Jedi Archive
Thread: confused.... wookies as jedis?
FeedbackEcho wrote:
Han's two kids we Wookies?
I know, that isn't what you meant, but I couldn't resist. Sorry.
/hi5 Yeah I set myself up on that one. Looked at it and gave me a laugh.
Krun is correct here. A dark jedi is a jedi that has rejected the teachings of the jedi. They may not even embrace the dark side, but rather skim it....but they are dark jedi because of their rejection of complete 100% devotion to the light. There are many examples of dark jedi in the EU. There are several students of Luke's that reject his teachings and embrace the Dark side. They are not Sith as they know nothing of the teachings of the Sith, but they are not jedi as they have rejected the way of the light. The only thing they can be is a Dark Jedi...as in a jedi that is no longer following the path of the light side.
Krun1 wrote:
There are such things as Dark jedi. They are Jedi who have fallen to the Dark side on thier own(no help from the sith). Jorrus C'Boath (sp?) was a dark jedi. Actually he was a freaky ass evil clone but they refer to him many times as a dark jedi. There are actually 2 dark jedi in the book "Star by Star" that have a failry large part, and they are directly referred to as dark jedi.
Daeges wrote:
To be clear:
SWG's is using the term "jedi" for player characters who can wield force. This is a misapplication of terms. Also, there is no such thing as a "dark jedi", so please strike this from your vocabulary.
Jedi = a dedicated order of force wielders who devote their discipline to the application of peace and justice, and reject the usethe dark side of the force.
Force wielders = any humanoid who can draw upon the power of the force. Organized groups of force wielders include jedi, but also includes Nightsisters and Sith to name two others.
To call all force wielders "jedi" is akin to calling all those practicing martial arts "ninja".
!
KJFett3 wrote:
Krun is correct here. A dark jedi is a jedi that has rejected the teachings of the jedi. They may not even embrace the dark side, but rather skim it....but they are dark jedi because of their rejection of complete 100% devotion to the light. There are many examples of dark jedi in the EU. There are several students of Luke's that reject his teachings and embrace the Dark side. They are not Sith as they know nothing of the teachings of the Sith, but they are not jedi as they have rejected the way of the light. The only thing they can be is a Dark Jedi...as in a jedi that is no longer following the path of the light side.
Krun1 wrote:
There are such things as Dark jedi. They are Jedi who have fallen to the Dark side on thier own(no help from the sith). Jorrus C'Boath (sp?) was a dark jedi. Actually he was a freaky ass evil clone but they refer to him many times as a dark jedi. There are actually 2 dark jedi in the book "Star by Star" that have a failry large part, and they are directly referred to as dark jedi.
Daeges wrote:
To be clear:
SWG's is using the term "jedi" for player characters who can wield force. This is a misapplication of terms. Also, there is no such thing as a "dark jedi", so please strike this from your vocabulary.
Jedi = a dedicated order of force wielders who devote their discipline to the application of peace and justice, and reject the usethe dark side of the force.
Force wielders = any humanoid who can draw upon the power of the force. Organized groups of force wielders include jedi, but also includes Nightsisters and Sith to name two others.
To call all force wielders "jedi" is akin to calling all those practicing martial arts "ninja".
There are actually a few semi cool dark jedi in the Yuzahn Vong (sp) series. Some of them aren't even all that evil. They are just more concerned with themselves than anything else.
Very well, I stand corrected. There are dark jedi, but they are relatively rare. That aside, my original point stands: terming all those who learn to harness the force "jedi" is not a good application of the term jedi, and they should more correctly be termed force wielders. None of our toons went to the jedi academy and studied under jedi masters, nor were they granted the title of "jedi" by that order. Perhaps one day we'll be recruited by different factions which focus upon the force, but for now, we are simply dabblers in the force. We should not be called "padawans" or "jedi" at all.
This is also why order 66 does not apply to us. Order 66 was a political move designed to limit resistance to the new empire specifically targeting known members of the jedi order, and did not extend to all the wielders of force in the galaxy. The other factions that use the force were either deemed factionally neutral to the empire or too small to be of significance. If our progression tree read "novice force wielder" rather than "jedi padawan", we'd see a lot of the nonsense written about timeline inconsistancies and relative population erode, and our next step in the FRS when it opens would make more sense.
Daeges wrote:
Very well, I stand corrected. There are dark jedi, but they are relatively rare. That aside, my original point stands: terming all those who learn to harness the force "jedi" is not a good application of the term jedi, and they should more correctly be termed force wielders. None of our toons went to the jedi academy and studied under jedi masters, nor were they granted the title of "jedi" by that order. Perhaps one day we'll be recruited by different factions which focus upon the force, but for now, we are simply dabblers in the force. We should not be called "padawans" or "jedi" at all.
This is also why order 66 does not apply to us. Order 66 was a political move designed to limit resistance to the new empire specifically targeting known members of the jedi order, and did not extend to all the wielders of force in the galaxy. The other factions that use the force were either deemed factionally neutral to the empire or too small to be of significance. If our progression tree read "novice force wielder" rather than "jedi padawan", we'd see a lot of the nonsense written about timeline inconsistancies and relative population erode, and our next step in the FRS when it opens would make more sense.
Daeges wrote:Very well, I stand corrected. There are dark jedi, but they are relatively rare. That aside, my original point stands: terming all those who learn to harness the force "jedi" is not a good application of the term jedi, and they should more correctly be termed force wielders. None of our toons went to the jedi academy and studied under jedi masters, nor were they granted the title of "jedi" by that order. Perhaps one day we'll be recruited by different factions which focus upon the force, but for now, we are simply dabblers in the force. We should not be called "padawans" or "jedi" at all.
This is also why order 66 does not apply to us. Order 66 was a political move designed to limit resistance to the new empire specifically targeting known members of the jedi order, and did not extend to all the wielders of force in the galaxy. The other factions that use the force were either deemed factionally neutral to the empire or too small to be of significance. If our progression tree read "novice force wielder" rather than "jedi padawan", we'd see a lot of the nonsense written about timeline inconsistancies and relative population erode, and our next step in the FRS when it opens would make more sense.
Will drink to that and above posts. I don't want a Jedi tag when my character has nothing to do with robes and/or Yoda and his former council.
Storm-Psynet wrote:
didnt think wookies are able to become jedis in the SW universe
when you pay soe 15$ a mnth anything is possible including the unspeakable...... Wookie jedi and what is more laughable is wookie imperials. Considering imps enslaved wookies why would any become imps ow well
Pday wrote:
actually wookiee's have a stronger connection to the force than most other species, the reason for there being so few wookiee jedi is that it was deemed extremely harmful to remove a wookiee child from his mother at the normal age where people started jedi training.
Yeah it was unhealthy for the person removing the child!!!