Someone explained this with shopping carts -- Lawful good: returns cart to inside store Neutral good: leaves cart in parking lot but makes sure it's not blocking a space Chaotic good: gives cart to someone just arriving Lawful neutral: puts cart in that little corral in parking lot True neutral: leaves cart wherever he finishes with it Chaotic neutral: shoves cart in random direction and walks away Lawful evil: puts cart in corral backwards so that it wastes space and makes the guy's job harder Neutral evil: puts cart so that it blocks someone from pulling out or getting his door open Chaotic evil: steals cart
I have to agree with your analysis on Darth Vader. If we follow D&D's definition of "evil", then Darth Vader, as we see him in the movies, is not truly evil, but neutral, since his actions are not driven by selfish motivations. However, this only shows the limitations of D&D's system of alignments. Because Darth Vader is really evil by common standards.
evil can be a tendency, a personality or an actual principle. just as you can be good by inclination or by principle. choosing any one side of the force is not neutral unless youre trying to correct an imbalance. but the switching sides does suggest moral ambiguity.
I like the take on the alignment system. But I have to disagree on the neutrality of Darth Vader. Murdering a room full of children is evil regardless of motivation. Especially when Anikin Knew that it was wrong.
Precisely, Anakin was clearly evil because he was acting on selfish desires. What I'm arguing here is that following the events of Episode III, Anakin died on the inside, giving himself up to the new personality of Darth Vader who is little more than a machine until he learns of his son's existence.
Absolutely. When Vader learns about Luke, he has his first real emotions in a decade+, which take him right back to what he was last feeling as Anakin. Then, in episode six we see the flip side, where he feels a burst of selfless emotion in the climax. These two scenes in particular were what I had in mind when I mentioned that "his emotions start to reawaken". Originally, I went into how these scenes show him struggling to be a motivated human being again, rather than the usual interpreted good overcoming innate evil. I decided to cut it because I didn't want the video to drag on too long.
My problem is how he deals with the failure of his subordinates and the fact he kills them. The Emperor didn't tell him to do it he does it for his selfish desire to feel powerful. Now my example would be Master Chief from Halo as he just follows orders and never questions the morality of his actions even believing all soldiers are machines and nothing else.
This video is amazing. Samara is a great character and you disected her nature to the tiniest detail, great work. But this piece was really cutting in its arguments, and actually made me look again at Darth Vader. It's astounding how many people on here just keep harping on and on about "Darth Vader is Lawful Evil". Every single person who does is ultimately missing the fundamental argument of this video, and this series. And that is that the Good/Evil position of the Character is defined by the MOTIVATION of the character. Not their actions. And there is tremendous logic within that. Actions are methods by which the character actively (or passively) affects the world around them. If alignment of the person was was determined by action, the alignment of a character could change every scene they were in; I walk down a hallway in a calm, orderly fashion. Are my actions therefore neutral? Each action can and does get judged as righteous or abhorrent by the perspectives of those around them. But this piece consistently argues that the Good/Evil characterization is determined by the motivation behind actions, not the action themselves. And there is very good reason for that. And certainly by that standard, Darth Vader is the picture of Lawful Neutral. From the end of Revenge of the Sith, until the revelation of Luke's paternity, the sum of Vader's motivation was continuation of his role as the Iron Hand of the Galactic Empire. That was the complete sum of his character. Even if his desire to destroy the Emperor (which from point A to point B was never expressed) was evil, it was never acted upon, and in very large measure out of personal connection to the Emperor. Moreover, his desire to destroy the Emperor was in very large measure a desire for revenge. And revenge is not in of itself evil. And if he did desire the throne out of lust for power, it was certainly out of a desire to rule a galaxy of absolute order. With the possible exception of his duel with Obi Wan, where he was after revenge, the sole motivation of Darth Vader was upholding the Empire and the Sith.
I thought the same thing man, his description was perfect. When he was human he might have turned evil because all he wanted to do was destroy and inflict his pain on others. But after he was rebuilt his only motive was responsibility. Even better work than I expected and this is why I love alignments.
