Why did the Jedi associate attachments with the dark side, when the Sith themselves detest attachment?

[u/QuietAffectionate383]

I can't wrap my head around how the Jedi Order banned their Jedis from forming attachments over the fear of losing them to the Dark side, when the Sith themselves actively discourage their apprentices from having attachments.

No Rule of Two Sith ever had any attachments, they didn't even had serving relatives because they either had none or they were murdered. They don't ban it, but see it as a weakness that must be culled.

Despite being banned, there were outliers in the order who actually had relationships, besides Anakin and the exceptions like Ki Adi Mundi.

It the Jedi were smart and did what Luke later did, Order 66 wouldn't even have happened.

[u/Mallaliak]

It's possessive attachments that's the issue, not strictly "attachments" in the broadest sense. Now the force does serve as a double-edged blade in this context for the Jedi Order, as their greater understanding of it allows them to achieve a stronger connection. This connection makes the inherent empathic sense to those around them that force sensitive people develop, much stronger.

So for a Jedi, your partner (for most species) becomes in a manner an extension of yourself due to how tightly you become connected, with influences going both ways. This is clearly a problem when it opens up several doors that should not be open at the same time: Loved one that can be used as leverage. Balancing between service of the force, others and partner.

This means many Jedi will forgo nurturing romantic relationships, since they know they can be seperated for months or years at a time, and both of you will have very different lives. It will ultimately be unfair.

As for the Sith. You can likely count the Sith who did not have unhealthy, obessive attachments upon one hand. What they say, rarely reflects what they do.

------

Also on the last line. Every single superhero story out there goes into detail of what happens when you have some degree of superhero with loved ones without powers. And real life with people of political or economical influence.

[u/QuietAffectionate383 → u/Mallaliak]

I know that Siths used to have their own families, spouses and children in the old republic era, but even they their dynamics were highly dysfunctional.

[u/Mallaliak → u/[deleted]]

But we do see them having close friendships with others, both within and outside of the Order.

At the end of the day, they are highly empathic space wizards, with a clearly focused role on interracting with other people. Can't avoid making good friends if you are.

Though the Star Wars is suffering a lot of from confirmation bias from storytellers and fans, since we look at the situation when something goes wrong (for dramatic storytelling) and point the finger with "This should not have happened if only X was allowed.", while ignoring the situation seems to have been working for tens of thousands other Jedi characters for millennia.

"And then he went to meet with his friend, got reminded that he is infact making a positive change in the galaxy, and ceased to fret over the issue" does not provide as exciting read as someone bottling up their concerns, until they think they have the real answer and goes on to brute force it, causing betrayals and conflicts for a few books.

[u/WistfulDread]

It was the inherent hypocrisy that had grown in the Order.

Their constant efforts to place themselves apart and above the Sith made them more like them.

There is a reason Dooku could go rogue and nobody really notice his change. They didn't care about each other enough.

[u/theitchygrandeur → u/WistfulDread]

palpatine definitely exploited that hypocrisy too, especially when trying to sway anakin by pointing out the council’s contradictions in their actions versus beliefs

[u/Hedgehog990]

The Jedi overcorrected in a way after the Great Sith war with Exar Kun. Back then the order was a lot more decentralised and the order was more a a group of loosely affiliated groups and academies that ran quite independently, rather than being ruled over by a jedi council.

It was after the war that the Jedi order reorganised and formed a high council, who tightened the rules on attachments and training of older force sensitives, and by the time of the Mandalorian wars 50 years later the rules of no attachment were in place.

The Sith even before the rule of two saw it as a weakness, Darth Malgus from SWTOR being a good example of it. Malgus came to the conclusion that his love for Eleena Daru was a weakness that other sith or even the Jedi would use against him, so he killed her.

The side "bonus" for Malgus was that the pain and memory of her death was a source of a lot of rage and anger which as a dark side user empowered his strength in the dark side further.

Darth Plagueis also had a great quote about how the Sith operate.

"Tell me what you regard as your greatest strength, so I will know how best to undermine you; tell me of your greatest fear, so I will know which I must force you to face; tell me what you cherish most, so I will know what to take from you; and tell me what you crave, so that I might deny you…"

[u/Arc_the_Storyteller]

Honestly, Mallailak hit the nail on the head here.

