# Darth Vader: Alignment



## Felix (Jul 25, 2007)

This discussion began as a talk about the alignment of Harry Potter characters. Cameron suggests that Voldemort is CE because he kills people who displease him. I point out that Darth Vader, someone I thought clearly to be Lawful Evil, kills people who displease him all the time. To my suprise, Cameron retorts that Vader is not Lawful.

Here's the conversation to this point:



*Cameron*
He (Lord Voldemort) is practically classic CE, to be honest, killing people that displease him, doing what he likes without regard for Good or Evil, etc.​
*Felix*
"He's as clumsy as he is stupid."
    ...
    "Ah, Lord Vader, the fleet has moved out of lightspeed and we're preparing to---aaagh!"
    "You have failed me for the last time Admiral."

    "Apology accepted, Captain Needa."

    "If this is a Conuslar's ship then where is the Ambassador?"

    "He's no good to me dead."
    "He will not be permanently damaged."
    ...
    "What if he doesn't survive? He's worth a lot to me."
    "The empire will compensate you, if he dies."

    "You do not know the power of the Dark Side. I must obey my master."

    "We can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy!"​

Killing people that displease you is not monopolized by Chaotic Evil.​
*Cameron*
Vader is Anakin, and Anakin was Chaotic as all heck. And a whinger to boot. He is only kept in line by Palpatine's Dark Side mastery. Hence the "You do not know the power of the Dark Side. I must obey my master." quote.​
*Felix*
There was a reason all those quotes were from the first Star Wars movies. Lord Darth Vader was Lawful, and no amount of hack George "Morality Revising Greedo-Shoots-First" Lucas should change that.​
*Cameron*
Even before the second trilogy came out, Vader was portrayed as having violated his Jedi creed, and that it was his impatience and impetuousness that got him nailed by Palpy. He was basically a Chaotic person in a Lawful tradition and that was why he fell (it was less a Good vs Evil thing, more of a Law vs Chaos thing).​
*Felix*
And betrayal is always and everywhere a Chaotic trait? So what have all those Baatezu been doing all this time schemeing and betraying each other for?

Exactly what evidence from the first three movies are you thinking about here?

Admiting the prequils, you allow that Ani was turned from Good to Evil, but can't accept a shift from Chaotic to Lawful? Uh, why?​
*Cameron*
Impatience and impetuousness are Chaotic traits, not betrayal. Betrayal without regret is Evil.

Didn't Yoda remind Kenobi about it when they were discussing Luke's training?

The last paragraph makes no sense. Please reiterate in a different manner.​
------

I hope that catches you all up.

To answer Cameron, you requested I clarify this paragraph:
Admiting the prequils, you allow that Ani was turned from Good to Evil, but can't accept a shift from Chaotic to Lawful? Uh, why?​
I don't disagree that Anikin was Good or that his alignment was twisted to Evil by Palpatine. I also agree that he was capricious as a child and a young man. However, Darth Vader's actions in Star Wars Episodes IV to VI show, I believe, very lawful behavior. So if you allow that it is possible that Palpatine perverts Anikin from Good to Evil, would you not also allow the possibility that his alignment may also have changed to Lawful? 

Does this clarify my question?

I used Darth Vader to show that killing subordinates may easily be done by Lawful Evil characters, so my point isn't concerned about what the Ani of Episodes I to III was like (disregarding the moral revisionist tendancies of George Lucas).

So, folks: Darth Vader. The original trilogy. He's Evil. Is he Lawful?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 25, 2007)

He's trying to RULE the galaxy. To impose the will of the Sith, as an organization, upon all of known space. 

I think he stopped being Chaotic or even Neutral by the time Padme was killed. He lost himself, and lived only for his master, and his dark side...he lived to serve. Subservience to a higher authority. Talk of high and low, ruling, being the head of organizations...all very lawful.

When Luke brought him back from Evil, he brought him back from Law, too. He was a one-man uprising, suddenly very aware of his personal needs and obligations, of his individual wants and desires. 

But the original saga, at least, is strongly anti-authoritarian in tone, and so is quite pro-Chaos itself.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jul 25, 2007)

I think he is Neutral evil or chaotic evil.  He does not care for the law.  I think he was chaotic evil during the revenge of the sith but moved to neutral evil during the whole of the last trilogy.


----------



## LoneWolf23 (Jul 25, 2007)

Definetly.  He's essentially the Emperor's Mailed Fist.  He acts to enforce Palpatine's will, and to fell his enemies.  Note that he only kills when it serves the Empire...  ...And yes, that includes his random killing of underlings.  Removal of worthless underlings, allowing better ones to take their place, can only benefit the Empire.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 25, 2007)

I think he's lawful, because he clearly is comfortable existing in a hierarchy.

He has people below him, and people above him and he takes orders (such as his obvious deference to Tarkin in the first film). 

I also think his power plays WITHIN that organization (trying to off the Emperor and take his place) are consistent with my understanding of a LE alignment.

Also, turning to the first trilogy, if you listen to what the adult Anakin says, it seems consistent with this. He thinks the Senate is too noisy, too inefficient, too corrupt.

He thinks one man, a powerful man, should have all the authority to govern.

Again, this seems perfectly Lawful to me. The fact that he thinks that the most powerful man should rule, and rule with absolute ruthlessness, is where the evil comes in.

CHuck


----------



## Umbran (Jul 25, 2007)

The Dark Side, in general, is not lawful.  It is quite explicitly about giving into emotion, letting go of constraint.  

Don't confuse the alignment of the Empire with the alignment of those at the helm - the Empire is lawful, but Palpatine and Vader are above the law.


----------



## Thurbane (Jul 25, 2007)

I think his allegiance to the Emperor, desire for universal order, and willingness to use any force he deems necessary to achieve his goals all point to Lawful Evil.


----------



## Felix (Jul 25, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> The Dark Side, in general, is not lawful.  It is quite explicitly about giving into emotion, letting go of constraint.
> 
> Don't confuse the alignment of the Empire with the alignment of those at the helm - the Empire is lawful, but Palpatine and Vader are above the law.



Can Lawful people not put themselves above the Law?

Also:

Together we can end this destructive conflict... bring order to the galaxy... rule the galaxy as father and son!

Sounds lawful to me. *shrug*


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 25, 2007)

Anakin in Episode III becomes textbook lawful evil by the end of the film. Not so sure about Vader in Ep IV-VI though. Think his alignment is 'pulp villain'.


----------



## Thurbane (Jul 25, 2007)

In some ways I think the Sith/Jedi divide is as much about Law and Chaos as it is about Good and Evil...


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jul 25, 2007)

Lawful evil based on his behavior in the original trilogy.

As for "Ani". 1) he is a kid and then a teen in the second trilogy. Is it really that surprising that he was more chaotic in his youth than as a powerful warlord type? 2) I'm skeptical of his goodness. He was a kid, he loved his mommy, he loved Padme, he admired and rebelled against his teacher... What did he actually do that points to a Good alignment rather than benign and well aimed neutrality?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 25, 2007)

Chaotic people can support folks they care about, or from whom they have something to gain.  I see no sign that Vader is loyal to the _office_ of the Emperor - at best, he's loyal to the person of Palpatine.  At worst, he follows because Palpatine can kick his half-robotic butt, and at the same time is the only source of greater power.

The "rule the galaxy together" line, in fact, stands as evidence that he is not loyal at all - he's ready and willing to kill of the Emperor when he gets enough power to do so.  That's not Lawful.  

Note that - the Sith are about _personal_ power.  That's putting the desires of the individual above the needs of the many.  They do away with the Senate - thus removing any semblance of them being bound by any law themselves.  Sorry, none of this suggests Lawful people to me.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 25, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> The Dark Side, in general, is not lawful.  It is quite explicitly about giving into emotion, letting go of constraint.
> 
> Don't confuse the alignment of the Empire with the alignment of those at the helm - the Empire is lawful, but Palpatine and Vader are above the law.




I disagree. I think Palpatine is the FOUNTAIN of law in the medieval sense, which is perfect since SW is fantasy anyway. 

How can the source of law break the law? 

Also, even if the Emperor is CE, Vader is still following orders and obeying hierarchy, both of Palpatine and of Tarkin. 

But I'd say both Palpatine and Vader are LE, living lives as regimented as the Jedi, while thinking their power gives them the right to rule.


----------



## HellHound (Jul 25, 2007)

I'm with Umbran here. They feel they are above the law, betraying whoever the need to to get what they want. That is Chaotic.

Creating law does not make one lawful.

I for one LOVE law and order and making people follow them. But at the same time, I cannot stand being constrained by such laws. That's why I like being an admin over at CM - I get to impose law, and break it as I like.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 25, 2007)

I agree with Umbran entirely. Obedience does not automatically equal lawful. And yes, it's entirely possible for the head of a relatively lawful government not to be lawful himself.

And yes, the dark side is all about giving in to emotion, anger in particular.

And I'll add one other example:

"I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further."

_Not_ a lawful attitude, however you slice it.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jul 25, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> In some ways I think the Sith/Jedi divide is as much about Law and Chaos as it is about Good and Evil...



Which one is which?

There are always two Sith, divided as master and apprentice. The only ones we have seen lead structured, disciplined lives.

On the other hand we have "trust your instincts", "Trust your feelings", truth through leaps of insight... Jedi have the whole meditative monkish lawfulness going on, but at the same time seem a little too "free your mind"-ish for me to rule out their chaotic side. (neutrality through duality rather than balance or apathy?)


----------



## Grue (Jul 25, 2007)

Definitely CE.  Original or prequel he could care less about order as it applies to _him_.  The only order he's going to impose on the universe is his whim, he absolutely knows the Emperor took power under false pretenses (and thusly is totally illegitimate), he has no loyalty either to his supposed liege or to his subordinates.

