Talk: Jedi Code/Legends

This is thetalk page for the article "Jedi Code/Legends." This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article,not for discussing the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visitWookieepedia Discussions. Please remember to staycivil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~).Click here to start a new topic.

Doesn't the Jedi Code have 4 precepts? I can't remember the line about chaos and harmony from the Star Wars Encyclopedia.--Ilovjedi 17:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we just redirect it tojedi, considering this text is just a copy of the text at jedi?-LtNOWIS 15:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• I think it could use its own article, but it needs more than a quotation. It should explain the development of the Jedi Code, it's role in the Jedi Order, and it's influences on the New Jedi Order. --SparqMan 16:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned up the Miscellaneous Tenets section, including deleting the idea that Jedi are celibate, which George Lucas hashimself debunked. ----Benkenobi84 17:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Do we want to mention that the code did not come into common usage until after Odan-Urr's death? Because I know that none of the Master's in the Tales of the Jedi series ever even mention the code and then in the Knights of the Old Republic games it is like the Ten Commandments of the Jedi written in stone that everyone follows. Maybe after Odan-Urr died and the war was over the Jedi started looking over his stuff, he was first and formost a scholar afterall so he must have left tones of writings, and they decided as a tribute to him to make this one of his works their code. I wonder if Nomi Sunrider didn't have something to do with it. We know that she was the leader of the Order after the Great Sith War and that the code became as big as it became during that time. --Kyp-Durron 20:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Kyp-Durron

Additional Code[]

The RotS video game has the following Jedi Code:

"A Jedi shall not know anger.A Jedi shall not know hatred.A Jedi shall not know love.There is no emotion, there is peace.There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.There is no passion, there is serenity.There is no death, there is the Force."

If you destroy the holograms, it becomes:

"A Jedi shall know anger.A Jedi shall hate.Knowledge is passion.Death is the Force."

Rules for Jedi Behavior[]

Taken from the Power of the Jedi book, think any of this should be added?

Rules for Jedi Behavior

• Following The Code
  • Self Discipline
    • Conquer Arrogance
    • Conquer Overconfidence
    • Conquer Defeatism
    • Conquer Stubbornness
    • Conquer Recklessness
    • Conquer Curiosity
    • Conquer Aggression
    • Conquer External Loyalties
    • Conquer Materialism
  • Responsibility
    • Practice Honesty
    • Honor Your Promise
    • Honor Your Padawan
    • Honor Your Master
    • Honor the Jedi Council
    • Honor the Jedi Order
    • Honor the Law
    • Honor Life
  • Public Service
    • Duty to the Republic
    • Render Aid
    • Defend the Weak
    • Provide Support

• Yeah, I think so.Grunny 06:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Is the discussion on whether Jedi were vegetarians relevant? Has this been mentioned in any source material?--Benkenobi84 04:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Image[]

I uploaded thisimage fromThe Official Star Wars Fact FileIssue 107.The hands appear to beOdan-Urr's? I was not sure where to place the image? ---Volemlock 09:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No, since it looks like the revised codeMoffRebus 17:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Btw I edited the image adding aurebesh to make it more in-universe... experimentally. Edit as you willMoffRebus 17:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem with the image, but is that from a canonical source? -TopAce 17:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Look beginning of the discussion. The aurebesh are my own editsMoffRebus 20:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

then it cannot be usedJedi Dude 21:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen anyone else objecting and nobody took the liberty to remove it. Oppinions?MoffRebus 21:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We should use the canonical version. As theCorporate Sector Authority logo attests, both the alphabet and the aurebesh are used in the Star Wars galaxy, and even if they didn't, we still shouldn't be modifying canon images.jSarek 01:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no chaos, there is harmony?[]

I've memurized the code by heart. and this precept of the code I ahve only seen in KOTOR.. is it Canon and if so why do they leave ito ut of most EU? (ex. I, Jedi. and Darth Maul Shadow Hunter)becaus they seem to skip that part in all other appirences and soruces i've seen. anyone have any idea as to why?Valin "Tnu" "Shido" Suul 11:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Allso it says that that pretence had stoped beign used in 20 BBY however Darth Maul: Shadow Hunter was in 35 BBY (I think)Valin "Tnu" "Shido" Suul 11:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

WHY was it stopped after 20 BBY? -69.249.85.13 03:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• This part of the code is canon, since it appears in a few sources so far, but I don't know why they stopped it, I think we should leave it as is now.

