# Alignment: Han Solo is Neutral?



## Mighty Veil (Jan 19, 2007)

Complete Scoundrel says Han Solo was N. Here's my question on that:

Is this the Han Solo of "Greedo shot first" or the original (and real) "Han shot Guido" version?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 19, 2007)

Point 1: Greedo, not Guido.

Point 2: Han was definitely neutral when he started out. The original versions of the movies just did a better job of showing it. He became good as the story continued (something that was also much better shown, as a character arc, in the unaltered versions).


----------



## Sejs (Jan 20, 2007)

Han shot Guido?!







That scoundrel!


----------



## Meloncov (Jan 20, 2007)

What's there justification for Han being neutral, rather than Chaotic Neutral? Though I agree he moves towards good in the movies.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 20, 2007)

Personally, I see Han as CN, trending CG.  He is a smuggler, after all.  And he did shoot first.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jan 20, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Personally, I see Han as CN, trending CG.  He is a smuggler, after all.  And he did shoot first.



QFT.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 20, 2007)

Mighty Veil said:
			
		

> Complete Scoundrel says Han Solo was N. Here's my question on that:
> 
> Is this the Han Solo of "Greedo shot first" or the original (and real) "Han shot Guido" version?





Yes.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 20, 2007)

What about being a smuggler in the era of the Empire makes you non-good?

I'd say CG from the outset, perhaps trending NG as things come along. Han's "selfishness" largely seems to be a pose; it's part of the "roguish hero" or "reluctant hero" archetypes. After all, he gives Luke encouragement ("May the Force be with you") even though he's a skeptic; he shows up to help Luke at the Death Star; he comes back to get the Princess out of the Hoth base; etc etc. At least that's the impression I have.

Also, shooting a vicious bounty hunter who's almost certainly going to blow you away isn't exactly non-good, IMHO. If Greedo were an honest, decent officer of the law just doing his job, or if Han were going to risk causing collateral damage to the patrons at the cantina, I'd say otherwise.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jan 20, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Yes.



yes to which? This case requires specificness.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 20, 2007)

Han is CG.  Right from the beginning.

Shooting Greedo first doesn't make Han nuetral.  It makes him sane.  I wouldn't even object to lawful good shooting first under those circumstances.  Clearly Han is under lethal threat already, and Greedo is no saint, not even a just magistrate of a just society, not even an honorable foe for whom a chivilrous person would be obligated to deal with honorably.

Although they aren't cannonical, Han's CG nature comes out even more strongly in the old trilogy of prequels about Han's youth.   

Han is jaded.  Han is cynical.  Han is a little world weary by the time he meets Luke, but that is just his personality, not his alignment.  Han is a smuggler, but for the most part - at least until he gets work from Jabba - Han is breaking laws which are unjust and the product of an unjust tyranny.  He is no more evil for doing so than Leia and the rebellion is evil (or even Chaotic!) for breaking the Empires laws.   From the standpoint of even a lawful, the Empire could have forfieted its right to govern by breaking the meta-laws which established its right to rule.  Of course, Han shows his inability to suffer the Empire by going AWOL from the Academy, hanging out in the underworld, rescuing Wookies from slavery and otherwise acting the part of a scoundrel - except when a real test of good or evil is on the line, and Leia and the rest do the whole Republic in exile thing, but what at stake in that is more a matter of chaotic versus lawful than good versus evil.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 20, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> What about being a smuggler in the era of the Empire makes you non-good?




It makes him Chaotic (rather than Neutral on the L-C axis).


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 20, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Although they aren't cannonical, Han's CG nature comes out even more strongly in the old trilogy of prequels about Han's youth.




Being ornery, it's entirely possible this is so because Han is a hero in the movies, and so they made him look good in the books.  In the original movies, Han definitely undergoes an alignment change - in fact, I'd say it's one of the most clear examples of alignment shift out there.

I would agree that Han starts out TN - he's not totally without a sense of honor, and definitely operates within a system, albeit an illegal one.  He's just trying to do right by the people he cares about.  As Leia points out, that happens to be at the start just him and Chewie, and perhaps Luke.  Over the original movies, he goes from TN to NG pretty clearly, fighting for the rebellion and even volunteering to go on dangerous missions.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jan 20, 2007)

he shot first. So it wasent that act that makes him neutral, but it does show what his character is about, up to that point. It establishes him as neutral (rather them making him neutral). Luke & Leia were catalysts that forced him to change for the better.


----------



## Agamon (Jan 20, 2007)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> yes to which? This case requires specificness.




"Yes" is shorthand for "Alignment blows"


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 20, 2007)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Being ornery, it's entirely possible this is so because Han is a hero in the movies, and so they made him look good in the books.




Oh, sure that's possible.  But, its entirely possible that it is not.  So going either way there doesn't get us much.



> In the original movies, Han definitely undergoes an alignment change - in fact, I'd say it's one of the most clear examples of alignment shift out there.




??? 

I don't even think it is an alignment shift, much less a good example of one.  A better example of an alignment shift in the movies - and there are alot of good fall and redemption stories out there, its one of the most common themes in literature - is 'An Officer and a Gentlemen'.  But see also 'Sgt. York', 'Schindler's List', and I could probably go on and on if I sat and thought about it.

