Alignment: Han Solo is Neutral?

[Umbran]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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)