Lucas makes it very clear the core of Vader is fear and hate (and that's the Emperor's lever to control him).  To be neutral, he'd have to display some lawful traits... from his behavior with Tarkin, breaking the deal with Lando, and how he turned to the dark side I really don't think he has any.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 25, 2007)

> The "rule the galaxy together" line, in fact, stands as evidence that he is not loyal at all - he's ready and willing to kill of the Emperor when he gets enough power to do so. That's not Lawful.




Loyalty or lack thereof doesn't hinge lawfulness. Or are Baatezu suddenly bastions of loyal behavior?  



> Note that - the Sith are about personal power. That's putting the desires of the individual above the needs of the many. They do away with the Senate - thus removing any semblance of them being bound by any law themselves. Sorry, none of this suggests Lawful people to me.




I'll tentatively agree that the Sith Code would lean toward Chaos.

However, the way that both Vader and Palpatine in the original trilogy act implies that they want to RULE the galaxy with a highly organized cadre of sychophantic troops through their own personal government, the Empire.

All of that is entirely lawful.

Any Stormtrooper could just as easily be a Formian or a Modron marching to the beat of their ultimate commander, establishing ORDER.

Just because they use hate and fear and aggression and emotional turmoil to their advantage doesn't make them chaotic. They *use* those emotions to establish control of others' action, unifying the galaxy under a singular, monolithic entity. In the same way that a Devil may take advantage of an emotionally distraught widow to cause her to make a pact to get her husband back, or how fear is controlled by causing those fleeing combat to escape through passes defended with merciless traps. 

Emotions aren't necessarily chaotic, though controlling them is certainly Lawful. Vader and Palpatine and the rest of the Sith unleash their emotions, but in a controlled, focused, determined effort, not at the whims and vagaries of Chaos. 

That's all law, baby.


----------



## LoneWolf23 (Jul 25, 2007)

Lawful Evil doesn't mean a character can't be selfish and duplicitous.  Just look at how Palpatine took over the Republic in the prequals..   Not through random violence or through a violent coup, but by slowly infiltrating the Republic's inner workings, manipulating pawns to arrange a crisis so he could *lawfully* come to power, then manipulate the system to rid himself of the Jedi, and grant himself supreme power, turning the Republic into the Empire.

Vader is no different.  At first, he's little more then Palpatine's living weapon, his personal enforcer.  He obeys his orders, follows protocol, and executes his orders to the letter.

"But what about his planned betrayal?" you ask...  Simple.  It's part of the Rules of the Sith.  "Always Two there are: the Master and the Apprentice".  In Vader, Luke had found his potential Apprentice.  Which made Vader the Master.  ...Which made Palpatine superfluous.  So, really, he was just following the rules.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Jul 25, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Also, turning to the first trilogy, if you listen to what the adult Anakin says, it seems consistent with this. He thinks the Senate is too noisy, too inefficient, too corrupt.
> 
> He thinks one man, a powerful man, should have all the authority to govern.



Actually, he goes one step further on the Lawful axis: he actually says the various people should be _made to agree_, not simply obey.

Even when he was Anakin, Vader was more Lawful than Chaotic.


----------



## VictorC (Jul 25, 2007)

I would have to say Vader was Nutral Evil. He was willing to serve the emperor until the thought of ruling the universe with his son tempted him. Had luke agreed the emperor would have been overthrown by his apprentice. However if I had to pick an alignment for Anikin it would have to be something like sissy little girl.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jul 25, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I agree with Umbran entirely. Obedience does not automatically equal lawful. And yes, it's entirely possible for the head of a relatively lawful government not to be lawful himself.
> 
> And yes, the dark side is all about giving in to emotion, anger in particular.
> 
> ...



Of course, lack of a lawful attitude does not indicate a chaotic one.  I'm of the opinion that a creed of pure self-interest is neutral evil, and that you have to actually want to dismantle organization and tradition in order to qualify as chaotic.  Vader made great use of the lawful nature of the Empire to suit his purposes, but he wasn't particularly concerned with keeping it lawful, beyond the needs of expediency.  It's much easier to rule a lawful empire than a chaotic one, after all.  But he breaks his deals, plots to betray his emperor, and generally flaunts the rules.  He doesn't show any strong leanings in either direction.  He's just evil.


----------



## KingCrab (Jul 25, 2007)

This argument goes to show once again that alignment doesn't make sense and should be dropped.  You can look at the same people in different ways and come to very different conclusions.  

However, if I had to pick, I'd say LE all the way!


----------



## Creeping Death (Jul 25, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Which one is which?
> 
> There are always two Sith, divided as master and apprentice. The only ones we have seen lead structured, disciplined lives.
> 
> On the other hand we have "trust your instincts", "Trust your feelings", truth through leaps of insight... Jedi have the whole meditative monkish lawfulness going on, but at the same time seem a little too "free your mind"-ish for me to rule out their chaotic side. (neutrality through duality rather than balance or apathy?)




Until the apprentice becomes strong enough to kill his master and then take his place.  That is how the tanari rule in the abyss; might makes right.  Either Vader becomes strong enough to kill the emporer or the emporer kills vader before it happens.  It's very chaotic.

While the jedi "trust in their feelings" there is a code that must be followed.  There is a method, a way of deciding, who becomes a knight, and who becomes a Jedi Master.  Lawful.


----------



## Wik (Jul 25, 2007)

Neutral evil.  He's not really all that chaotic, but he is more than willing to break rules and over rule the power structure to get what he wants (after all, how many times has he killed his own underlings on a whim?)


----------



## robberbaron (Jul 25, 2007)

Darth Vader = Lawful Evil. He does the Emperor's bidding (Emp's NE) without question, right up to the end. The Evil bit is killing anyone who gets in the way of him completing his mission.
Mind you, he was definitely at least Neutral Evil (maybe CN) when he fell under Palpatine's 'spell' and started stepping off the Lawful Jedi path.

Voldemort = Chaotic Evil. He kills indiscrimately and has no friends. He trusts no-one and no-one trusts him.


----------



## Treebore (Jul 25, 2007)

Being Lawful does not mean you will never act Chaotic. Being good does not mean you can never do evil acts.

In other words, no one is perfect, everyone makes mistakes.

I say Darth Vader is Neutral Evil. He is all about what he wants, not what Padme wants, not what his son wants, not even about what his mother wanted. He killed many Jedi, and Jedi children because what what he wanted was what was most important to him.

He served those who gave him what he wanted, even if it was just to stay alive. Which is why he served the emperor, but desired to overthrow him.

He wasn't very Chaotic, because he tolerated the yoke of the Emperor for a very long time.

His redemption was significant because he finally put the life of his son before his own. The first seriously unselfish act he ever did. Every other unselfish act was to pay a price to get something he wanted more, such as to be trained in the ways of the force.

He did things that were chaotic, he did things that were good, he did things that were lawful, he did things that were horribly evil, but they were all done to get him what he wanted. Neutral Evil, overall.


----------



## Treebore (Jul 25, 2007)

Oh yeah, bringing order to the Galaxy was Palpatine's Schtick. Darth Vader just mouthed it to be a good lackey.

All Vader cared about was that he wanted to be the boss. Who knows what he would have done if he had gotten there.

Probably allow the Empire to fragment, since he was no where near the manipulator Palpatine was.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Jul 25, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, bringing order to the Galaxy was Palpatine's Schtick. Darth Vader just mouthed it to be a good lackey.



In the same speech where he proposed overthrowing the Emperor so they could rule the galaxy as father and son?  Uh-huh.  Sure.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 25, 2007)

Vegepygmy said:
			
		

> In the same speech where he proposed overthrowing the Emperor so they could rule the galaxy as father and son?  Uh-huh.  Sure.




Can we be sure, though, that he meant it? Vader's got a habit of making promises, or using deceit, to get what he wants.

Again, I point you to his "deal" with Lando. But for other examples, consider that it was (at least by implication) Vader's idea to let the Falcon escape the Death Star, with the homing beacon hidden within.

Sure, it's _possible_ that he really felt he could "bring order to the Galaxy." But it would be a mistake to assume he meant what he said at face value.

And actually, Treebore's convinced me with his other arguments. If I could change my vote, I'd shift it from CE to NE.

(Well, he's convinced me so far as is possible when trying to apply the D&D alignment system where it clearly doesn't apply. That is, anywhere but D&D. )


----------



## blargney the second (Jul 25, 2007)

Neutral Evil.  Darth Vader uses law and chaos in equal measure to serve his evilness.


----------



## Treebore (Jul 25, 2007)

Vegepygmy said:
			
		

> In the same speech where he proposed overthrowing the Emperor so they could rule the galaxy as father and son?  Uh-huh.  Sure.





How does that mean he would maintain law and order? Vader just wanted to be the big boss. He was chafing under the oppressive thumb of Palpatine. He just wanted to run things his way.

Don't get me wrong, I see the arguments for lawful evil, etc... I'm just convinced that at the bottom of everything his key motivations and reasonings were based around selfishness. What gave him what he wanted? What made him happy? What did he feel he deserved? When did he think he should have it by?

It was his selfishness that Palpatine used to turn him.

He didn't even love Padme more than he loved himself, otherwise he would have trusted her, or at least give her the benefit of the doubt. But no, she wasn't doing things the way he wanted them, so he declared her a traitor to his love and hurt her. Padme killed herself more than Vader did. She could have lived, if she wanted to. Ultimately she was pretty selfish too. She wasn't even willing to live to raise her children. Her "broken heart" is what killed her.


Still, like I said, I can see the "lawful" side of things, "chaotic" side of things, but ultimately everything he did was to give himself what he wanted.

Like Blargney says, law and chaos were used as tools to achieve his own ends.

The same could be argued for Palpatine, but I think his ultimate goal was "lawful order" administered by him.

Vader just wanted it all for himself. He may have tried to maintain a lawfully ordered empire, but he was nowhere near the tremendously effective manipulator Palpatine was.

