Darth Vader: Alignment

[Korgoth]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.