So where do you draw the line between that and unacceptable indulgence of lust? Or do you think there isn't one? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Allst Beamem
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 131
Location: Memphis, TN USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Promiscuity is the practice of making relatively casual and indiscriminate choices. The term is most commonly applied to sexual behaviour, where it refers to sexual intercourse that is not in the framework of a long term monogamous sexual relationship. People who are called "promiscuous", within the scope of this usage, may actually be quite selective in their choice of sexual partners. Nonetheless, because of the popularity of this usage, the remainder of this article discusses sexual promiscuity.
Sexual promiscuity carries with it a higher risk of contracting sexually transmitted disease. It has been shown that, in some cases, excessively promiscuous behaviour is caused by bipolar disorder, brain tumours, or alcoholism and substance abuse[citation needed].
Promiscuity is discouraged by all of the main modern day religions. However, some sects, cults, and religious orders have a place for promiscuous behaviour. For example, there were special examples of religious prostitution in ancient Mesopotamia, Greece and Rome.
From wikipedia. Hope it helps clear up the meaning of it for you guys. 8)
_________________
We're all gona die!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chandra Mindarass
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 152
Location: Hilden, Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Do you know of a particular reference I could look for, on this? |
Unfortunately not. We have examples of Jedi marrying before (Nomi and Andur Sunrider) and after said era (Mara and Luke Skywalker). Most of those sources are from way before Episode I came out and none of it was in the movies, so they might still get eaten by the mighty Retcon. As far as I remember, the Prequels contradict or at least degrade some "facts" stated in the Timothy Zahn and other novels.
_________________
RPGGamer (featuring a big portion of DLOS-stats!)
>-q=p--- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedi Skyler
Moff
Joined: 07 Sep 2005
Posts: 8440
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | As far as I remember, the Prequels contradict or at least degrade some "facts" stated in the Timothy Zahn and other novels. |
You are correct. I'm almost finished rereading the Black Fleet Crisis trilogy, in which they actually have a whole plot line concerning Luke and Leia's mother, claiming she's actually still alive and that she was part of a very different group of Force users called the Circle, who know the Force as the White Current. These books had Luke & Leia's Force-sensitivity coming to them from BOTH parents, when the prequels have Padme being so blatantly NOT Force-sensitive, and so obviously DEAD. 
And that's not to say that I really agree with the story line in the books... it is, however, at the very least an interesting "what if?" plot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
masque
Captain
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 626
Location: Houston, TX
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm using the term promiscuity in its simplest sense, the desire to screw a lot. The various associations with the word don't concern me, just that simple definition.
_________________
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jamfke
Admiral
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 4675
Location: Tennessee
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Padme being dead is a "certain point of view", so to speak. Maybe Yoda had an idea to preserve her the same way that he did with Luke and Leia. Using the Force to make her appear dead to the machines and such, then after her "funeral" on Naboo, she was shipped off secretly to be cared for by the Circle, old freinds of the wrinkly master... 
It's so much fun to twist a storyline, I guess that's why a lot of writers do what they do.
_________________
Check out some of my games at DriveThruRPG!
Role Players Direct |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chandra Mindarass
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 152
Location: Hilden, Germany
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Padme being dead is a "certain point of view", so to speak. Maybe Yoda had an idea to preserve her the same way that he did with Luke and Leia. Using the Force to make her appear dead to the machines and such, then after her "funeral" on Naboo, she was shipped off secretly to be cared for by the Circle, old freinds of the wrinkly master... |
I was really wondering why appearently none of the responsible people gave Ep VI a second look. It's not like Leia mumbles or is on drugs and all those explainations "Uhhhh...it was like...ummmm...the force, that made her see her mother." really make me want to forget the o so holy G-Canon and come up with my own apocryphal story. It helps though, to think of the last sequences of Ep III as "what became of"-cuts with lots of time passing between them. Vader had already learned to walk and the Death Star seemed to be in an advanced stadium, too.
_________________
RPGGamer (featuring a big portion of DLOS-stats!)
>-q=p--- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darthomer09
Commodore
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 1392
Location: Virginia, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My theory is just that Leia was talking about Bail Organa's wife as her mother. She never knew she was adopted so she believes that she is her real mother. Padme is dead. No doubts about that for me.
_________________
Rebel Uprisings
In Soviet Russia, RPG plays you!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chandra Mindarass
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 152
Location: Hilden, Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sure, that's an explaination, but I'd expect Leia to be smart enough to know that. Does the novelization mention Leia's knowledge about being adopted?
_________________
RPGGamer (featuring a big portion of DLOS-stats!)
>-q=p--- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chandra Mindarass
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 152
Location: Hilden, Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | However the official Star Wars website in its "Q & A" section explicitly states that Leia is remembering Padme. |
_________________
RPGGamer (featuring a big portion of DLOS-stats!)
>-q=p--- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hellcat
Grand Moff
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 11921
Location: New England
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are people who claim to remember being born, so it's not too far fetched that an extremely newborn might remember someone they only saw for a few minutes. Though it would be pretty rare.
_________________
FLUFFY for President!!!!
Wanted Poster |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chandra Mindarass
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 152
Location: Hilden, Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
The oldest meories I can think of are from when I was 2 years old. I might have older ones, but I'm sure about those. I had to go to hospital, which was the first time I was away from home over night. The nurse was yelling and I remember that the other kid in my room had lost a testicle, which gave me the creeps!
_________________
RPGGamer (featuring a big portion of DLOS-stats!)
>-q=p--- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PC-032
Lieutenant
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 91
Location: Brisbane
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
my RPG groups play lots of Matuere games so apart from Muntants & Masterminds (even that has some non PG13 moments) and Star Wars they can get fairly heavy so we keep SW PG13
Geting back to the Orignal Adult moment, Two Intelligent, Matuere, Physicaly Fit (and presumabily mildily attractive) persons that have bean through many bonding events and Trust each other, with Like Backgrounds and Many Comman Qualitys with no other Emotional Attachments. It's little wounder they didn't pair off eeriler.
_________________
"Remember There Are No Stupid Questions-Just Stupid People." Mr. Morgan Blackhand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