So when control of the empire would have started to crumble he would have resorted to his own powers of intimidation and fear to control what he could. It would have been a relatively small part of the Empire in comparison to what Palpatine weaved together his control of.


Who knows? Maybe Vader paid more attention to Palpatines methods fo controlling the Empire than I give him credit for.

Still, he would only appear lawful because that would be the ost effective way for him to maintain the pwoer and control he wanted for himself. Not due to a genuine commitment to law. Just the fact that its an effective technique for maintaining control over something as vast as the Empire.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jul 25, 2007)

Maybe in a galaxy ruled by Jedis, being a Jedi is rather lawful and being a Sith is rather chaotic.

But once the Sith take over the galaxy, it could become just the other way around...


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 25, 2007)

Defintetly LE and you could really see it coming when he insisted Palpatine be allowed to stand trial when Mace decided to execute him in Episode III.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 25, 2007)

Lawful Evil.

He's all about imposing his will on the universe. He looks to Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan and Palpatine as authority figures. He yearns for a mentor that recognizes his prodigious powers. He seeks power to keep people he love from dying, from stopping the chaos of the universe. He wants to bypass debate and favors a heavy-handed dictatorship (enlightened, at first). He turns on the Jedi when Palpatine convinces him that the Order has become corrupted.

The fact that he disposes of underlings that displease him doesn't make him any less Lawful. He IS the Law.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jul 25, 2007)

Creeping Death said:
			
		

> Until the apprentice becomes strong enough to kill his master and then take his place.  That is how the tanari rule in the abyss; might makes right.  Either Vader becomes strong enough to kill the emporer or the emporer kills vader before it happens.  It's very chaotic.



How so? There is a clear chain of command, and a straight forward way of altering it. The fact that the method of apprentice replacing master is violent and makes the master no longer exist in no way makes it chaotic. It's a violent lawful system

The Jedi had law and structure when they were big enough to need it. They went to a one on one mentorship and self promotion when decimated. The Sith had the same structure when they skulked in the shadows as when they ruled the galaxy. The fact that one structure is based on violence and "there can be only two" and the other (less fundemental) structure was a meritocracy doesn't make the meritocracy more lawful.


----------



## schporto (Jul 25, 2007)

Who says he's evil?  I mean really he's just doing what's best for the entire republic right?  That's the greater good here.  This rebellion is causing a lot of fighting and strife.  Everything would be better if it was ruled directly by one person - the Emperor.  Who are we to question him?  Just because he wears black doesn't make him evil.  And as for all those 'random' people he killed - they were evil.  They were after power and advancement and not really after helping the empire.  Not only that but most of them weren't even believers in the power of the force.  Heretics I say, heretics!
I mean cripes, just because he wears black and wields a red lightsaber you all think he must be evil.  Yeesh.  Vader is the good guy, the evil monarchy (Princess Leia anyone?) comes back to power, overthrowing the good Republic (hello, that means democracy!), killing the strongest hero and the lawful and legally appointed leader of the Republic.  Luke is the evil one.  I mean heck he's wearing black by the end....
(all meant with tongue in cheek to point out that alignments are fairly fickle...)
-cpd


----------



## HellHound (Jul 25, 2007)

IMO, Doing evil for the greater good still makes you evil. The ends do not justify the means in the alignment system.


----------



## hexgrid (Jul 25, 2007)

I think that if Vader, despite the obvious lawful-evil trappings of the empire he represents, can't be classified as Lawful Evil, no one can. 

It shouldn't be any deeper than that. If you over think the alignment system, you can pretty much assign any alignment to anyone you want.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Jul 25, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Maybe in a galaxy ruled by Jedis, being a Jedi is rather lawful and being a Sith is rather chaotic.
> 
> But once the Sith take over the galaxy, it could become just the other way around...





Yup. The rebels who take power become the establishment, in time. That's just the way people work.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 25, 2007)

I said LE but now I'm thinking NE is much more in line.   As others said, he cared about law as long as it served him.  He was totally selfish and only served the Emperor to gain more power at which point he would kill him.  He didn't honor anything except that which gave him power and then he honored it until he could supplant it or toss it aside.


----------



## Moorcrys (Jul 25, 2007)

Vader didn't kill on a whim... he killed underlings who failed him, and he killed rebels who defied him. He never went out of his way to kill innocent people that were inconvenient or off the cuff (as Voldemort in the Potter series did, often). When he was angry, he didn't lash out at people randomly -- he killed those who were responsible for failure and moved on. Seems like a classic example of someone clearing out the ranks of incompetents so that more able people down the heirarchy chain can move up. 

Sure he altered the bargain on cloud city with Lando, but why was their a bargain at all? Why did he allow the operation continue in any case and presume to let Lando keep running it as long as he did as he was told? Because it was useful to the Empire, not to Vader personally. Once he had Solo and the others, why didn't he just shut the place down or kill them all, or any of them? Luke would have come anyway, he only needed one alive really...   He doesn't seem like someone who got off on random violence and bullying the weak... he had a purpose and worked within an established system to fulfill that purpose. Any deviation or failure to help him achieve what he needed to achieve brought on threats and death. And Vader had no problem leaving the chase in the asteroid field when the Emperor wanted to speak with him... his emotions and individual desires weren't winning over in the heat of that chase, and really never won over in any other moment of the original trilogy until Luke's impending death by the Emperor moved him to save his son. He's even excited to turn his daughter over to the Emperor so that she can serve the Dark Side. Look at how he interacted with Admiral Piett in the original trilogy. He promoted him over an incompetent superior and though he threatened him, allowed him significant 'failures' and never killed him. Look at how he deals with the heroes escaping at the end of Empire... no raging or killing on the bridge of his star destroyer. Plan failed, but seeds sown. Move on to next plan. Very Lawful Evil if you ask me.

I think one of the big themes Lucas was dealing with was the idea of machines versus man... Vader crossed the line from living, emotional person into a cold, calculating machine over the course of the prequel trilogy. So says Obi Wan... I'd go for an intentional lawful evil type, which doesn't mean of course he can't have chaotic moments. He's overwhelmingly a product of the Empire he helped to build... he's not above the law, he is the law.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Jul 25, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> How does that mean he would maintain law and order? Vader just wanted to be the big boss. He was chafing under the oppressive thumb of Palpatine. He just wanted to run things his way.



You misunderstand me.  My comment was directed at Vader being a "good lackey."  Good lackeys don't plot to overthrow their masters.

But in any case, yes, Vader wanted to run things his way...his way being Lawful, of course.  As I mentioned before, even when he was Anakin, he felt very strongly that the government was too Chaotic, and needed to be forced into Order.

(All of this keeping in mind that Mouseferatu is absolutely right: alignment doesn't actually apply to Star Wars, so this debate is mostly ridiculous.)


----------



## Slife (Jul 25, 2007)

True neutral - under a compulsion


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 25, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Defintetly LE and you could really see it coming when he insisted Palpatine be allowed to stand trial when Mace decided to execute him in Episode III.




Bwah? He wanted Palpatine spared so he could save Padme; no other reason than that. Selfish, not lawful or chaotic.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jul 25, 2007)

Vegepygmy said:
			
		

> In the same speech where he proposed overthrowing the Emperor so they could rule the galaxy as father and son?  Uh-huh.  Sure.



What's wanting to rule got to do with being lawful or chaotic?  A lawful evil ruler is a tyrant, and a chaotic evil ruler is a warlord.


----------



## hexgrid (Jul 25, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Selfish, not lawful or chaotic.




How does selfishness preclude lawful or chaotic? Are devils and demons selfless?

And do a couple of isolated events really trump life-long participation in a highly militarized, tyrannical government? 

Occam's razor argues for Lawful Evil.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 25, 2007)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> How does selfishness preclude lawful or chaotic? Are devils and demons selfless?




It doesn't. My point was that _that particular action_ did not lend itself to interpretation one way or the other.


----------



## Treebore (Jul 25, 2007)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> I think that if Vader, despite the obvious lawful-evil trappings of the empire he represents, can't be classified as Lawful Evil, no one can.
> 
> It shouldn't be any deeper than that. If you over think the alignment system, you can pretty much assign any alignment to anyone you want.





Actually, yes, you should be able to. No one is 100% on all the time. People are moody. They may be a certain way most of the time, but everyone gets chaotic and crazy once in a while. People don't always do the right thing or wrong thing. 

So no one is a specific alignment all the time. Alignment is more a "generalization" of most of someones behaviour and beliefs.

Where people insist on being a specific alignment at all times is where it gets rediculous.


----------



## Cameron (Jul 25, 2007)

First off, let me say this:

The OP indulged in selective C&P. That was not *all* I said in the first post. He selectively C&P to make his argument sound better.


Now, on to the debate. The OP brought up demons and devils. Nice application of emotional demogaugery there. A bit transparent, but good try. As I said, that is not all I posted in my first post, and that bit of underhanded tactic lent the demons and devils argument far more creedence than it really has.

My stance was that Vader was Chaotic because he could not conform to the lawful Jedi. He gave in to his emotions and it was his impetuousness and emotional rampages that made him fall. Random betrayals because he felt angry and needed to lash out is chaotic behaviour. That is what he did to Padme right at the end.

Selfishness is not a trait of law or chaos. It is a trait of evil. Overthrowing tradition, emotional behaviour, etc., is chaotic.

Just because Vader tolerated Palpy is not a reason to claim he is lawful. Remember that Orcs are Chaotic Evil, and they are described as following the "strongest rule" form of government (this form of government is also described as CE in the DMG). Vader wasn't in the position to challenge Palpy because Palpy was stronger than him or had control over him via the Dark Side (which was one of the quotes the OP listed). He itched to kick Palpy in the nuts, though, to take over, and he would have, except for the pesky power thing. That is how CE governmental bodies work as described by the DMG. That is also classic CE behaviour as described by the PHB.

