Darth Vader: Alignment

[comrade raoul]

Vader is classic NE. He's too comfortable working under his master, and working alongside the rest of the Imperial hierarchy, to be truly Chaotic--but he's also not acting out of any commitment to order or sense of obligation, which disqualifies him from being Lawful. He's a hateful, angry man who found himself in a position that basically works for him--it lets him crush his enemies and get his Dark Side fix, and, given the Emperor's influence, escaping would be way more trouble than it's worth. That seems pretty paradigmatically Neutral, to me.

 

[Hussar]

Uh, once again, not Vader. Not his idea, not his order. He just sort of watched.

*Hangs head in shame*

I must now flagellate myself with my copies of Leia's bikini. :/

I can't believe I misremembered that. Sigh.

 

[pawsplay]

CE. He doesn't expect his officers to obey the law, but his personal commands. His service to the Empire is one of duty to the Emperor, personally, and because of his desire for power. He's a classic tyrant... both chaotic and evil, willing to overturn any law on a whim if it suits his personal desire.

Threaten to murder an on-duty military officer? Check. Conspire against his own master, knowing his master is in turn conspiring against him? Check. Violate galactic law and customs of diplomacy? Check. Ignore the chain of command? Check. Pledge his loyalty to Sidious, simultaneously planning to overthrow him? Check. Execute underlings without the benefit of a court-martial? Check.

People seem to have this idea that Chaotic individuals don't wish to rule others. That's not true at all. A Chaotic individual, as a ruler, expects their personal commands to be carried out, to the letter. If they declare that anyone wearing purple is to be flogged, anyone wearing purple is to be flogged. Why? Because they said so, and they are in charge. A Neutral individual's commands would be in service to their goals as ruler... for instance, Sidious, as a Neutral Evil individual, issues commands that further his personal power and frustrate his enemies. He expects the chain of command to be generally followed, but makes exceptions when useful. A Lawful Evil individual values hieararchy. Tarkin is a good example of LE. He gets annoyed when Vader tries to kill one of the other officers... they have work to do! Those Rebels aren't just going to go and kill themselves, you know. He also chooses to remain on the Death Star, despite being informed of the danger. Why? Sure, because he's arrogant, but also because it would be INCONSISTENT with his belief in himself as a courageous soldier.

 

[pawsplay]

Vader is classic NE. He's too comfortable working under his master, and working alongside the rest of the Imperial hierarchy, to be truly Chaotic--but he's also not acting out of any commitment to order or sense of obligation, which disqualifies him from being Lawful. He's a hateful, angry man who found himself in a position that basically works for him--it lets him crush his enemies and get his Dark Side fix, and, given the Emperor's influence, escaping would be way more trouble than it's worth. That seems pretty paradigmatically Neutral, to me.

I'd say his position is convenient to him, because he's allowed to be as Chaotic as he wants to be. His authority is nearly limitless, and existing outside the usual chain of command suits his nature.

 

[Felix]

Threaten to murder an on-duty military officer commander of lemures?

Conspire against his own master Asmodeus, knowing his master Asmodeus is in turn conspiring against him?

Pledge his loyalty to Sidious Asmodeus, simultaneously planning to overthrow him?

Execute underlings without the benefit of a court-martial?

Edited to translate to a D&D world.

Do you see any of these things really out of place in a Baatezu? Think of poor Levistus: he was imprisoned, without court-martial, for eons. Even when in charge of Stygia do you think he doesn't plot revenge against his jailor? And what of Geryon, the only lord to remain loyal to Asmodeus and was crucial in the success of his plan in the Reckoning of Hell: deposed and faded into anonymity. He was "disappeared", unless (which is very possible) I haven't read what really happened to him.

Violate galactic law and customs of diplomacy?

Do you refer to capturing the corvette at the beginning of Episode IV? Vader was right, you know: the ship was harboring an agent of the rebel alliance in possession of stolen Imperial information. Are you sure the law didn't provide Vader the right to stop the ship by any means if they did not submit themselves to an inspection? We know that the captain wasn't forthright: "If this is a consular's ship then where is the ambassador?"