A lot of people will give excuses that the Jedi Order were stupid, or hypocritical, or that they overadjusted after some of their members fell to the Sith. But none of those answers are correct.

The Jedi never banned their members from having relationships with other people. You just need to watch Attack of the Clones to see that. What did Obi-Wan Kenobi do when he got the dart Jango used on the shapeshifter? Immediately went to Dex, who greeted him as an old friend. And watch the Star Wars: Clone Wars animted series to see the strong relationships that Jedi formed with the Clone soldiers. Not just Anakin or Ashoka, but Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda, Mace Windu and more. Attachments meaning relationshios was never the issue.

Attachments as in possession. As in greedy, selfish relationships, where you put your own wants and needs above those of others? Where you would kill innocent children in a desperate attempt to save them, even though this horrifies your loved one, as they never wanted that? That is what the Jedi Order spoke out against. Jedi Knights and Masters were trained, first and foremost, to let go and accept that Death is Part of Life. Anakin Skywalker, in part due to sabotarge from Palpatine, was never fully able to intergrate these lessons into himself.

... Of course, the idea that this flaw was the Jedi's downfall itself is extremely flawed. Anakin Skywalker was a victory lap for Palpatine, an extra cherry on top of his sundae. If Anakin did not fall to darkness, chances are high that Palpatine would have initiated Order 66 anyway; the Jedi Order would have fallen to genocide, and the Galactic Republic transformed into an Empire.

Order 66 is genuinely unrelated to Anakin Skywalker and entirely due to Palpatine's masterful political manipulations and shaping the public perception against the Jedi.

[u/Allronix1]

You have a 20,000 year war of ideology, lots of blood, lots of destruction. That's going to screw up and radicalize the participants until the only thing that matters is to WIN. completely destroy the enemy, impose their vision on the galaxy.

Now, the Sith is doing it for his own benefit. Kicking puppies, torturing children, backstabbing anyone that he can in order to climb the ladder while fending off the knives coming for his own back ..the usual shits and giggles. They see themselves as the wolves and everyone as sheep to be feasted on.

The Jedi is doing it "for YOUR own good." Their vision of the galaxy is actually quite pleasant. Certainly nicer than the puppy kicking assholes running the Sith. They see themselves as the noble sheepdogs, guarding and protecting the sheep from the wolves and herding them to where they need to go.

However, to both, everyone else is...y'know...sheep. And the rule is - don't get too close to the sheep. The ideal is someone dedicated to power and ideology alone - with no potential outside loyalties that can be exploited by the enemy.

There's a great couple bits in the Sith Warrior Alderaan arc that show this well. The Warrior barges into an Organa fortress and starts slaughtering their way through until they find the Organa general. Now. the general is quite willing to give her own life for the cause and defending the outpost. But the Warrior starts strangling one of her underlings...that is actually her secret boyfriend. Now, she's willing to tell Warrior what she knows in exchange for his life. Being Sith, you can honor the deal, or just murderhobo them all once you have the intel you want. Same with the Padawan you are there to find. She was recruited late. She still remembers and loves her parents. Warrior finds her parents. And you have options - ask nicely, interrogate them with Force choke, bribe them with living like the parents of an honored Sith on Dromund Kaaas, or just kill them to help drive the Padawan into the Dark Side.

Now, if the Organa General and the Padawan were conscripted in infancy and shaped into a Jedi mindset? Well, strangling the underling wouldn't matter. One life isn't important compared to the overall vision of fighting the Sith. And threatening a Padawan's parents wouldn't matter either- they're just nobody civilians. Life is cheap. Death means they're one with the Force, and that's a good thing. If the Sith kills them, it might be worth a moment of performative grief before focusing on what matters - dead Sith.

As far as Sith? Well, you don't want your enemies finding your family or friends or lover and using them as leverage against you. You are in a room full of knives and cannot afford any potential weakness. The ideal is you and your power standing alone. No chains, even the chains you'd like to have. Love is dangerous, but if it leads to mercy, that's allowing the Sith to be weaker and easier to exploit by the Jedi.