Just because someone used the Law occasionally is not reason to believe he *believes* in the Law, which is the true sign of lawful behaviour. Vader did not believe in the law, unless he is the law. Most of the Empire's troops were like that (Palleon and that Bakuran guy, Thanas?, were the exceptions, not the rule). They looted, murdered, enslaved, etc., at will across the galaxy, even though, I am sure, if you went and murdered someone, you'd be thrown in a room with 3 walls and bars for violating the law. That is unlawful behaviour.


----------



## Felix (Jul 25, 2007)

Cameron said:
			
		

> First off, let me say this:
> 
> The OP indulged in selective C&P. That was not *all* I said in the first post. He selectively C&P to make his argument sound better.



Or I cut and paste according to which parts of your posts I was responding to in mine, and which parts of my posts you quoted.

I suppose it depends on the level of mustache twirling you'd like me to have.

And my name is Felix.



> The OP brought up demons and devils. Nice application of emotional demogaugery there.



And not at all a reference to Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil archetypes in D&D.



> Random betrayals because he felt angry and needed to lash out is chaotic behaviour.



I would never classify Anakin's lash out at Padme as random. He did Evil to please and protect her. He believes he did Good (or at least that which was necessary). She rejects him because he killed younglings. He killed younglings for her. The jedi, Obi-Wan, told her the truth of what he did.

He attacks Padme because he believes she has betrayed him. He attacks Obi-Wan because he poisoned Padme's mind, the person he was willing to kill children for, against him.

Not random. Or perhaps you were looking for a different word?



> emotional behaviour, etc., is chaotic.



A lawful act cannot be done due to, inspired by, empowered by emotions? Emotions are in and of themselves chaotic?



> Just because Vader tolerated Palpy is not a reason to claim he is lawful.



Baatezu betray one another all the time. So betrayal can easily be linked to Good-Evil instead of Law-Chaos.

*EDIT:*_ Upon re-reading it, I see I mucked up a cut-and-paste. Fixed now._

So other than Vader's offer to Luke in Bespin to destroy the emperor and rule the galaxy as father and son, to what evidence would you point to show how Vader is merely "tolerating" Palpatine? Just because Vader tolerated Palpy is not a reason to claim he is Chaotic.



> Vader did not believe in the law, unless he is the law.



The same argument could be used to say that Judge Dredd is not Lawful. Put simply, Vader talks more about ruling the galaxy, establishing order, and judiciously punishing those who fail him (ie, not randomly) than he does go around sewing chaos. How is that not lawful?


----------



## hexgrid (Jul 25, 2007)

Cameron said:
			
		

> My stance was that Vader was Chaotic because he could not conform to the lawful Jedi. He gave in to his emotions and it was his impetuousness and emotional rampages that made him fall. Random betrayals because he felt angry and needed to lash out is chaotic behaviour. That is what he did to Padme right at the end.




You're talking about a youthful Anikan Skywalker, not the adult character most closely identified with the name Darth Vader. The adult Darth Vader displayed no impetuousness, emotional rampages, or random betrayals, and never really lashed out.




			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> Vader wasn't in the position to challenge Palpy because Palpy was stronger than him or had control over him via the Dark Side (which was one of the quotes the OP listed). He itched to kick Palpy in the nuts, though, to take over, and he would have, except for the pesky power thing.




This is just speculation. You're attributing motivations to Vader that aren't demonstrated in the films.



			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> They looted, murdered, enslaved, etc., at will across the galaxy, even though, I am sure, if you went and murdered someone, you'd be thrown in a room with 3 walls and bars for violating the law. That is unlawful behaviour.




I'll give you looting (maybe,) but murdering and enslaving is well within the bounds of lawful evilness.


----------



## Felix (Jul 25, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> Cameron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is actually an interesting idea. Is there an argument that one of the fundamental differences between Law and Chaos is the reliance on either emotion or logic? Certainly that is what's played out in the original Star Trek, with Mr. Spok's logical Lawful mind contrasting sharply to Dr. McCoy's emotional Chaotic mind.

Hmmm....


----------



## the black knight (Jul 25, 2007)

It's too easy to say Vader's lawful. Sure he's part of a hierarchy, but he shirks law whenever it suits him. He's above the hierarchy.



To Lando: "Pray that I alter the deal no further."

I finally settled on neutral evil.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 25, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> This is actually an interesting idea. Is there an argument that one of the fundamental differences between Law and Chaos is the reliance on either emotion or logic? Certainly that is what's played out in the original Star Trek, with Mr. Spok's logical Lawful mind contrasting sharply to Dr. McCoy's emotional Chaotic mind.
> 
> Hmmm....



Seeing as "emotion" appears to be the gateway to language learning from recent research, as well as absolutely critical for keeping you alive and functioning in society... I'm going to go out on a limb and say emotion is NOT inherently "chaotic."  At all.  They're the fundamental bedrock all learning and cognition is built upon.

Honestly, most people's "reasoning" is far more "chaotic" than their emotions.


----------



## Drowbane (Jul 25, 2007)

Darth Vader: Lawful Evil. 

Vader obeys Palpatine (and Palpatine's highest ranking officers) up till the end.  He kills his own people, but only after they've failed him.  As the Fist of the Empire (tm) he doesn't care about Lando or his little mining operation.  Lawful doesn't have to obey all the rules, no more than Chaotics has to break them all.  



Vordemort: who gives a damn, really? (yeah, yeah, I know the Potter-books are highly successful and have a huge following... )


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jul 26, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> Seeing as "emotion" appears to be the gateway to language learning from recent research, as well as absolutely critical for keeping you alive and functioning in society... I'm going to go out on a limb and say emotion is NOT inherently "chaotic."  At all.  They're the fundamental bedrock all learning and cognition is built upon.
> 
> Honestly, most people's "reasoning" is far more "chaotic" than their emotions.



Emotion for some reason gets a very bad rap, particularly when folks get into that "mildly intoxicated post grad with a couple of philosophy courses under his belt" kinda mood.   

For the record, the famously unemotional vulcans based their entire society and mental training on an emotion - the fear of what they might be otherwise.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 26, 2007)

> This is actually an interesting idea. Is there an argument that one of the fundamental differences between Law and Chaos is the reliance on either emotion or logic? Certainly that is what's played out in the original Star Trek, with Mr. Spok's logical Lawful mind contrasting sharply to Dr. McCoy's emotional Chaotic mind.




All sentient beings can experience emotion. It's even occasionally suggested that demons and devils and yugoloths can have a twisted, macabre, wicked sort of _love_, which is usually such a noble feeling...

Chaotic beings tend to be more slaves to their emotions, more impetuous about it. I feel angry, so I kill things. I feel happy so I laugh maniacally. I feel scared, so I run away. There's no long-term planning to their emotional experience, and Chaotic mindsets don't tend to consider others as much, so there's no real care about how that'll affect anyone else.

Lawful beings tend to be able to manipulate emotions more, to experience them, but "rise above" them, to see what lies beyond them. They can understand that lashing out now may mean facing trial later, that fleeing combat now may allow the enemy to get more powerful. They can consider others: if I kill them, their family might come looking for me. If I save them, I'll be showered with gifts.

That's why the Sith code is tentatively Chaotic: it says to be a slave to your emotions, to lash out in anger, to run away in fear. But in Vader and Palpatine's system, those emotions aren't the *point* of it. Rather, the point of it is power, dominance, and control. They give into fear now, to gain power over other's fear later. 

I think it is a mistake to assume that Lawful = Emotionless Logic and Chaos = Impetuous Emotion, but both are implied, and the exemplars of Law are pretty emotionless logic machines (modrons or inevitables or even formians) and the exemplars of Chaos are quite emotional (eladrin, tanar'ri, the drinking halls of ysgard and the screaming insanity of pandemonium). This is even supported in the rules: the Paladin, a bastion of Law, suppresses the emotion of fear. The Monk, a student of order, gains bonuses against Enchantment spells (spells that manipulate your emotional state). The Bard, who focuses on emotional effects in music, cannot be Lawful. The Barbarian, who looses control in a fury of Rage, cannot be Lawful.


----------



## Nyeshet (Jul 26, 2007)

It has been really interesting to read all these posts. I have found it more interesting that long standing and respected posters have seen the same well known character in completely opposite lights - some seeing LE, others CE. 

Myself? 

I think that as a child he was NN with chaotic tendencies and good tendencies - perhaps even enough to be considered CG, but I doubt it. 

As an adolescent he struggled to fit in at the jedi academy, ultimately failing. He also experienced something akin to the helm of opposite alignment, for the seeming incompetence of the senate drove him towards lawful tendencies instead of chaotic ones. And his failures to truly fit in at the jedi academy - combined with the ever increasing influence of Palpatine - drove him towards more selfish views and desires than prior, eventually encouraging evil tendencies, especially after his mother's death (and his follow-up revenge). 

After padme's death - as an adult - he did not seem to feel he had any guiding light except palapatine. And so much like an automaton he nearly was (half-golem or half-warforged template, perhaps?) he followed orders, becoming ever more lawful in inclination mostly because he did not see any other path. As he once said to Luke, resisting the path of the dark side is futile. It is not, but that seems to be Vader's view after padme's death up until he is given the opportunity to save his son. 

So I see a gradual shift form NN (with C and G tendencies) as a child, to NN (no real tendencies) and then NE (with L tendencies) as an adolescent and young adult, to finally either LE or NE (LE tendencies) for most of his adulthood. I'm not yet fully certain as to whether - as Vader of the original trilogy - he was LE or merely NE with Lawful tendencies.


----------



## Cameron (Jul 26, 2007)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> You're talking about a youthful Anikan Skywalker, not the adult character most closely identified with the name Darth Vader. The adult Darth Vader displayed no impetuousness, emotional rampages, or random betrayals, and never really lashed out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The adult character has basically a broken will, having been under Palpy's thumb for so long. Does that mean he turned lawful? No. It doesn't. The quote by the OP states that he has *no choice* but to follow Palpy because of the "power of the Dark Side" of which Palpy is a master and he merely the apprentice. He would like to destroy Palpy. Said it in Return of the Jedi when he tried to turn Luke. The adult Vader would be, IMO, chaotic, but kept in line by Palpy to be like an attack dog.