The problem with Han making an alignment shift is we don't really see him doing anything bad to begin with.  He has a change of heart, but he does so because the people around him appeal to his underlying since of justice and goodness.  I don't consider lifting someone out of a temporary bout of cynacism to be a full alignment change.   Where I Han's DM, I'd expect CG on his character sheet and would be seeing a hero being slowly beaten down by the world.  Han's definately at a low point.  He took the work from Jabba, which was evil, and which he shouldn't have done.  But one mistake doesn't make for an alignment change.  He's trying to recover from the consequences of that mistake and his desparation is making him forget who he is - that outraged young man who rescued a Wookie from slavery because he couldn't stand by and see injustice done.  But he's not yet fallen.  He still cares, however much he's trying not to.

There is a very strong indication that Chewie's alignment is Lawful Good - that Chewie's friendship with Han begins with the repayment of a life debt that Chewie's moral code requires of him.  But clearly Chewie doesn't see Han as a casual murderer and thief or anything else which might muddle his goodness, because Chewie's friendship with Han is real and that's not something a honor code can require of you.  More than that, I would expect in a LG honor code thier to be a clause which cancels the debt if the person you are indebted to does something truly dishonorable.  If Han's alignment is as far from Chewie's as CN, I wouldn't expect the friendship to be more strained than it is.  

It really doesn't take that much prompting from Chewie and Luke to get Han to listen to his heart and join the rebellion.  I don't see an alignment change here.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 20, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> What about being a smuggler in the era of the Empire makes you non-good?




Just because the Empire is a tyranny doesn't mean that anyone flouting its laws is automatically good.

HAN: I've outrun Imperial starships, not the local bulk-cruisers, mind you. I'm talking about the big Corellian ships now. She's fast enough for you, old man. What's the cargo?
BEN: Only passengers. Myself, the boy, two droids, and no questions asked.
HAN: What is it? Some kind of local trouble?
BEN: Let's just say we'd like to avoid any Imperial entanglements.
HAN: Well, that's the trick, isn't it? And it's going to cost you something extra. Ten thousand in advance.

"No questions asked." Since he doesn't seem too particularly concerned about precisely what it is he's being contracted to smuggle, just so long as he stays away from the Empire's clutches, I'd say Han seems more Neutrally inclined than Good.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jan 20, 2007)

Greedo never shot first. Anyone who says otherwise is a filthy liar who will be shoved headfirst into a pile of bantha poop.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 20, 2007)

Han _talks_ like he's Neutral to start with.  But his actions speak more loudly than his words.


----------



## Felix (Jan 20, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Han _talks_ like he's Neutral to start with.  But his actions speak more loudly than his words.



He takes the job of ferrying Ben and Luke to Alderran, regardless of who they are, because of a promise of payment.

His actions during the rescue of the Princess are motivated by the reward he's been promised; he says so himself.

By the end of the movie, he _is_ packing up to leave with his promised reward. He shifts when he comes out of nowhere to shoot Vader & Wingmen out of the sky. There are plenty of actions, and plenty of lines of his, to imply he starts with a Neutral alignment on the G-E axis.



			
				Leia said:
			
		

> I knew there was more to you than money!



This shows that Leia understands that Han had a capacity for Good, even if he never exercised it before.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jan 20, 2007)

We do not know enough about Han and his behavior PRIOR to his first appearance to reliably assign him an alignment.  At best we can ASSuME some things based on what he says regarding his philosphies to Ben, Luke, and Leia in Episode IV, but none of the movies EVER delve into Han's past beyond his involvement with Jabba which says almost nothing about him.  As Umbran noted he TALKS very neutralish, but TALK is not what determines alignment.  Actions determine alignment.

When introduced to Han we learn that he is a smuggler.  He's someone who makes his living operating outside the law inside of a fascist dictatorship (the Empire) just reaching the height of its power.  Then, when Han shoots Greedo (whether shooting first or not) it IS self-defense.  Greedo has a gun pointed at him and in an unambiguous conversation Greedo makes it clear that HE intends to kill Han - and has been looking forward to it - even if it is not what JABBA wanted Greedo to do.  But although it's a dramatic choice of action to shoot Greedo first on the sly under the table it CANNOT show a trend yet.

The next real moral/ethical choice that Han gets to make is when Luke has to promise him money to get him to help rescue Leia.  Now this seems quite selfish (and neutral) but we ARE talking about a guy who, given the circles he's running around in, HAS to put up a very neutral, selfish front lest he be thought weak and unreliable.  And remember that for a scoundrel and smuggler, and even for all his bragging - HE'S NOT VERY GOOD AT IT.  Obi Wan's reactions to him in the cantina tend to support this, as if he's sensing how Good-aligned he really is under his blustering facade.

Han owes Jabba a ton of money.  Though it is never stated just how much he owes, it can be inferred that the 17,000 might "really save his neck" but it won't necessarily fully square with Jabba what he owes.  In the conversation with Greedo the lost shipment that is mentioned _could_ be where the total of the debt comes from, but given the overall context it seems FAR more likely that this is just the latest in a string of incidents that have left him further and further in debt to Jabba.