I'm incredibly impressed with this series. So engaging that after watching the first episode, I had to binge watch it like it was something on Netflix. Can't wait to see more. I do have to agree with someone from an earlier video in the series though, when it cuts to music it is often far too loud (compared to the softness of your voice) and I think it was a little rough on my speakers.
There are plenty of examples for Vader and why he is evil. So the question is, do we look at a character's aligment for only a certain period of time or do we try to label the entirety of their actions? Can the characters (and we) change alignment? Can great moments and events in one's life signify those swifts? I can accept Vader ended his life as a Lawful Neutral, but at which point did that change occur?
I hope you're still doing dnd and/or whatever you love. You're unashamedly giving off all the nerd/basement vibes that people get crap for. We need more people like you that do what you love because you love it
The pre-gen character I got who I named Hilda Harefoot was listed as Lawful Neutral, however I think I played her more Chaotic Neutral as Hilda was a little too...Loot happy, and I'm not a very Principled person by nature
This is the alignment I always play for my Monk characters, so it's nice to know I had the general gyst of it right. And I can definitely see the Vader example enraging but it does make sense with some context.
You said in the lawful good video that Goku is good. I would make the argument using your definitions that Goku is in fact lawful evil. he is lawful because he has principles. He fights fairly and keeps to that fairness even when he or his friends are endangered by it. This plays into the evil(selfish) part. He is lawful because it challenges him. One of his main driving forces is the desire to have exciting fights, he wants to face the strongest fighers and his obsession with fighting the best puts others at risk. On the other hand he frequently shows that he does care about his friends and would happily sacrifice himself to save them. So how is he evil? The latest season really highlights the selfishness of his motivation as he convinces the god of everything to hold a tournament between the strongest fighters of multiple universes. When it is revealed that the winning team gets to live (the losing universes will be erased from existance) he doesn't seem the slightest bit concerned that everyone he knows and supposedly cares about could die. He either doesn't care. Or is so arrogantly overconfident that he will win that he isn't concerned at all when everyone else is. top that off with more historical evidence. He doesn't raise his children in favour of training, he doesn't earn money for his home unless his wife harasses him, he eats enormous quantities of food with no concern for the person providing it or paying for it. So there you have it. Goku is evil. Infact over the course of Dragon ball, vegeta has moved further up the good spectrum than Goku. He's actually a family man and will place the needs of his family above his needs or ego.
And here is where the entire notion that evil is just selfishness comes crashing to the ground as unsustainable. Sure, being selfish is usually evil, but its not what evil actually is. It's possible to be selflessly evil; it's possible to be self-centered by not be evil.
Matthew Reynolds What evil "actually is" is an artificial construct. Applying D&D alignment to the real world makes about as much sense as playing chess with only checkers.
Exactly when did I say anything about the real world? Let's say for the sake of laughs I agree with you that evil is just an artificial construct, and that it only applies to the world of D&D. Well, we still have to deal with the Law vs. Chaos distinction, often defined axiomatically as, "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one." (Law) vs. "Harm no one, do what you wish." (Chaos). Now, let's say that evil is selfishness as is suggested. This doesn't present a big problem with respect to chaos. Non-evil chaos elevates the individualism and freedom implied by the philosophy to something like the ethic of reciprocity, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.", while chaotic evil simply becomes, "Do what you wish." However, you ought to be a little bit uncomfortable to notice that we've just defined chaotic evil as more selfish self-centeredness. The fact that we are supposed to have two independent axis and there seems to be some overlap ought to give one pause. But when we try to apply this definition to Law, things fall apart completely. Lawful Good has the same nagging problem as Chaotic Evil. We have someone that believes in sacrificing self-interest to serve others...only more so? But Lawful Evil becomes a self-contradiction in terms - the person puts the needs of others before himself but is also supposed to be doing that selfishly? That doesn't even seem possible. And yet at the same time, if you thought about it, you could probably imagine someone that legitimately believed he was putting the good of others before themselves, who you'd also want to say was acting wrongly. Regardless of what you believe about good or evil in the real world, even just as game mechanics the definition of "good" and "evil" within the game has to be self-consistent. If you define Evil as selfishness, it's never going to be self-consistent with Law and Chaos being an independent axis. And trying to define Vadar as not evil is an example of the ridiculous consequences of accepting 'selfish' as evil itself, rather than one possible consequence of evil (a vice, if you would).