A crazed person that is calm one second and foaming at the mouth the next is textbook chaotic. Mercurial fae are described to have heights of passion that changes from second to second. The Eladrins are described to be living from one emotional high to another. They are all Chaotic.

Emotions are a very large part of chaotic behaviour as defined by DnD 3.x.


----------



## Korgoth (Jul 26, 2007)

re: the deal with Lando & "pray I don't alter it any further":

A LE character could simply say "I made a non-binding agreement with this crimeboss, and now I'm going to take advantage of how not-legally-binding it actually was."

Anyway, as the authentic representative (in his mind) of Law and Order, Vader could always advert to the old saw that the police may lawfully lie to a criminal in order to apprehend that criminal or other criminals.


----------



## Felix (Jul 26, 2007)

Cameron said:
			
		

> The adult character has basically a broken will, having been under Palpy's thumb for so long.



Ok. Broken will. No alignment effect.


> Does that mean he turned lawful? No. It doesn't.



Quite right.



> The quote by the OP



...Felix...


> states that he has *no choice* but to follow Palpy because of the "power of the Dark Side" of which Palpy is a master and he merely the apprentice.



"Obi-wan once thought as you do. You don't know the *power* of the Dark Side, I *must* obey my master."


> He would like to destroy Palpy. Said it in Return of the Jedi when he tried to turn Luke. The adult Vader would be, IMO, chaotic, but kept in line by Palpy to be like an attack dog.



Betrayal is not an inherently Chaotic act, nor is Loyalty an inherently Lawful one. Lawful beings can betray; in D&D this is best modeled by the Baatezu Devils who plot and scheme against one another while maintaining a strict hierarchy.

Do you have textual citations besides that Vader suggests betrayal, and later commits betrayal, that imply a Chaotic character?



> A crazed person that is calm one second and foaming at the mouth the next is textbook chaotic. Mercurial fae are described to have heights of passion that changes from second to second. The Eladrins are described to be living from one emotional high to another. They are all Chaotic.



I don't recall the scene (again: in the original movies) where Vader foams at the mouth. To which scene do you refer?



> Emotions are a very large part of chaotic behaviour as defined by DnD 3.x.



I did say I thought that was an interesting idea. What did you think of my post and Canis' response?


----------



## Pyrex (Jul 26, 2007)

I'd say Anakin started of the trilogy at CN, progressed to CE by the end of the prequels and was NE by the beginning of A New Hope.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jul 26, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think it is a mistake to assume that Lawful = Emotionless Logic and Chaos = Impetuous Emotion, but both are implied, and the exemplars of Law are pretty emotionless logic machines (modrons or inevitables or even formians) and the exemplars of Chaos are quite emotional (eladrin, tanar'ri, the drinking halls of ysgard and the screaming insanity of pandemonium).



I don't know about that.  Perhaps modrons are seething cauldrons of strong emotional reactions to things like perfectly organized sock drawers and slightly sloppy piles of coins.  They just have alien mindsets, being so strongly aligned, and so we can't relate to the sorts of things that they consider moving or terrible.  I'd suggest that slaads, eladrin and tanar'ri are also just as alien, but this might not be immediately apparent.



> This is even supported in the rules: the Paladin, a bastion of Law, suppresses the emotion of fear. The Monk, a student of order, gains bonuses against Enchantment spells (spells that manipulate your emotional state). The Bard, who focuses on emotional effects in music, cannot be Lawful. The Barbarian, who looses control in a fury of Rage, cannot be Lawful.



Most of these suggest self-control or lack thereof, rather than emotion.  Self-control in a lawful character allows him to resist effects that try to compel him to feel, believe, or act in ways he would not otherwise.  Lack of self-control is what barbarians tap into to rage.  A monk might be riding a crest of intense emotion (perhaps enlightened bliss, perhaps perfectly cultured anger) while he fights, and this wouldn't suggest that he is somehow not lawful.  The barbarian is experiencing intense emotion as well, but he's being overwhelmed by it instead of directing it.  The difference is self-control.  I don't agree that chaos implies emotion and law implies lack thereof.  Rather, the lawful character simply does not get carried away with his emotions, while the chaotic character does, and perhaps aims at getting carried away.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jul 26, 2007)

Th OP made a great arguement as to why Vader would be Lawful; Umbran made a great argument as to why he would be Chaotic...   Therefore, the only logical conclusion is....
Neutral Evil.  

While Evil incarnate, Vader will use ANY means, whether through Law or Chaos, to achieve the acceptable end, in other words, the ends justify the means.  That is at the very heart of all things the Neutral Evil attitude.  Power is might and those wih power rule _as they see fit_, regardless of whether they do it within the confines of the law or not.

Vader clearly follows the heirachy of the Empire and therefore is not adverse to law.
Vader is ruled by his anger and allows his emotions to rule his actions and therefore is not adverse to chaos.

Based on logical facts, a person that can live within the effects of either polar attitude without sacrificing their core beliefs is neutral towards the modifier.

Neutral Evil rules the day...and evidentally, the galaxy.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 26, 2007)

I have to say, I think 75% of a group agreeing on the alignment of a fictional character is pretty amazing. 

You usually can't get anywhere close to a consensus on these sorts of things ime.

Anyway, I voted LE, definitely.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 26, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think it is a mistake to assume that Lawful = Emotionless Logic and Chaos = Impetuous Emotion, but both are implied, and the exemplars of Law are pretty emotionless logic machines (modrons or inevitables or even formians) and the exemplars of Chaos are quite emotional (eladrin, tanar'ri, the drinking halls of ysgard and the screaming insanity of pandemonium). This is even supported in the rules: the Paladin, a bastion of Law, suppresses the emotion of fear. The Monk, a student of order, gains bonuses against Enchantment spells (spells that manipulate your emotional state). The Bard, who focuses on emotional effects in music, cannot be Lawful. The Barbarian, who looses control in a fury of Rage, cannot be Lawful.



Which only goes to show you how little the designers understand about human (or comparative) cognition 

And don't get me _started_ on Roddenberry and (far worse) those who came after him.  They took a cute idea and ran in entirely the wrong direction with it, and I've had to spend disturbingly large sections of my adult life gritting my teeth when my fellow Star Trek fans start waxing rhapsodic about Vulcans.

Your average snake is a very logical creature.  If you disturb it or its home, it bites you.  If you leave it alone, it leaves you alone, barring if you're a snack-sized critter and it isn't full.  If it is full, and you're not prodding at it, it ALSO leaves you alone.  It makes SENSE.  It behaves _logically_.  And.... it makes pretty much all of its decisions with what you and I would call emotions.

Outside of brain damage, you don't see much in the way of erratic or irrational behavior in the animal kingdom.... right up until you hit critters with some moderate "cognitive capacity."  THINKING is what causes animals (and humans) to behave illogically.  Left to its own devices, the body gets along very well.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 26, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I don't know about that.  Perhaps modrons are seething cauldrons of strong emotional reactions to things like perfectly organized sock drawers and slightly sloppy piles of coins.  They just have alien mindsets, being so strongly aligned, and so we can't relate to the sorts of things that they consider moving or terrible.  I'd suggest that slaads, eladrin and tanar'ri are also just as alien, but this might not be immediately apparent.



Bingo.

Reward circuitry in the brain seems to be responsible for kickstarting everything from social affiliation to vocal play.  That IS emotion.  We don't even have a concept for a working AI yet that doesn't have motivation states that are the EXACT same thing, for all intents and purposes.

If modrons are sentient as we know the term, they order their environment _because it makes them happy_.  Similarly, slaad DISorder their environment because it makes them happy.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 26, 2007)

I have to admit, my first thought was LE.  But, I did vote CE upon some reflection simply because the idea that you are above the law and a law unto yourself is a very Chaotic idea.  It places the individual above the group.  Chaotic all the way.

Reading through some of the excellent examples, I would probably go with NE now.  

On a side note, people have commented that Vader only kills when people fail him.  How about an entire planet for no actual reason?  Just to demonstrate the power of his new toy?


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jul 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> On a side note, people have commented that Vader only kills when people fail him.  How about an entire planet for no actual reason?  Just to demonstrate the power of his new toy?



Well, no one has seriously argued that he isn't evil.    And demonstrating the power of the Death Star* is* the actual reason. A simple and straightforward one. He needs a test run, and there's a planet right here.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> On a side note, people have commented that Vader only kills when people fail him.  How about an entire planet for no actual reason?  Just to demonstrate the power of his new toy?




That was Tarkin, though, not Vader. (Though Vader certainly didn't object.)


----------



## Hussar (Jul 26, 2007)

I'm just kinda wondering if a civilization as old as Star Wars wouldn't have a few laws about using WMD's and wiping out planets.  If, as the Emperor's lackey, Vader is now above any laws, wouldn't that point to a heavily chaotic influence?


----------



## schporto (Jul 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm just kinda wondering if a civilization as old as Star Wars wouldn't have a few laws about using WMD's and wiping out planets.  If, as the Emperor's lackey, Vader is now above any laws, wouldn't that point to a heavily chaotic influence?



It was a test range.  Really it's not his fault the dolphins errr people didn't move out.  I mean come on, the permits had been on public display in Courascant for 3 weeks in the Courscant Public Building #7584 west, floor 115.5, room 115-907.  Geez.  Someone could have checked....
-cpd


----------



## Hussar (Jul 26, 2007)

Hitchhikers Guide FTW!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 26, 2007)

> I'm just kinda wondering if a civilization as old as Star Wars wouldn't have a few laws about using WMD's and wiping out planets. If, as the Emperor's lackey, Vader is now above any laws, wouldn't that point to a heavily chaotic influence?