Demolitions Expert RC-1187^{Helmet Comlink andContribs}.

• I agree that it should be not be canon mostly because I have it tattooed to me in galactic basic without that line.Therufus 00:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)therufus

In real life, the code was originally the 4 line code. As far as I know, the original 4 line version was first printed in the 1980s Star Wars Roleplaying Game by West End Games (WEG) (although they may have gotten it from a novel, I don't know for certain). Every version since then had been the 4 line version. In 1996 WEG published the supplement to "Tales of the Jedi" which had the 5-line version. KOTOR also featured that version. Since then, the 4 line version has still appeared again, and it is the 4 line version that is shown on the official starwars.com site. I'm not sure why the five line version was placed in a few sources so long after the 4 line version had been around, and why it was used again after. My guess is that some writer somewhere simply liked it and tried to weasel it into what s/he was working on for no good reason. However, if we are to make some sense out of this, then I suppose since the 5-line version happened to appear in products taking place in the distant Star Wars past, then we should explain it away by saying the 5-line code was the ancient one, and at some point before the films, the chaos line was dropped. --66.64.26.92 16:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think that the addition of "chaos, yet harmony" is important because it really explains the point of the bendu symbol; it stresses the importance of the unification of the galaxy. Because of this, I really support the five-line version, as I have both the bendu symbol and the controversial five-line code as a tattoo on my side. --SammBendu 06:11, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article[]

I don't know how to do it since they have change the format of Wookieepedia but I think they should nomiate this page for Featured Article. Apotheoses Jedi 14:00 9 September 2007

The Force as a tool or as an ally?[]

For the last part of the "Public Service" section, the last sentence for "Provide Support" states, "Jedi should remember that they wielded the marvelous tool of the Force, and that they should be prepared to use it only for good." Weren't Jedi taught to remember that the Force was an ally not just some weapon, equipment, or tool?Cyfiero 05:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

dark jedi code[]

does anyone know where this is from?There is no peace, there is anger.

There is no fear, there is power.There is no death, there is immortality.There is no weakness, there is the Dark Side.I am the Heart of Darkness.I know no fear,But rather I instill it in my enemies.I am the destoyer of worlds.I know the power of the Dark Side.I am the fire of hate.All the Universe bows before me.I pledge myself to the Darkness.For I have found true life,In the death of the light.—Unsigned comment by71.198.202.6 (talk • contribs)

• I don't know where that is from, but it's obviouslyfanon.96.240.194.128 21:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• This is popularly considered the oath taken when a Sith becomes a Dark Lord. It followed the shorter form of the Sith Code, taking up right after "The Force Shall Set Me Free." Kind of like how the Jedi Code had a long form as well but was shortened.

Several Versions[]

Shouldn't all the versions be listed?Jedi Knight Zinquinthia25 02:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)it sounds famililer

There doesn't appear to be any source for the "original" version of the mantra not including negatives. None of the sourcebooks in the Odan-Urr article mention this, nor does there appear to be any information on it anywhere online that wasn't taken directly from this article. A citation is needed to support it's canonicity.Dzucker1 08:15, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there really needs to be some citation, especially for the "original" version. There's some drastic difference of meaning between it and Odan-Urr's version.Mori Behn-Aiki 22:35, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

This topic was kicked up in my community and a member of ours helpfully pointed me in the right direction. It's in The Tales of the Jedi Companion, page 140. --NovaZero (talk) 15:49, September 25, 2014 (UTC)

Crystal code?[]

Why was the Crystal removed? It's not fanon, it appears in the Clone Wars TV series. Perhaps the name isn't correct, but the code itself is. --Potato Jedi 13:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