Matthew Reynolds Your mistake lies not with good and evil within the context of the game, but law and chaos. Good and evil is selflessness vs selfishness, and law vs chaos is order vs freedom, principle vs instinct, discipline vs desire. Lawful neutral is no more selfless than chaotic neutral, it simple upholds principle over personal motivation. Someone who is chaotic evil isn't selfish and selfish, they are selfish and self determined. Good is about the good of the many, and law is about the good of the society.... a subtle distinction, but it is there.
you are both right and wrong. it is evil from your standpoint because you your good principals. but having lawful principals and vaders law being the law of the empire. choking a co worker to death and torturing people is neutral from his (the empires) principals. because he does not care about any feelings associated over just getting the job done. think of it like this, you are born into a noble family. a family who governs a large sum of land. your families land and titles were gained through military force and the use of certain evil acts during, that led your family to acquire this land and title. those acts are now law, or at the very least legal and not punishable by law. and if torture (evil) is legal and not frowned upon by law in the land you come from. and you as a character uphold all the laws and duties from the land you come from even though you may feel bad about it but still perform it to get the job done. then you do so neutrally. and you also do so lawfully because where you come from it is your law. so you in turn are lawful neutral.
You know even lawful good can torture given the situation....lawful good does not mean being nice so i think similar actions can stand with neutral and evil
7:15 About Darth Vaders motivations. I know you probably have a billion fans commenting, but Darth Vader in the books was plotting to overthrow Palapatine but lacked the power to due so in his vulnerable form (in return of the Jedi only a tiny bit of force lightning took him out for example) In Return of the Jedi we see this again as he asks Luke to help him overthrow the emperor so they could rule the galaxy together. (Another example is in Revenge of the sith where he tells Padme he could overthrow the emperor.) But yes he does usually act LN because there is no opportunity to better his situation other than obeying Palapatine, he truly does become a tool.
Actually it took a lot of force lightning to take him out. Lightning was shooting through his skull and frying his life support it wasn't until later that he died from his injuries.
This description perfectly describes The Operative from the movie Serenity is an example of Lawful Neutral. Coincidently the same actor played Mordo in the MCU Doctor Strange, another Lawful Neutral character.
I know I know some of you are going to get a little bit mad at me for saying this (even the creator of this video maybe) but Darth Vader did have some very noble motivations for everything he did.. Even if you stick with the original trilogy he seems to be always laboring to do what he can to bring order out of the chaos that came about after the end of the clone wars.. in short I think he was driven an utilitarianism drive to bring happiness, safety, and prosperity by always acting in a way that would offer the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Which is why I think he's lawful neutral
Sorry but the Vader example is terrible. He made choices that lead to his condition. Those choices were evil and he knew that when he made them. He was motivated by a selfish desire for power and control. I mean the prequels may suck, but they are canon. He ended up a cyborg for a reason and his reasons were evil. He didn't become less evil in sublimating his old personality. He didn't redeem himself or repent. He was cold and logical in his desire for power but not ambivalent at all. He enjoyed the power and control he had achieved. You don't force choke people for disrespecting your belief system during a staff meeting because its a logical means to an end, you do it because you enjoy the fear, pain and embarrassment of others.
his change was due to needing to follow the sith lord to learn. His stopping Mace Windu's attempted illegal assassination was a lawful good act whwn he did it. He did not need power, he needed those in power to use it to benifit all. He was not evil, just not in favor of democracy and willing to be the one in power if need be. The foce chokings were not always fatal, and demonstrated that the religion was not faith, but fact. Undeniable once you are force choked.
Actually, no it wasn't illegal. The chancellor was Sith, illegal within the Old Republic (Remember that whole Sith war? Yeah, since then) and they had evidence he was the one who started the Clone Wars, as well as the war with the Naboo, from BOTH SIDES. He's clearly guilty of the deaths of millions, no matter how you look at it, and plunged the whole galaxy into epic scale war. Those ARE grounds for impeachment. He was then also armed with a lightsaber and fought the rightful authorities when they came to arrest him. And who did Vader help after achieving power? Oh right, no one, not until it was his own son on the line. No, sorry, but he's evil, he can quibble all he wants, but at no point until Return of the Jedi did he EVER express, show, or refer to any sense of remorse for anything he did, nor show anything but enjoyment in his sadism.