To PUNISH them for their insubordination. To put them in their rightful place (e.g.: dead). He has evidence in his hands that the government supported basically acts of terrorism and treason right under their nose. As judge, jury, and executioner, their guilt is determined and their punishment meted out.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 26, 2007)

Buh?  What connection is there, other than the fact that Leia comes from that planet?

But, in any case, I was more responding to the idea that Vader only kills subordinates, and not indiscriminately.  Blowing up a planet is pretty indiscriminate.


----------



## hexgrid (Jul 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I have to admit, my first thought was LE.  But, I did vote CE upon some reflection simply because the idea that you are above the law and a law unto yourself is a very Chaotic idea.




I don't think that obeying laws necessarily has anything to do with a lawful alignment. Are devils, the epitome of LE, law abiding citizens? No, they'd break or twist any law they thought they could get away with, even their own, and that doesn't make them chaotic.

A lawful alignment implies a strong interest in order, hierarchy, and self-disipline, but this my or may not involve following actual "laws."  Some of the definitions for Lawful Evil implied in this thread are so strict that it couldn't exist even in D&D. All Evil becomes Neutral Evil if you analyze it long enough.

In D&D, all it really takes to be Lawful Evil instead of Chaotic Evil is that your armies advance in well ordered columns instead of swarming hordes. It's all about the trappings, and both Vader and the Empire he operates in have them all.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Jul 26, 2007)

SWSE has no alignment.  (g, d, r)


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, in any case, I was more responding to the idea that Vader only kills subordinates, and not indiscriminately.  Blowing up a planet is pretty indiscriminate.




Uh, once again, not Vader. Not his idea, not his order. He just sort of watched.


----------



## Doug Sundseth (Jul 26, 2007)

Vader: LE

Jedi Council: C"N" (It says so right on the sheet! How can you possibly call me evil?)


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 26, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But the original saga, at least, is strongly anti-authoritarian in tone, and so is quite pro-Chaos itself.



I would say it is strongly anti-tyranny. Official acts of a regime that are unjust are not laws and have no moral force. A lawful character may treat them as such. Additionally, the Rebel Alliance was not trying to sow anarchy (pro-chaos), it was trying to overthrow a tyrant's regime and restore the Republic. 

Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 26, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> The "rule the galaxy together" line, in fact, stands as evidence that he is not loyal at all - he's ready and willing to kill of the Emperor when he gets enough power to do so.  That's not Lawful.



You're right . .  that's Evil.

That's why there are two axis to the alignment.


----------



## Midnight Dawns (Jul 26, 2007)

Vader fits the bill as a tyrannical leader (LE). As has been stated he seeks to impose order. His "betrayal" is due to the corruption and lack of action he sees. He views that what he is doing is for the greater good of the galaxy. Him plotting to get rid of Palpatine fits this as well for he knows Palpatine to be corrupt. As for the Sith giving into to their emotions and losing control that isn't the case. The Sith sought to *control* the power inherent in emotions. And on a final note I would like to reiterate that it was Tarkin that did the blowing up of planets and it served a purpose: to cow all opposition with a display of might (keep in mind he blew up one of the main planets supporting the rebellion).


----------



## Felix (Jul 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Quite right. It was Tarkin's idea to hold Alderaan hostage to pry information out of Leia. Vader had to just stand around and be impressed by British Imperial villany.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jul 26, 2007)

*Neutral Evil*

The Empire may be Lawful, but I am not convinced any of the Sith are.  

I do not detect any clear ethical code above "I am doing this for the greater good.  Really.  Trust me."  Such talk is cheap.

When push comes to shove, Palatine and Anakin seem to consider themselves above rules or the normal bounds of ethos.

As for Chaotic versus Neutral, a true Chaotic could not stand working with the Empire in the long term, even as a ruler.


----------



## LoneWolf23 (Jul 27, 2007)

To be fair, the Jedi/Sith split is a Good/Evil split, not a Law/Chaos split for either side.

The Sith seek power.  Power from the Dark Side, power over the lives of others, power over their own morality, etc.  And they'll do *anything* to get such power.  That makes them Evil.

Some Sith (or Dark Forcers) seek such power through the willful, orderly domination of the lives of other people.  Others seek it through senseless brutality.  Still others seek it through manipulating others.

Evil comes in many forms.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 27, 2007)

From the Sith Code in Saga, it talks about "breaking the chains" of the universe and imposing your own will upon it. That's Chaos and Law in one sentence, right there!


----------



## Cameron (Jul 27, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> From the Sith Code in Saga, it talks about "breaking the chains" of the universe and imposing your own will upon it. That's Chaos and Law in one sentence, right there!



Not really. That is Chaotic behaviour. Remember that Orcs do the same thing ("might makes right"), and their form of government is described as CE.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 27, 2007)

> I would say it is strongly anti-tyranny. Official acts of a regime that are unjust are not laws and have no moral force. A lawful character may treat them as such. Additionally, the Rebel Alliance was not trying to sow anarchy (pro-chaos), it was trying to overthrow a tyrant's regime and restore the Republic.
> 
> Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.




Yes, you can have a lawful rebellion.

But the rebellion in Star Wars looked to take power from a handful of people (really, one guy) that had it all and spread it amongst everyone (as the Senate).

That's very much "individual empowerment." 

Chaos isn't limted to Anarchy as a political philosophy. Any government that supports EVERY INDIVIDUAL as having authority over SOCIETY is pretty Chaotic. Any government that supports ONE BEING as the maintainer over a GREATER SOCIETY is very Lawful.

The Empire had Palpatine orchestrating all of society -- they danced to his beat. He had power over masses of people. Lawful control.

The Rebellion wanted to put an end to that through terrorism and violence, to institute a government that gave the individuals power over it. The Senate was representative of people controlling government rather than government controlling people. Very Chaotic. 

Of course, at this point, alignment is hugely open to interpretation, stretched basically to its breaking point, so all of this is IMO only. 



> From the Sith Code in Saga, it talks about "breaking the chains" of the universe and imposing your own will upon it. That's Chaos and Law in one sentence, right there!




I would say that's pretty Lawful.

Chaotic people reject the idea of chains. You break the chains and that is the point, you don't impose new chains because chains are wrong.

Lawful people can easily rebel against existing chains to impose new ones. Just because you're Lawful doesn't mean you can't overthrow authority, just that you value the idea of authority. You're not breaking the chains to free anyone but yourself (that's the evil part). You're *becoming* the chains, almost.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 27, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> This discussion began as a talk about the alignment of Harry Potter characters. Cameron suggests that Voldemort is CE because he kills people who displease him. I point out that Darth Vader, someone I thought clearly to be Lawful Evil, kills people who displease him all the time. To my suprise, Cameron retorts that Vader is not Lawful.



Yeah... uh, the killing people who displease you is what makes you evil, not what makes you chaotic.


----------



## comrade raoul (Jul 27, 2007)

Vader is classic NE. He's too comfortable working under his master, and working alongside the rest of the Imperial hierarchy, to be truly Chaotic--but he's also not acting out of any commitment to order or sense of obligation, which disqualifies him from being Lawful. He's a hateful, angry man who found himself in a position that basically works for him--it lets him crush his enemies and get his Dark Side fix, and, given the Emperor's influence, escaping would be way more trouble than it's worth. That seems pretty paradigmatically Neutral, to me.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 27, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Uh, once again, not Vader. Not his idea, not his order. He just sort of watched.




*Hangs head in shame*

I must now flagellate myself with my copies of Leia's bikini.  :/

I can't believe I misremembered that.  Sigh.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 27, 2007)

CE. He doesn't expect his officers to obey the law, but his personal commands. His service to the Empire is one of duty to the Emperor, personally, and because of his desire for power. He's a classic tyrant... both chaotic and evil, willing to overturn any law on a whim if it suits his personal desire. 

Threaten to murder an on-duty military officer? Check. Conspire against his own master, knowing his master is in turn conspiring against him? Check. Violate galactic law and customs of diplomacy? Check. Ignore the chain of command? Check. Pledge his loyalty to Sidious, simultaneously planning to overthrow him? Check. Execute underlings without the benefit of a court-martial? Check. 

People seem to have this idea that Chaotic individuals don't wish to rule others. That's not true at all. A Chaotic individual, as a ruler, expects their personal commands to be carried out, to the letter. If they declare that anyone wearing purple is to be flogged, anyone wearing purple is to be flogged. Why? Because they said so, and they are in charge. A Neutral individual's commands would be in service to their goals as ruler... for instance, Sidious, as a Neutral Evil individual, issues commands that further his personal power and frustrate his enemies. He expects the chain of command to be generally followed, but makes exceptions when useful. A Lawful Evil individual values hieararchy. Tarkin is a good example of LE. He gets annoyed when Vader tries to kill one of the other officers... they have work to do! Those Rebels aren't just going to go and kill themselves, you know. He also chooses to remain on the Death Star, despite being informed of the danger. Why? Sure, because he's arrogant, but also because it would be INCONSISTENT with his belief in himself as a courageous soldier.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 27, 2007)

comrade raoul said:
			
		

> Vader is classic NE. He's too comfortable working under his master, and working alongside the rest of the Imperial hierarchy, to be truly Chaotic--but he's also not acting out of any commitment to order or sense of obligation, which disqualifies him from being Lawful. He's a hateful, angry man who found himself in a position that basically works for him--it lets him crush his enemies and get his Dark Side fix, and, given the Emperor's influence, escaping would be way more trouble than it's worth. That seems pretty paradigmatically Neutral, to me.




I'd say his position is convenient to him, because he's allowed to be as Chaotic as he wants to be. His authority is nearly limitless, and existing outside the usual chain of command suits his nature.


----------



## Felix (Jul 27, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Threaten to murder an on-duty military officer *commander of lemures*?
> 
> Conspire against his own master *Asmodeus*, knowing his master *Asmodeus* is in turn conspiring against him?
> 
> ...