3.1 Reverted vandalism[]

"While the Code did not mention a maximum age for taking Padawans, Jedi Master Simikarty wrote influential interpretations of the Code that inserted such limits; over time, his interpretations of the Code became conflated with the Code itself. In Revan's era, apprentices were taken from early childhood.Conversely, Nomi Sunrider started her training as an adult, as did the apprentices of the Jedi Exile and many of the New Jedi Order"

"A noob will not take revenge, such as Anakin did against the obi wan when he got raped*A Jedi does not cling to the past, such as Anakin did when he used bad memories like when Padmé was almost assassinated to keep his resolve to defeat Nute Gunray and the Confederacy of Independent Systems

1. The Jedi do not believe in killing their prisoners. "

98.83.22.241 06:42, November 26, 2010 (UTC)helper

Source of the Code[]

What I miss a little in the article is which author invented which instance of the code for which product. Does anyone know? I know the Odan-Urr version, and I think I know it from Knights of the Old Republic, but I don't think it was invented long before that, wasn't it?

The explanations of the Code[]

They're pretty dodgy. Some of the explanations are completely at odds to what I know about them, having understood and taught them for a decade. Is there any citation in these descriptions - are they from any official source? Thanks

- Agree on the "dodgy." I think a more elegant definition (perhaps for a more civilized age), would be to suggest that each couplet could most easily be understood if you inserted "when" after each comma. And the description could (perhaps, should) be left at that. Further description might illuminate some interpretations while eclipsing a multitude of other (just as valid) interpretations, of what is (clearly?) supposed to be an enigmatic saying. The Jedi don't qualify the Code in that way -- hence the "when" being left out -- because (1) they are asserting that the code represents reality, and (2) they believe themselves to be living exemplars of the Code; to assert those two points is often the purpose of their reciting it. So they leave out the "when." But for the rest of us, I believe it can best be described in that way.

Cleanup tag[]

Hello there, I placed the cleanup tag for the Misc. tenets section. It features unsourced information, much of which seems to be speculation.Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 19:12, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Mistranslated[]

The original tenet was mistranslated by Odan-Urr.This:Emotion, yet peace.Ignorance, yet knowledge.Passion, yet serenity.Chaos, yet harmony.Death, yet the Force.

means that:There IS emotion but peace must be maintained,There IS ignorance but knowledge must be seeked,There IS passion but must aid the path to serenity,There IS chaos, BUT harmony can be achieved,There IS death, but this results in becoming onewith the force...

This translation:There is no emotion, there is peace.There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.There is no passion, there is serenity.(There is no chaos, there is harmony.)(*)There is no death, there is the Force.—The Jedi Code (Based on the meditations of Odan-Urr) "

IS CRAP. They do not mean the same... the second one is warped.

tnx

--46.11.28.7 09:06, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

• Please remember that the purpose of a talk page is "discussion relating to changes to the article," not "discussionabout the topic in question." As far as we can tell, Odan-Urr's interpretation iscanon, while assumptions such as the one you're making arefanon andoriginal research. Thanks. --LelalMekha (talk) 09:14, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Article's historical inaccuracy[]

When the article says, in the initial summary,"Although changing in style through the generations, the main tenets, context and meaning of the code stayed the same.", it is a factually incorrect statement, as when Urr changed all five from the implication of existence (positive, or "1") to lack thereof (negative, or "0"), he literally eliminated a full half of the code; the half incidentally embraced, to the perfectly equal detriment of their own side's beliefs, by their 'lost brethren'. Not only the ancient history of their joined origins on Tython, but also the mindset of countless "normal" galactic denizens, bears out the basis for the perception in the latter's eyes that the Jedi and Sith are ultimatelythe same people, whether violently split in two or not. What does this have to do with the article? Quite simply, Odan-Urr's change may indeed be a canonical event, but it was also an enormous departure from the "tenants, context and meaning" of what originally preceded it. And given that as the case, I for one am soon going to begin editing the page with mind to provide a more historically accurate view: that ancient Je'daii believed quite differently than what the "light side extremists" of the comparative present do. --ChrisK (talk) 15:45, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

Contradictions between versions of the Code[]

It would appear that the original code and Odan-Urr's version have significantly different meanings; it is surprising that the (rather obvious) contradictions between the two are not discussed at all in the article. Has anything ever been written about this?