So, when Han hears about the Princess his reluctance to get involved can still be seen as ranging from neutral to NG or CG - still not enough evidence of a pattern of actions to base a reliable alignment estimation upon.  But he NEEDS that money, and if it's not the only motivation he has for helping at that point it certainly helps him give in to his nicer tendencies.  Also, Obi Wan gave him 2000 up front and _promised_ 15,000.  That shows either that Han is just that desperate or that he's NOT the hard-assed Neutral he pretends to be and is thus willing to take Obi Wan at his word.  Now aboard the Death Star, Luke promises "more wealth than you can imagine".  Han HAS to know, given that he's currently trapped on this fascist-dictatorship-operated space station large enough to be mistaken for a FREAKIN MOON, that living to see any of this fantasy money is NOT a real reason to get motivated to rescue princesses.  He uses the money as a convenient excuse to maintain his persona and yet do what he senses is the right thing - fight the Empire, save the girl.

The real crisis of conscience for Han is at the rebel base when he gets his reward.  Although he's now FREE of the underworld life that he'd gotten himself into he's likely been too long in the habit of acting Neutral or CN (and thus effectively _being_ Neutral/CN) to make the alignment shift yet.  But it's not long before he changes his mind - and possibly his alignment - and comes back to help save the day.

NOW, at THIS point, you can start to throw alignments on him.  He's not neutral - even if he once was.  He's clearly shifted towards good (or established that he's always been so, even if he's had to pretend otherwise), though his old hard-dying Neutral behaviors for appearances sake keep him NG or CG.  In Empire Strikes Back he's VOLUNTARILY going to go back to pay off Jabba the Hut.  He says because if not he'll be a dead man, but he's not a criminal anymore.  Why should he feel obligated to pay a debt to a criminal who might indeed want to have him killed rather than have the money at this point?  He wants to pay Jabba because Han has a sense of honor and honesty that he cannot continue to deny.  An obligation willingly accepted must be fulfilled.  No matter what his motivations were at the time he incurred the debt his alignment NOW will not allow him to try to welch on it - and he could just as easily borrow an x-wing and a few troops and put an end to it and the Rebels might well GIVE them to him if he asked.  By the time of _Return of the Jedi_ those neutral tendencies are all but entirely eliminated and he's easily seen as LG - he's not even taking it for granted that his faithful companion Chewbacca will just go along with whatever dangers he's getting himself into.

YMMV


----------



## Vegepygmy (Jan 20, 2007)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> In the original movies, Han definitely undergoes an alignment change - in fact, I'd say it's one of the most clear examples of alignment shift out there.



I agree.  The only question in my mind is whether he starts out TN or CN, and frankly there's just not enough information in Ep4 for me to decide.


----------



## Felix (Jan 20, 2007)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> And remember that for a scoundrel and smuggler, and even for all his bragging - HE'S NOT VERY GOOD AT IT.



Why would you say he's no good at it? Because he owes a debt?



> Why should he feel obligated to pay a debt to a criminal who might indeed want to have him killed rather than have the money at this point?



Maybe because, "A death mark is not an easy thing to live with." I always figured he went to pay Jabba back because, "the bounty hunter on Oord Mandel changed [his] mind", and not because of any breach of honor. He just wants to stop getting shot at.



> By the time of Return of the Jedi those neutral tendencies are all but entirely eliminated and he's easily seen as LG



My mileage most certainly _does_ vary on this point. Han? Lawful Good? Why? Becasue he's considerate to his friends? Because he joins an organized rebellion?


----------



## RainOfSteel (Jan 20, 2007)

Mighty Veil said:
			
		

> Complete Scoundrel says Han Solo was N. Here's my question on that:
> 
> Is this the Han Solo of "Greedo shot first" or the original (and real) "Han shot Guido" version?



Regardless of what alignment you believe Han Solo was in A New Hope, shooting Greedo first wasn't an evil or even chaotic act.  Greedo _had a gun on him_ at the time!  Shooting Greedo was self defense, and nothing else.

Personally, I saw him as a hard-nosed character who no longer believed in anything other than himself, Chewie, and money.  Part of the movie was about dragging Han back from the brink of total cynicism.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Jan 20, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> What about being a smuggler in the era of the Empire makes you non-good?
> 
> I'd say CG from the outset, perhaps trending NG as things come along. Han's "selfishness" largely seems to be a pose; it's part of the "roguish hero" or "reluctant hero" archetypes. After all, he gives Luke encouragement ("May the Force be with you") even though he's a skeptic; he shows up to help Luke at the Death Star; he comes back to get the Princess out of the Hoth base; etc etc. At least that's the impression I have.