Edited to translate to a D&D world.

Do you see any of these things really out of place in a Baatezu? Think of poor Levistus: he was imprisoned, without court-martial, for eons. Even when in charge of Stygia do you think he doesn't plot revenge against his jailor? And what of Geryon, the only lord to remain loyal to Asmodeus and was crucial in the success of his plan in the Reckoning of Hell: deposed and faded into anonymity. He was "disappeared", unless (which is very possible) I haven't read what really happened to him.



> Violate galactic law and customs of diplomacy?



Do you refer to capturing the corvette at the beginning of Episode IV? Vader was right, you know: the ship was harboring an agent of the rebel alliance in possession of stolen Imperial information. Are you sure the law didn't provide Vader the right to stop the ship by any means if they did not submit themselves to an inspection? We know that the captain wasn't forthright: "If this is a consular's ship then where is the ambassador?"

Or possibly to Vader's dealings with Bespin and Calrissian? Lando makes it clear to Han that his operation isn't entirely on the up-and-up. By eventually leaving a garrison on Cloud City he may well have been within the law regarding law-violating tabana gas mining operations.



> Ignore the chain of command?



To what do you refer?


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jul 27, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> That was Tarkin, though, not Vader. (Though Vader certainly didn't object.)




  Not in the film, but in the radio drama (which is just a step or two below the films in 'canonicity'), he _does_ object, stating that the Emperor should be consulted.

  However, that doesn't necessarily prove anything about Vader's lawfulness or lack thereof--he might just be worried about Tarkin's ambition and the possibly that someone commanding the Death Star can threaten the Emperor, and by extension his own position (another factor that's played up in the radio drama).

  This argument is convincing me more and more of my long-held conviction that the problem isn't so much alignment as it is the ambiguous and unintuitive 'Lawful' and 'Chaotic' terms.


----------



## EvilPheemy (Jul 27, 2007)

Darth Vader almost sets the standard for Lawful and Evil for me.  The prequels reinforce that even more as Annakin was very Chaotic and Good.  Annakin chaffed under authority and hierarchy, when he betrayed the Jedi, he became Darth Vader and as such became the very thing Annakin despised.  

Vader was subservient to his Emperor and Master, he enjoyed all of the Lawful rights and privileges afforded his position, among those being a certain degree of freedom to pursue his personal agendas.  Indeed, Vader is an agent of the Lawful Evil regime of the Empire and answerable only to Grand Moff Tarkin, and the Emperor Himself.  But he *was* answerable, and when given orders, obeyed them without question.

Annakin on the other hand, was answerable to his master and the Jedi Council, but *always* questioned the orders he was given.  He never accepted the Jedi Code at face value, even when Yoda himself was trying to teach him the code.


----------



## snarfoogle (Jul 27, 2007)

From Vader's point of view, the Jedi are chaotic.

(I couldn't resist   )


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 27, 2007)

Darth Vader is lawful evil.  The stupid brat from the prequels that don't exist is chaotic stupid.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 27, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> Edited to translate to a D&D world.
> 
> Do you see any of these things really out of place in a Baatezu? Think of poor Levistus: he was imprisoned, without court-martial, for eons. Even when in charge of Stygia do you think he doesn't plot revenge against his jailor? And what of Geryon, the only lord to remain loyal to Asmodeus and was crucial in the success of his plan in the Reckoning of Hell: deposed and faded into anonymity. He was "disappeared", unless (which is very possible) I haven't read what really happened to him.




That's Asmodeus's privilege. His vassals are accountable to him for how their subordinates are treated. Asmodeus only has to consider his regal right and his own judgment. Plus, Hell is a somewhat different situation; it is a fiefdom. Vader and the Moffs, however, are the Emperor's personal representatives in adminstrating a centrally ruled Empire. 

Anyway, it is not simply treachery that is at issue, which is a trait of Evil. Rather the issue is hise swearing an explicit oath he has no intention of fulfilling, and that he could easily have avoided by choosing a different course.



> Do you refer to capturing the corvette at the beginning of Episode IV? Vader was right, you know: the ship was harboring an agent of the rebel alliance in possession of stolen Imperial information. Are you sure the law didn't provide Vader the right to stop the ship by any means if they did not submit themselves to an inspection? We know that the captain wasn't forthright: "If this is a consular's ship then where is the ambassador?"




Among other matters. Regardless of whether the action is legal or not, it's not lawful. A lawful character respects not only the letter of the law of his land, but lawfulness in general; for instance, a Lawful character would be bound by the Geneva conventions, or in this case, diplomatic courtesy. As I've noted above, I don't consider Palpatine's regime to be LE in the first place, so Vader's actions are an extension of the Emperor policies.



> possibly to Vader's dealings with Bespin and Calrissian? Lando makes it clear to Han that his operation isn't entirely on the up-and-up. By eventually leaving a garrison on Cloud City he may well have been within the law regarding law-violating tabana gas mining operations.




Vader breaks his assurances. A LE character wouldn't be threatening to break the agreement any further, he'd be rationalizing why he was allowed to break it at all.



To what do you refer?[/QUOTE]


----------



## Felix (Jul 27, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Rather the issue is hise swearing an explicit oath he has no intention of fulfilling, and that he could easily have avoided by choosing a different course.



Which oath is that?



> Regardless of whether the action is legal or not, it's not lawful. A lawful character respects not only the letter of the law of his land, but lawfulness in general



It was my impression that a Lawful Evil character would obey the letter of the law, regardless how much he departed from the spirit. Why would a lawful Evil character have to respect diplomatic traditions as long as he was technically within his remit?



> Vader breaks his assurances. A LE character wouldn't be threatening to break the agreement any further, he'd be rationalizing why he was allowed to break it at all.



I think an open-ended contract was mentioned earlier, being easy to bend; then there's something about verbal contracts not being worth the paper they're printed on; and isn't twisting bargains a hallmark of Lawful Evil?


----------



## Treebore (Jul 27, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Darth Vader is lawful evil.  The stupid brat from the prequels that don't exist is chaotic stupid.





Maybe not in your version, but the creator god of Star Wars says they do exist and that is why Anakin falls and becomes Darth Vader.

Plus his excellent use of manipulating and touting the Law to get what he wants is a supreme cover for all his selfish motivations.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 28, 2007)

I keep seeing mention of Vader breaking the Law, manipulating it, etc...but he doesn't.

Vader, and the Empire, ARE the law. The real manipulator of the law is Palpatine, who set up the system as it exists in the OT. Technically, Vader is acting BY the law, its just that the law is considerably....evil.

If I had to nail Vader down, it would be LE, though I could see NE working well. Of course, I don't think alignment works for Star Wars at all, and I'm glad its not in the d20 or the Saga edition.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 28, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> CE. He doesn't expect his officers to obey the law, but his personal commands.




In the Empire, he IS the law. He speaks with the authority of the Emperor, and the regime is pretty much an autocracy.



> His service to the Empire is one of duty to the Emperor, personally, and because of his desire for power.




In the prequels it is shown that he looks up to Palpatine as a leader of men, as someone who can bring *order* to the galaxy.



> He's a classic tyrant... both chaotic and evil,




Tyrants are Lawful Evil. They use the law to suit their needs.



> willing to overturn any law on a whim if it suits his personal desire.




When has he done that? There's nothing in the six Star Wars movies that show Vader overturning any law. In Episode IV, the Emperor dissolves the Senate and gives each Moff complete authority over their regional sectors. 



> Threaten to murder an on-duty military officer? Check.




Harsh laws are still laws. If the penalty for failure is death, so be it.



> Conspire against his own master, knowing his master is in turn conspiring against him? Check.




Where is this shown. Even so, he is following the Sith Rule of Two: there must be only two Sith, one master and one apprentice, one holding power and one desiring it.



> Violate galactic law and customs of diplomacy? Check.




Once again, he *is* galactic law. Nothing he did in the six movies broke any laws. He turned on Mace Windu when he saw Mace attempting to execute the head of state without the benefit of a trial. He turned against the Jedi when they were branded traitors by said head of state. He stopped a ship suspected of harboring a traitorous politician with terrorrist aspirations.



> Ignore the chain of command? Check.




His chain of command is: he answers to Palpatine, everyone answers to him. He was just being courteous in obeying Tarkin.



> Pledge his loyalty to Sidious, simultaneously planning to overthrow him? Check.




He wasn't planning on overthrowing Sidious when he pledge allegiance in Palpatine's office.



> Execute underlings without the benefit of a court-martial? Check.




What if there's no court-martial in the galactic law? Since he is the ultimate authority in the absence of the Emperor, he is well within his rights to act as Judge, Jury and Executioner and issue immediate justice.



> People seem to have this idea that Chaotic individuals don't wish to rule others. That's not true at all. A Chaotic individual, as a ruler, expects their personal commands to be carried out, to the letter. If they declare that anyone wearing purple is to be flogged, anyone wearing purple is to be flogged. Why? Because they said so, and they are in charge. A Neutral individual's commands would be in service to their goals as ruler... for instance, Sidious, as a Neutral Evil individual, issues commands that further his personal power and frustrate his enemies. He expects the chain of command to be generally followed, but makes exceptions when useful. A Lawful Evil individual values hieararchy. Tarkin is a good example of LE. He gets annoyed when Vader tries to kill one of the other officers... they have work to do! Those Rebels aren't just going to go and kill themselves, you know. He also chooses to remain on the Death Star, despite being informed of the danger. Why? Sure, because he's arrogant, but also because it would be INCONSISTENT with his belief in himself as a courageous soldier.




A Chaotic ruler issues very few, if any, formal laws. When he does, it's usually on site of whatever prompted him to do so (see Kull, the Conqueror, in that Kevin Sorbo movie). A Lawful ruler values discipline, order, tradition. If people can't agree to something, they should be FORCED to agree (as Anakin himself stated in Episode II).