Alternate Versions of the Jedi Code:[]

Version used at Luke Skywalker's Jedi Praxeum circa 22 ABY:"A Jedi's promise must be the most serious, the deepest of his or her life.A Jedi seeks not adventure or excitement, for a Jedi is passive, calm, and at peace.A Jedi knows that anger, fear, and aggression lead to the dark side.A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack.There is no 'try,' only 'do.'Believe and you succeed.Above all else, know that control of the Force comes only from concentration and training."

Source:Junior Jedi Knights: The Golden Globe, Chapter 5 (also repeated in Chapter 16).

Another version:"There is no emotion; there is peace.There is no ignorance; there is knowledge.There is no passion; There is serenity.There is no death; there is only the Force.A Jedi does not act for personal power or wealth but seeks knowledge and enlightenment.A Jedi never acts from hatred, anger, fear, or aggression but acts when calm and at peace with the Force.Jedi are the guardians of peace in the galaxy.Jedi use the powers to defend and to protect, never to attack others.Jedi respect life, in any form.Jedi serve others rather than ruling over them, for the good of the galaxy.Jedi seek to improve themselves through knowledge and training."

Source:Star Wars Fandex Deluxe Edition, page 74.--Roguish Knight (talk) 00:54, December 31, 2018 (UTC)

• Be bold in updating pages --Lewisr (talk) 01:04, December 31, 2018 (UTC)

I would, but "this page has been protected to prevent editing", so I put the info here. --Roguish Knight (talk) 01:11, December 31, 2018 (UTC)

• Does it not let you post your edits? Sometimes it says that because only registered users can make edits. But it depends on the level of protection on the page --Lewisr (talk) 01:16, December 31, 2018 (UTC)
  • Looks like the reason stated on the Miss Star Wars page applies here too 'User accounts must have been registered for at least three days to be able to edit semi-protected pages across the Wikia platform' --Lewisr (talk) 01:24, December 31, 2018 (UTC)

The "yet" version isn't older[]

Sincealmost the first revision, this page has claimed that the "yet" version of the Code is the original, and that Odan-Urr "refined" it into the better known "no" version. Given how long the article has said this, and some of the messages on this talk page, I feel the need to explain why I changed it.

First off, the reason I edited the article at all was because theprevious version attributed the "yet" version to Homonix Rectonia, citing The Jedi Path. With apologies toGoodmind, this is totally wrong. TJP contains the 5-line, "no" version of the Code, and explicitly calls this the "classical form, as transcribed by Homonix Rectonia during the early Manderon Period."

Researching where the "yet" version actually came from led me to the Tales of the Jedi Companion. That book gives no explanation of why the Code is different, and, as far as I can tell, it's the only place this version of the Code is mentioned. Every other appearance of the Jedi Code either gives the "no" version (with or without the "harmony" line), or it says something completely different, like Junior Jedi Knights or the Jedi Academy Training Manual.

So why do people think the "yet" version came first? The most likely explanation is mentionedabove. The Jedi Code was originally introduced by the West End Games RPG, which was designed for campaigns around the time of the OT. The TotJ Companion was designed for the same period as the comic, around 4000 years earlier. The natural conclusion was that the TotJ version was older.

This doesn't hold up anymore, though. KotOR contains the "no" version of the Code (albeit borrowing the "harmony" precept from the "yet" version), but takes place only 30 years after TotJ ends, making the two versions roughly contemporary. Further, as mentioned above, The Jedi Path dates the KotOR version to the early Manderon Period, so 3000 years before TotJ. You could explain TJP away as Fae Coven getting her facts wrong, or even outright lying in order to conceal the older version of the Code, but the Book of Sith contains the handwritten chronicle of Sorzus Syn, who lived in the early Manderon Period. She quotes the "no" version of the Code, citing the "common edition of the Codex of Master Simikarty," meaning it likely dates back to the late Subterra period, if not earlier. Even the Je'daii Code, dating back to before the Republic, contains the line "There is no ignorance; there is knowledge." If the "yet" version of the Code is older, I haven't seen any evidence for it.Dodopod (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)