All the stories about Han I read (the very early-1979!-Han Solo Adventures and the more recent Han Solo Trilogy) never (Well, maybe hardly, hardly ever, haven't read them in a long while, might've missed something besides the orphans in Rebel Dawn below) show him making sacrifices for other people. He's going after a treasure or paid to do something and THEN something happens to get him personally involved, like Chewie being kidnapped. Sure, he doesn't run slaves and doesn't kill people in cold blood (see how he meets Lando and Boba Fett in the Han Solo Trilogy) but other than that he has very few qualms. He's neutral... edging to Good at the end of _Rebel Dawn_. 



> The real crisis of conscience for Han is at the rebel base when he gets his reward. Although he's now FREE of the underworld life that he'd gotten himself into he's likely been too long in the habit of acting Neutral or CN (and thus effectively being Neutral/CN) to make the alignment shift yet. But it's not long before he changes his mind - and possibly his alignment - and comes back to help save the day.




He's not free. He doesn't have a steady, clean job--he's just out of debt. 

IIRC from _Rebel Dawn_, He originally got into debt to Jabba because he had to dump a load of spice to avoid being picked up by Imperials...while he was ferrying, IIRC, some orphans to a better place to live. He could choose the orphans or the spice and he chose the orphans. He dumps the spice, the Imperials search the ship, he's just an honest spacer helping some kids, he gets them wherever he had worked out they were going to go, and then he can't find the spice when he goes back to try and find it afterwards. Thus, one lost shipment. Everything before this, IIRC, is all solidly Neutral actions. 

IIRC, the amount lost would have been covered by Obi-wan's offer--he could either sell the Falcon or find another way to pay the debt...thus, why he needed to take Luke & co.'s offer.
As for Han's skills: From the information in all these books, he's a good-to-excellent blaster shot, pilot, ship tech, swoop rider, vibroblader, did a stint as a con artist, he's got good streetwise skills...list goes on. Also knows several languages. He just had one bad incident.


----------



## Turanil (Jan 20, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Han is CG.  Right from the beginning.



This is also my opinion.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 20, 2007)

I'm throwing my hat into the neutral ring. I don't see him valuing personal freedom enough to warrant specifically labeling him chaotic. We don't have enough information.

But as far as neutrality goes, sure. He works as a smuggler for a notorious criminal empire and is motivated by money rather than any sense of altruism... until he manages to make a personal connection with someone in need of help (Luke attacking the Death Star). 
That connection brings Han, over the course of the next 2 movies, into the light to the point that he actually fights for good principles rather than cash.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 20, 2007)

I can certainly see the argument for neutral, whether I agree with it or not.  Han does what is in his own interests.  He helps because he's getting paid.  Besides, being CN means that Han would go out of his way to actively disrupt the status quo.  Being Good would mean that he would actively help those around him in need without the reward.

He's pretty neutral.  Not neutral in the "all things in balance sense" but, neutral in the "I don't really have any strong convictions, so, I'll just do what's best for me" sense.

I will heartily agree that he undergoes an alignment shift by the end of the trilogy.  By Return, he's voluntarily undertaking missions for which he will not receive any payment solely for the benefit of others.  This strikingly displays a good alignment.  That he wants to personaly lead the mission to Endor and not stand back and be a good general shows his Chaotic streak.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 20, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Just because the Empire is a tyranny doesn't mean that anyone flouting its laws is automatically good.
> 
> HAN: I've outrun Imperial starships, not the local bulk-cruisers, mind you. I'm talking about the big Corellian ships now. She's fast enough for you, old man. What's the cargo?
> BEN: Only passengers. Myself, the boy, two droids, and no questions asked.
> ...



Except that, the Empire being a tyranny and all, "no questions asked" is more non-Lawful than non-Good.

If we're actually going to analyze specific dialogue elements right now, it's worth noting that the Empire is pretty unambiguously labeled "evil" from the start. Luke gives Ben an "of course I hate it" answer about the Empire, and the opening narrative establishes the same thing. Just because Han bends the law doesn't mean he *expects* the consequences of his actions to be anything other than non-evil. 

This does, however, illustrate a problem in approaching alignment: Namely, the tension between the omission of evil acts and the commission of good acts. I tend to go with the more generous approach. Han doesn't do anything particularly bad, ever, in the movies, unles it's milking Luke and Ben for a pot of money. (Granted, if you shift around the moral universe of the films to assume that Luke and Ben easily could be a pair of crazed serial killers escaping their crimes, the story might be different. But I don't think that's a fair hypothetical conclusion to raise.) Moreover, where the choice is between the not-so-good and the good, he generally chooses the good.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 20, 2007)

When he starts out, the Movie Han (I'll be ignoring the Extended Universe Han because that's a) non-canonical, and b) not known to most) is:

- A smuggler, someone who makes aliving out of breaking the law.
- Someone who works for well-known and ruthless crime bosses (namely, Jabba).
- Someone who, as Greedo puts it, "jettisons his cargo at the first sight of an Imperial ship", as to not get in trouble with the Law (if he can help it).
- Someone who, when given the opportunity to settle his debt in exchange for his ship, refuses, even though that might save his life and that of his best friend.
- Refuses to help an old man and a boy, until they tempt him with tons of money.
- Refuses to rescue a Princess, until they tempt him with tons of money.
- Flies by the seat of his pants (sometimes literally), making stuff up as he goes.