No, Vader is Lawful Evil throughout the Original Trilogy.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jul 28, 2007)

comrade raoul said:
			
		

> Vader is classic NE. He's too comfortable working under his master, and working alongside the rest of the Imperial hierarchy, to be truly Chaotic--but he's also not acting out of any commitment to order or sense of obligation, which disqualifies him from being Lawful. He's a hateful, angry man who found himself in a position that basically works for him--it lets him crush his enemies and get his Dark Side fix, and, given the Emperor's influence, escaping would be way more trouble than it's worth. That seems pretty paradigmatically Neutral, to me.



Actually, he is working out of a sense of order.  

Remember his political ramblings to Padme in Episode II, he wants to bring Order to the Galaxy. . .by force if neccesary.  His ramblings could be written down as a classic example of LE political thought.

Then in Episode III, he turned against the Jedi because the Jedi were trying to overthrow Palpatine.  Nevermind he was an admitted Sith Lord, he would rather see an evil tyrant in power (who promised to have the power to save a loved one) than be overthrown to save the galaxy from tyranny.  That's definitely lawful evil.

In Episode V, he wanted to recruit Luke to bring an end to the conflict and bring Order to the Galaxy (with him in charge of that Order).

Darth Vader wants an orderly, ostensibly peaceful Galaxy with himself as absolute and indisputed ruler willing to do absolutely anything to maintain that order (kill subordinates, let pla), that's a dictionary definition of Lawful Evil.


----------



## Treebore (Jul 28, 2007)

Part of my reason for saying he is neutral evil is because Neutral eVil only cares about what they want, and getting it the most efficient way possible.

So Vader see's his getting what he wants most efficiently in a lawful or ordered system, rather than a chaotic and corrupt system. So I see it as that is why he supports a "ordered galaxy", it makes and keeps it easiest for him to maintain power over the Empire, where as chaos would greatly restrict his influence, and therefore power.

So Vader's fundamental motivations are all about what he wants, and how best to get them. A lawful Empire is much easier to control rather than a chaotic one, hence he supports an "ordered empire".

But his personal motivations are simply to give himself everything he wants. SO that is why I call him neutral evil. Selfish evil.

Which is why giving up his life to finally save his own son "restores" him to the good side of the force. He finally put someone elses needs before his own. He finally understood why a person would sacrifice themselves for someone else, and did it. Which also finally revealed to him the one of the deepest meanings of "unconditional love".

Still, I could make a lot of solid arguments that the Jedi council was not good as a whole. Over all, the council was Lawful Neutral. Even so they also supported a lot of "chaos" as well. So maybe they could even be argued to be True Neutral in the overall effects of their decisions.

Doesn't really matter, though. Its a great movie series with great characters. Thats what matters.


----------



## EvilPheemy (Jul 28, 2007)

Vader's extreme selfishness is why he's evil.  His willingness to adhere to an ordered existence is why he's lawful.

Yoda's selflessness is why he's good.  His indifference to structure is why he's neutral.

Annikan starts out very selfless (he wants to come back and free all the slaves in the Outer Rim, he wants to remove the tragedy of death from the galaxy), but he gets frustrated by the restrictions imposed on him by the Jedi Order, and the Senate.  He is very much the maverick Chaotic Good aligned person.

By contrast, Obi Wan Kenobi is also selfless (he wants the citizens of the republic to lead happy, peaceful, prosperous lives and is willing to sacrifice his personal comfort and life to ensure that), but he believes in the Jedi Order, and the Republic.  He believes in the rule of Justice and Law, and supports Order in the galaxy (until that law in order turn into oppression and tyranny).  Which puts him in the ol' Lawful Good category.


----------



## smootrk (Jul 28, 2007)

Chaotic Good?!?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 28, 2007)

Mmmmmmm, strawberry banana ice cream vader......



> People seem to have this idea that Chaotic individuals don't wish to rule others. That's not true at all. A Chaotic individual, as a ruler, expects their personal commands to be carried out, to the letter. If they declare that anyone wearing purple is to be flogged, anyone wearing purple is to be flogged. Why? Because they said so, and they are in charge. A Neutral individual's commands would be in service to their goals as ruler... for instance, Sidious, as a Neutral Evil individual, issues commands that further his personal power and frustrate his enemies. He expects the chain of command to be generally followed, but makes exceptions when useful. A Lawful Evil individual values hieararchy. Tarkin is a good example of LE. He gets annoyed when Vader tries to kill one of the other officers... they have work to do! Those Rebels aren't just going to go and kill themselves, you know. He also chooses to remain on the Death Star, despite being informed of the danger. Why? Sure, because he's arrogant, but also because it would be INCONSISTENT with his belief in himself as a courageous soldier.




That seems entirely backwards to me. A LAWFUL ruler expects their personal commands to be carried out to the letter (the letter of the law). A CHAOTIC ruler doesn't expect everyone to obey his personal commands unless it suits them individually (and if it doesn't suit them individually, a CE ruler would kill them). A LAWFUL EVIL ruler would make arbitrary laws simply for the purposes of punishment, because that would (a) reinforce the power of authority and (b) amuse him when people are tormented. 

Mister Chaotic Evil Despot wouldn't be that interested in issuing orders, because he would expect people to ignore them (they have no power, they're ineffective, he doesn't trust the system). He wouldn't operate at the head of a system, he'd operate at the core of a gang, a likeminded cadre of thugs who all enjoy that brutality and who kill those who don't. In this light, the Tanar'ri and the orcish hordes of D&D exemplify CE.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 29, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> But his personal motivations are simply to give himself everything he wants. SO that is why I call him neutral evil. Selfish evil.



Isn't that redundant?  One can't really be Evil evil.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jul 29, 2007)

THIS is why I think Darth Vader is LE.


----------



## castro3nw (Jul 29, 2007)

So...  
1) Anakin=CG...  Vader=LE...  

2) Anakin + helmet =  Vader...

3) Vader doesn't like his helmet removed...

4) Vader with helmet = LE...  Vader sans helmet = CG...

I can only assume the Darth Vader helmet is, in all reality, actually a helm of opposite alignment.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 29, 2007)

castro3nw said:
			
		

> So...
> 1) Anakin=CG...  Vader=LE...
> 
> 2) Anakin + helmet =  Vader...
> ...



 Well, the suit doesn't make him Vader. The horrible burning and fire does, and that's after he takes the name. 

A better way to look at this is just like Obi-Wan described in Return of the Jedi. Darth Vader betrayed and murdered Anakin Skywalker, becoming the former. They are, essentially, two seperate people. While Anakin is CG(heavy on the chaotic), Vader is LE. There isn't really a transition from CG to LE and then back...its just what the two separate people ARE.


----------



## Cameron (Jul 29, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Mmmmmmm, strawberry banana ice cream vader......
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No. CE issues orders and expects them to be obeyed *out of fear of what he will do if they didn't*. That is why an Orc King will tell some of his followers to go out and raid x caravan. The CE rules knows that if someone else had the ability, they'd depose him. Palpy expected people to depose him if gotten half the chance. He kept Vader under the influence of the Dark Side to prevent that. Vader's quote about how he is *forced* to obey is very telling in that regard.

A CE follower would depose the ruler if he got half the chance. Vader did this explicitly in the original when he tried to turn Luke to the Dark Side.

Just because someone has served under someone else does not mean he is Lawful. He could be Chaotic but forced by circumstance to serve. After all, would you consider any of the major demonlords' (Orcus, Jubillex and the lot) servants to be lawful because they have served them for centuries, if not millenia? Of course not. Being forced to serve is different from being *willing* to serve. That is one of the differences between Lawful and Chaotic, and Vader was never willing. Not even in the first trilogy.


----------



## joeandsteve (Jul 30, 2007)

If Vader isn't LE, I don't know who the hell is... according to the CE crowd, it seems that a LE person cannot exist in a society that is good or neutral, because then he would be against the establishment, and therefore chaotic.  I don't buy it.


----------



## Harmon (Jul 30, 2007)

I was almost certain that he was LE, from the first time I understood the alignment "rules" and revisited the movies, I thought- "now that is LE."

I think that Ani was LG (episode 1) and shifted towards CG (episode 2-3) then across TN to LE at some point by the end of 3.


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 30, 2007)

For me, by the Jedi Purge, Darth Vader is a textbook example of what "*Lawful Evil*" means. Nevermind how he got there.


----------



## Felix (Jul 30, 2007)

Cameron said:
			
		

> A CE follower would depose the ruler if he got half the chance. Vader did this explicitly in the original when he tried to turn Luke to the Dark Side.



Explicitly? So his only motivation was to depose Palpatine and not, oh, I don't know... to save the life of his son?

By turning Luke to the Dark side Vader can both save the life of his son and unite the factions of Empire and Rebellion to restore Order; this is something the Emperor cannot do: Palpatine must wage a "destructive conflict" to unite the factions. Vader wants to keep things as whole as possible for when he brings them under his, and his son's, rule.

So how exactly was your interpretation anything like explicit?


----------



## Baby Samurai (Jul 30, 2007)

I would say he started as Chaotic Good, but veered into Lawful Evil in the end.

Obi reeks of Neutral Good to me.


----------



## Pagan priest (Aug 5, 2007)

Vader is very much LE, even during the Bespin events.  That was an illegal operation, leaving a garrison behind put the Empire in charge and restored law and order.  Betrayal of the Emperor?  That is purely  evil and does not effect the law/chaos axis at all.  Execution of the incompetant oficers is a way to open a path for more competant officers to move up and take their place, thus allowing the military to be a better tool for imposing the Imperial Will.  Even the destruction of Alderon was Lawful Evil.  It punished the many for the actions of a few, collective guilt is VERY lawful.

In the end, there is no real justification for calling him NE, let alone CE.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 5, 2007)

Lawful Dark, with tendencies towards Lawful Awesome.

(The Star Wars concepts of  light & dark aren't exactly the same as D&D's good & evil.)

Cheers, -- N


----------

