Darth Vader: Alignment

[Felix]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.




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



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

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.