Saying "May The Force Be With You" to Luke at Yavin IV doesn't mean he's going Good. It means he's becoming friends with this farm-boy. Coming back to save Luke at the Death Star also doesn't make him Good. His actions through the Original Trilogy make him Good when he starts to sacrifice himself to help others beside his friends (the highpoint being when he volunteers to the Endor mission).


----------



## delericho (Jan 20, 2007)

If we're using the movies only as the reference point, I have to place Han as N (possibly CN) at the start of Star Wars, shifting to NG (possibly CG) when he returns to save the day. (The reason for the possibly Chaotic assignment is that he does generally seem to have problems with authority, but these seem to just be words rather than actions, "I take orders from just one person. Me.")

If external sources are admitted, then he's Good from the outset - as was mentioned in the other thread, he threw away a promising career to help Chewie, a stranger to whom he had no personal bond. That's a pretty strong indicator of Good.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 20, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> He takes the job of ferrying Ben and Luke to Alderran, regardless of who they are, because of a promise of payment.




So does a bus or taxi driver - but they can't be good?.  That he doesn't ask questions only means that he's not particularly interested in upholding Imperial law. 

So, he's perhaps Chaotic, or Neutral with respect to Law/Chaos.  But failing to follow Imperial law says nothing about how good or evil he is.



> His actions during the rescue of the Princess are motivated by the reward he's been promised; he says so himself.




Well, my point is that his actions speak more loudly than his words.  Words are just that - words. It is all just bluster - he wants to appear big and tough and uncaring, so people don't take advantage of him.  He's done this for so long that he almost believes it himself.    



> He shifts when he comes out of nowhere to shoot Vader & Wingmen out of the sky.




Where I come from, single acts don't generally shift alignment much (there are some exceptions, but they are few and far between).  Alignment is a _long term_ measure of behavior. You don't go flopping around on the alignment axes on a day to day basis - and let's remember that the movie takes only a very short time span.  One selfless act does not a goodie-two-shoes make.  

So, by my terms, either he was Good to start the movie, or he's still Neutral at the end of it.  I vote that he's Good, but was in denial.  He kept on doing good things all the time, excusing them as "business".


----------



## Felix (Jan 20, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> He kept on doing good things all the time, excusing them as "business".



You say that actions speak louder than words, but the _only_ example of Han doing something demonstrably Good is at the end of the movie.

For everything else he does, the _only_ clue we have to his motivations are his words, and his words don't suggest anything Good about him.



> Alignment is a _long term measure of behavior._



_
And for a long time he's been motivated by money. Sure, he has the capacity for Good, and he may reject doing Evil, but that still puts him in the Neutral category on the G-E axis because we don't see him do anything motivated by Good until the end of the movie.

Why ascribe Good motivations to him, why say "he's just keeping up appearances" when he's gruff and uncaring, why ignore what he says about his motivations where there is no evidence at all of a Good motivation until the end of the movie? It's called "character growth". It's a good thing for a movie to have._


----------



## Nifft (Jan 20, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> You say that actions speak louder than words, but the only example of Han doing something demonstrably Good is at the end of the movie.
> [...]
> why ignore what he says about his motivations where there is no evidence at all of a Good motivation until the end of the movie? It's called "character growth". It's a good thing for a movie to have.




Yeah. Me too.

 -- N


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 20, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> But as far as neutrality goes, sure. He works as a smuggler for a notorious criminal empire and is motivated by money rather than any sense of altruism




I agree with this, and to add...

is motivated by money rather than any sense of malevolence.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 20, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I agree with this, and to add...
> 
> is motivated by money rather than any sense of malevolence.




Yup. Neither altruism nor malevolence. Neutral. 

 -- N


----------



## prosfilaes (Jan 20, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> So does a bus or taxi driver - but they can't be good?.  That he doesn't ask questions only means that he's not particularly interested in upholding Imperial law.




It could also mean he's transporting homicidal maniacs who violated those nasty, nasty Imperial laws against killing shopkeepers.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 20, 2007)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> It could also mean he's transporting homicidal maniacs who violated those nasty, nasty Imperial laws against killing shopkeepers.




Yes.  And?  It isn't like providers of transport have _ever_ made a regular habit of asking after the moral state of their passengers when not required to do so by government.  Or are now all bus and taxi drivers neutral for failing to check on the possible crimes of their fares?



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> Why ascribe Good motivations to him, why say "he's just keeping up appearances" when he's gruff and uncaring, why ignore what he says about his motivations where there is no evidence at all of a Good motivation until the end of the movie? It's called "character growth". It's a good thing for a movie to have.




Because I'm being asked to showhorn him into a morality system that really isn't designed to describe him, for one thing.  For another, because I find such a rapid change of heart to be implausible.  Character gwoth is one thing, the leapoard changing his spots is another.

While I'll vote for really good at start, I've already stated that him being neutral at start (and end) is plausible.  The action of the movie takes place over the course of a couple days , and while Han has andventures in that time, he does not suffer any events that should stike at his heart such that it would plausible change.

