OK, at work, and can't expound in tens of thousands of words on the "no attachment" but... gah I co-wrote a long, porny thing post TPM that dove into this issue. If you're a species that lays eggs and leaves young to fend for themselves (reptiles, amphibians, fish), or if you are a species that pretty cleanly separates reproduction from raising offspring or that doesn't form permanent pair-bonds, you can see how this might arise and even make sense -- it's no big deal. But for other species, it is surely completely counter. And the idea of duty to the galaxy and everything in it coming before your own bondmate, clan, or offspring, yes, I can see that. But it just doesn't make sense to have this across the board requirement for all species when biologically and culturally, practices would vary so widely.

It's going to cause problems and... this is where my issues with both the EU/Legends and NT come up -- I thought the crystal clear message of the prequels was this no attachment was a terrible idea and that a big point of the OT was Luke demonstrating just how wrong it was -- that his attachments, his love and trust for his friends and family, are what, ultimately saves everything. And so I'd assumed that what we would/should have gotten was a reborn Order that recognized that the Jedi hermetic existence was deeply misguided, unnatural, and not supported by any notion of the living Force. I mean, life creates it, right?

Instead, welp. Nope.

OK back to RL