Or possibly to Vader's dealings with Bespin and Calrissian? Lando makes it clear to Han that his operation isn't entirely on the up-and-up. By eventually leaving a garrison on Cloud City he may well have been within the law regarding law-violating tabana gas mining operations.

Ignore the chain of command?

To what do you refer?

 

[M.L. Martin]

That was Tarkin, though, not Vader. (Though Vader certainly didn't object.)

Not in the film, but in the radio drama (which is just a step or two below the films in 'canonicity'), he does object, stating that the Emperor should be consulted.

However, that doesn't necessarily prove anything about Vader's lawfulness or lack thereof--he might just be worried about Tarkin's ambition and the possibly that someone commanding the Death Star can threaten the Emperor, and by extension his own position (another factor that's played up in the radio drama).

This argument is convincing me more and more of my long-held conviction that the problem isn't so much alignment as it is the ambiguous and unintuitive 'Lawful' and 'Chaotic' terms.

 

[EvilPheemy]

Darth Vader almost sets the standard for Lawful and Evil for me. The prequels reinforce that even more as Annakin was very Chaotic and Good. Annakin chaffed under authority and hierarchy, when he betrayed the Jedi, he became Darth Vader and as such became the very thing Annakin despised.

Vader was subservient to his Emperor and Master, he enjoyed all of the Lawful rights and privileges afforded his position, among those being a certain degree of freedom to pursue his personal agendas. Indeed, Vader is an agent of the Lawful Evil regime of the Empire and answerable only to Grand Moff Tarkin, and the Emperor Himself. But he *was* answerable, and when given orders, obeyed them without question.

Annakin on the other hand, was answerable to his master and the Jedi Council, but *always* questioned the orders he was given. He never accepted the Jedi Code at face value, even when Yoda himself was trying to teach him the code.

 

[snarfoogle]

From Vader's point of view, the Jedi are chaotic.

(I couldn't resist )

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Darth Vader is lawful evil. The stupid brat from the prequels that don't exist is chaotic stupid.

 

[pawsplay]

Edited to translate to a D&D world.

Do you see any of these things really out of place in a Baatezu? Think of poor Levistus: he was imprisoned, without court-martial, for eons. Even when in charge of Stygia do you think he doesn't plot revenge against his jailor? And what of Geryon, the only lord to remain loyal to Asmodeus and was crucial in the success of his plan in the Reckoning of Hell: deposed and faded into anonymity. He was "disappeared", unless (which is very possible) I haven't read what really happened to him.

That's Asmodeus's privilege. His vassals are accountable to him for how their subordinates are treated. Asmodeus only has to consider his regal right and his own judgment. Plus, Hell is a somewhat different situation; it is a fiefdom. Vader and the Moffs, however, are the Emperor's personal representatives in adminstrating a centrally ruled Empire.

Anyway, it is not simply treachery that is at issue, which is a trait of Evil. Rather the issue is hise swearing an explicit oath he has no intention of fulfilling, and that he could easily have avoided by choosing a different course.

Do you refer to capturing the corvette at the beginning of Episode IV? Vader was right, you know: the ship was harboring an agent of the rebel alliance in possession of stolen Imperial information. Are you sure the law didn't provide Vader the right to stop the ship by any means if they did not submit themselves to an inspection? We know that the captain wasn't forthright: "If this is a consular's ship then where is the ambassador?"

Among other matters. Regardless of whether the action is legal or not, it's not lawful. A lawful character respects not only the letter of the law of his land, but lawfulness in general; for instance, a Lawful character would be bound by the Geneva conventions, or in this case, diplomatic courtesy. As I've noted above, I don't consider Palpatine's regime to be LE in the first place, so Vader's actions are an extension of the Emperor policies.

possibly to Vader's dealings with Bespin and Calrissian? Lando makes it clear to Han that his operation isn't entirely on the up-and-up. By eventually leaving a garrison on Cloud City he may well have been within the law regarding law-violating tabana gas mining operations.

Vader breaks his assurances. A LE character wouldn't be threatening to break the agreement any further, he'd be rationalizing why he was allowed to break it at all.



To what do you refer?[/QUOTE]