Now, growing romance with Leia and exposure to others who are more altruistic, I'll buy as life-changing.  By the end of the movie series, he can be good.  But I don't see a full flop by the end of the first film.

Mind you, I'm also of the opinion that (in strictly D&D terms) Vader doesn't do enough to make a turnaround either.  Sure, he sacrifices himself, but only for his own son, after slaying how many?  It isn't as if he's rededicated himself to altruism in that one act.  The space-opera movie morality just doesn't fit with the D&D system too well.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jan 20, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Yes.  And?  It isn't like providers of transport have _ever_ made a regular habit of asking after the moral state of their passengers when not required to do so by government.  Or are now all bus and taxi drivers neutral for failing to check on the possible crimes of their fares?






> BEN: Only passengers. Myself, the boy, two droids, and no questions asked.
> HAN: What is it? Some kind of local trouble?
> BEN: Let's just say we'd like to avoid any Imperial entanglements.
> HAN: Well, that's the trick, isn't it? And it's going to cost you something extra. Ten thousand in advance.




That's more than not asking after the moral state of the passengers. That's knowing that something's up and charging more for it.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 20, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Yes.  And?  It isn't like providers of transport have _ever_ made a regular habit of asking after the moral state of their passengers when not required to do so by government.  Or are now all bus and taxi drivers neutral for failing to check on the possible crimes of their fares?




I agree with you.  I don't think this particular example (Han agreeing to transport people for money) should be a factor worth considering when determining alignment.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 20, 2007)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> That's more than not asking after the moral state of the passengers. That's knowing that something's up and charging more for it.




I see it as an example of:

(A) Han not caring if he gets "pulled over" by Imperial forces to search his ship.

vs.

(B) Actively trying to avoid Imperial Forces because his paying customers are asking him to (and paying him for it)


----------



## Delta (Jan 20, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> So does a bus or taxi driver - but they can't be good?.




Ah, so what's the alignment of Travis Bickle from "Taxi Driver"?


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 20, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> When he starts out, the Movie Han (I'll be ignoring the Extended Universe Han because that's a) non-canonical, and b) not known to most) is:
> 
> 
> > - A smuggler, someone who makes aliving out of breaking the law.
> ...


----------



## Seeten (Jan 20, 2007)

Real people dont just "Rescue the Princess from the huge prison" on some farmboys say so.

I mean really.

Imagine this conversation in real life, with a local cabbie, 

"Hey, there is a jail around the corner. I need you to help me break out one of the female inmates. She's been falsely accused" and see where you get.


----------



## Nyaricus (Jan 20, 2007)

Han Solo comes off as Chaotic Neutral (with traces of good tinged with greed) and will always be who I cite to my players who wish to play the chaotic 'dumb' alignment.

He's a rambuncious (s?), flying-on-the-seat-of-his-pants, swashbuckling guy who has to adust to what's happening around him, and realise what is worth fighting for.

Really, any neutral alignment, in my opinion, is just a transistion waiting to come into their own on the good to evil axis.

cheers,
--N


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 20, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Point 1: Greedo, not Guido.
> 
> Point 2: Han was definitely neutral when he started out. The original versions of the movies just did a better job of showing it. He became good as the story continued (something that was also much better shown, as a character arc, in the unaltered versions).




I don't think he did. I think he just demonstrated that his brand of heroism had a lot going for it. He joined the rebellion because he hated the Empire and loved Chewbacca, Luke, and Leia, not because he thought he thought people, in general, deserved a better life.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Jan 20, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Real people dont just "Rescue the Princess from the huge prison" on some farmboys say so.
> 
> I mean really.
> 
> ...




Unless you're real lucky, that cabbie isn't going to be an experienced criminal who grew up on the streets and had a childhood of con artistry and thieving, and a decade plus of experience with violence and breaking the law...


----------



## prosfilaes (Jan 21, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Real people dont just "Rescue the Princess from the huge prison" on some farmboys say so.
> 
> I mean really.
> 
> ...




But that's not equivalent; I suspect if you were rescuing a princess, with the resulting promise of piles of money, a lot more cabbies might take you up on the chance to get filthy rich, especially on the word of a Jedi Knight. Even if Han doesn't believe in Jedi powers, true believers tend to do a good job of impressing people with their sincerity and honesty.


----------



## hamishspence (Jan 21, 2007)

*Canonical? the books are authorised by LucasFilms*

Even if not personally by Lucas, the books are legally permitted to display the StarWars logo, and are copywrighted, and all subsequent books must not contradict previous books. That makes them as close to canonical as the books can get.

Rebel Dawn, etc, are the official backstory to Solo, from the book point of view.

The Glove of Darth Vader series for little kids is NOT canonical, in the sense they they several times contradict the main novels.

As a smuggler of the highly addictive glitterstim spice of Kessel, Solo is perhaps not as good aligned as one might think. He isn't evil, but is not good either, at first.
Law vs Chaos: Solo has no particularly strong leanings in the Chaos direction: he's not an out-and-out rebel, simply a lawbreaker.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 21, 2007)

hamishspence said:
			
		

> As a smuggler of the highly addictive glitterstim spice of Kessel, Solo is perhaps not as good aligned as one might think. He isn't evil, but is not good either, at first.
> Law vs Chaos: Solo has no particularly strong leanings in the Chaos direction: he's not an out-and-out rebel, simply a lawbreaker.




