Darth Vader: Alignment

[Gentlegamer]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.