Yes, he is inclined in many ways toward chaotic attitudes, but he himself is fairly consistent. For instance, honoring his bargain to Jabba seems important to him for reasons of personal integrity as well as self-interest. Although many chaotic characters place a lot of value on personal relationships, Han's "never abandon a buddy" ethic seems to place him closer to Neutral than to Chaotic. 

He really is an everyman kind of character, disinterested in the larger power struggles, issues of morality, or personal enlargement. Power is not even tempting to him, except power over his own destiny.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 21, 2007)

hamishspence said:
			
		

> Even if not personally by Lucas, the books are legally permitted to display the StarWars logo, and are copywrighted, and all subsequent books must not contradict previous books. That makes them as close to canonical as the books can get.
> 
> Rebel Dawn, etc, are the official backstory to Solo, from the book point of view.
> 
> ...



 The Extended Universe products aren't as canonical as the movies. Even though they're licensed, and must be in accordance with each other, they can be contradicted at any time by any Star Wars production by Lucasfilm. One example is the Darksaber novel, which relates the construction of the Death Star in the Maw facility, vs. the new origin of the Death Star in Episodes II and III.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jan 22, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> Why would you say he's no good at it? Because he owes a debt?



Not just owes a debt - he owes a LARGE debt.  Enough to get whacked over - or close to it.  Greedo was overstepping his authority when he intended to kill Han but his charter with Ben and Luke is his last chance.  We just don't know enough about this entire "Imperial Cruiser" incident, the debt, or ANYTHING about Hans past beyond this.  I was suggesting that it's possible that Han has for one reason or another failed at a succession of smuggling operations for Jabba.  Han presents himself as a terrific smuggler.  In the extended scenes Jabba says he's "the best".  But IF that's really true and not just blowing smoke then why whack Han over ONE failure?  Over a SINGLE debt, even if it's a large one?  My understanding here is that Han is definitely on the outs with Jabba because he's just not the badass criminal and smuggler he says he is.  He's a good pilot with a good ship but he's NOT the crook he wants people to think he is.  That's what I mean when I say he's not very good at it.


> Maybe because, "A death mark is not an easy thing to live with." I always figured he went to pay Jabba back because, "the bounty hunter on Oord Mandel changed [his] mind", and not because of any breach of honor. He just wants to stop getting shot at.



But again - he's now running with a LARGE, well-organized rebellion.  He could "disappear" into that organization if he wanted to.  He doesn't have to show his face anywhere that it can be recognized and shot at.  He also has access to GOBS of military hardware.  He could "borrow" some of it for a while, or because they think so much of him he could even ask for it and they might even give it to him - then KILL Jabba, the big, disgusting vile crime boss, and be seen as doing the universe a favor, while also scratching his debts.

Instead he does the "honorable" thing, stands up to his obligations - even those incurred working as a crook for a bigger crook - and faces the music.  This is hardly Neutral behavior.

And, although he TALKS like he wants to be seen as a master criminal, he IS facing down Imperial forces, not local law enforcement (as he notes to Ben and Luke in the cantina) - at least for that last operation that went bad.  He brags about outrunning Imperial starships.  This suggests to me that he's less a criminal already than he is someone _operating against the Empire_.  But again, we just don't know enough to read too much into it one way or another.


> My mileage most certainly _does_ vary on this point. Han? Lawful Good? Why? Becasue he's considerate to his friends? Because he joins an organized rebellion?



Not at the end of Episode IV - at the end of Episode VI.  I don't see ANY chaotic and neutral behavior in ESB and RotJ, I see lawful and good behavior.  The last really neutral thing he does COULD be leaving the rebellion temporarily for his own "selfish" reasons of taking care of this price on his head.  Depends on how you really want to interpret that.  But it doesn't much matter.  He's still moving in a LG direction and by the end of the series I don't see him doing ANYTHING that suggests he's anything but LG - the direction he started moving at the end of ANH.


----------



## hamishspence (Jan 22, 2007)

*True, the movies trump the books*

Sometimes even the books trump the books: some dates have been revised since first use. Like the date of the devastation of Honoghr the Noghri planet. But, LucasArts has numerous times used material from the books for computer #####, most notably Star Wars Supremacy.

Or, statements made in earlier movies /novelisations are contradicted in  Episodes 1 2 3. E.g. originally Owen Lars was Ben's brother not Anakins stepbrother. Leia says of her mother that she can remember "just a little bit: she died when I was very young" Though she might be thinking of Mrs Bail Organa.
There are some humourous references on the subject of "How Leia Knows what Padme Looked like" and "Why Ben Says Anakin Wanted Luke to have His Saber" in Star Wars magazine.

Generally the books are consistent with each other, however.

On the subject of Captain Solo: even the Rebel dawn series doesn't actually show WHAT happened at the academy: it takes place between books 1 and 2


----------



## Felix (Jan 22, 2007)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> Not just owes a debt - he owes a LARGE debt.  Enough to get whacked over - or close to it.  Greedo was overstepping his authority when he intended to kill Han but his charter with Ben and Luke is his last chance.



Greedo was busy being Evil, so I suspect that while there may have been a bounty out for Han's life, Jabba would have been just as happy letting Han live and recovering the money. So it may have not been his "last chance", but rather "it could really save [his] ass".



> We just don't know enough about this entire "Imperial Cruiser" incident, the debt, or ANYTHING about Hans past beyond this.



Quite. But we know that he dumped an expensive shipment for Jabba, and that Jabba trusted him with the contract.



> I was suggesting that it's possible that Han has for one reason or another failed at a succession of smuggling operations for Jabba.  Han presents himself as a terrific smuggler.  In the extended scenes Jabba says he's "the best".  But IF that's really true and not just blowing smoke then why whack Han over ONE failure?  Over a SINGLE debt, even if it's a large one?



I forget how much time passed between A New Hope and ESB, but it was substantial; enough time to establish a base on Hoth and run into a bounty hunter on Oord Mandel. Possibly Jabba, having heard that Han took a charter that would pay his debt and became a hero of Yavin IV (word may have gotten back), grew impatient that his menace was being dismissed by Han, and needed to make an example of him. Jabba does put Han up in his audience chamber as an example; what message does this send to other smugglers? Is that message something Jabba would want his "employees" to pay attention to? Is it a more effective message if Han was once a favored smuggler, or a failed one?



> But again - he's now running with a LARGE, well-organized rebellion.  He could "disappear" into that organization if he wanted to.



Was he not found on Oord Mandel while he was disappeared into the rebellion?



> He also has access to GOBS of military hardware.  He could "borrow" some of it for a while, or because they think so much of him he could even ask for it and they might even give it to him - then KILL Jabba, the big, disgusting vile crime boss, and be seen as doing the universe a favor, while also scratching his debts.



The rebellion is struggling against the Empire; would they want to start a second front with a gangster organization that employs hitmen who would be happy to find a reason to get paid by the Empire to kill the rebels?



> Instead he does the "honorable" thing, stands up to his obligations - even those incurred working as a crook for a bigger crook - and faces the music.  This is hardly Neutral behavior.



Han is being shot at, and he doesn't know where the next shot is going to come from. _That_, says Han, is the reason he needs to pay off Jabba: he has to get clear with the money that he has had since Yavin. (He's been avoiding paying Jabba off and then linking back up with the rebellion, which with such a fast ship would be possible.)

And if it is hardly Neutral behavior, is it Lawful behavior to pay a loanshark back after he's sent his knuckle-breakers after you a few times?



> He brags about outrunning Imperial starships.  This suggests to me that he's less a criminal already than he is someone _operating against the Empire_.  But again, we just don't know enough to read too much into it one way or another.



He claims to be fast. His criminality is his ability to run away: something a smuggler should be good at. From his fast ship (and it is), to his skill at flying it through an _asteroid field_, to using his knowledge of Imperial procedure to make it seem like he disappeared, it doesn't seem like he lacks the equipment, ability, or cleverness to be a good smuggler.



> Not at the end of Episode IV - at the end of Episode VI.  I don't see ANY chaotic and neutral behavior in ESB and RotJ, I see lawful and good behavior.  The last really neutral thing he does COULD be leaving the rebellion temporarily for his own "selfish" reasons of taking care of this price on his head.  Depends on how you really want to interpret that.  But it doesn't much matter.  He's still moving in a LG direction and by the end of the series I don't see him doing ANYTHING that suggests he's anything but LG - the direction he started moving at the end of ANH.



Ah, you meant at the end of the series. Absolutely, he's moving towards Good.

He moves towards lawful only if it is impossible for a Chaotic character to find motivations to assist organizations without those motivations being Lawful in nature. I believe that Chaotic people can indeed organize, although they tend to do it less so than Lawful folks, and that Chaotic organizations can exist.

What actions in particular would you cite as Lawful, that could also not be motivated by the desire to do Good and help his friends?


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Jan 22, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> > - A smuggler, someone who makes aliving out of breaking the law.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sure it's non-good.  Not evil, of course, but it there's nothing good about it either.  It's like explaining that someone's profession is to be a mining engineer.  It doesn't mean he's not good, but you can say that being a mining engineer is not a profession terribly oriented towards protecting the innocent and thwarting evil, so if he's being good he's probably doing it in off-hours.



> > Someone who works for well-known and ruthless crime bosses (namely, Jabba).
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sure, over a business matter.  He didn't have a problem taking a job with Jabba for moral reasons.



> Saving his life would be self-interest anyway. Again, not relevant on the good and evil axis. Moreover, it's absolutely not clear that Chewie's life is in danger because of this bounty thing. Han refers to "my dead body"; "my neck"; etc.




Here's the thing.  If most of someone's actions are made up of things that are not relevant on the good and evil axis, then that means that person is probably neutral.  If that person were good, they would be going around doing good things.  The fact that they have no desire to do so, but at the same time have compunctions against evil, is what neutral is all about.


----------