Sean McTiernan Arresting Studious would have been legal, they had a whole conversation about it. Windu wanted to execute him though. Windu is Chaotic (chaotic good, though I love to play devil's advocate and argue that the Jedi order is corrupt as hell) Sidious is some form of evil (too early in the morning to anilize again... and as I can't say immediately, I'll say neutral evil) and Vader is Lawful Neutral. He does as his master commands as that is how he gains power, not just for himself, but because he believes the republic is ineffective and a new political system is required for the benefit of all. Annikin, unlike Sidious, did not demand himself to be the power in charge, just that there should be one and he was willing if no one else could. He wanted power... but to better serve others. Not being a Republican is not the same as being evil, even if we think that form of government is less free. Intention dictates alignment. The worst attrosities are often performed with the best of intentions.
horizonkage Lawful Neutral: he follows the code, which occasionally demands acts that are evil, for the GREATER good he believes are the ends to these evil means. The US killed many people in ww2, even targeted civilians to try to spark revolt in Hamburg. That was an evil act done for a greater good, following a code of military service. Vader saught order for the galaxy, not chaos or something in between. He is following the code of the Sith. This makes him lawful even if it violates the standard law. He is neutral because it is not out of greed or selflessness that he does these things, but some aspects of both. He wants the best for the galaxy, but certainly not purely selfless in this pursuit.
at first i wanted to argue that vader is not lawful neutral, since he offers luke the opportunity to overtrow palpatine in the return of the jedi, but the dark side as well as the rule of two both promote that. FAK.
since neutral on both axes (Principled-Unprincipled and Selfish-Selfless) deals with ambiguity, I'm starting to believe that Jaime Lannister might be True Neutral. POSSIBLE SPOILERS BTW: Ambiguous Beliefs: he truly wants to be a "true knight" and be remembered well but he just loves to do an "abominable" act by sleeping with his twin sister. Ambiguous Motivation: he forewent his oath as a kingsguard and became practically a social pariah as "Kingslayer" in order to save King's Landing from being burnt to the ground. However, he did kinda push a kid out of a tower window and forced himself on his sister next to the corpse of his incest-son.... Thoughts?
I must give the clarification that I can only speak from the perspective of having watched the show. I have yet to read the Song of Ice and Fire books, so keep that in mind with my comments. Jamie Lannister is a tough one alright. If anything I think he's a good argument that the D&D alignment system is flawed, at least as far as the concept of pigeonholing characters into a single alignment. He shifts so often between alignments it's hard to keep track, but then, as I said in the first episode, all characters shift throughout their lives. That being said, I can see your point. Because of so much ambiguity around him one might be able to classify him as True Neutral on the whole. At the moment, having only thought about it for the few minutes it took me to type this response, I'd say I also lean towards calling him Neutral Evil. A lot of his actions are selfishly motivated, but as you said he does have a noble streak in him. Does anyone else have any thoughts?
***** good points. Have you read the Easy Damus webpage about "real" character alignments and making them fit for "real life"? If you haven't you can just google "real alignments" and it should pop up first.
My LN Definition: - One who follows own order and code no matter what. - What most are called: The Officer. - Examples: Eddard Stark, Nick Fury, Jean-Luc Picard, Principal Skinner, President Curtis, etc. ✍🤖📕
Bold take on Vader, but I think he was a very "dualistic" person who underwent unusually rapid changes in alignment. He had issues with rules and ultimately obedience big time. How he hated it too when they Masters would admitted him to the council but refused to accept not making him master yet. I'd call him neutral good and neutral evil respectively...
I totally agree with you on Samara and your point of view is pretty well argued. Im notnsure how to word why i disagree with you on Vader, so I wont waste any time on it, but i think its kinda sad that you specifically called on original trilogy vader for the arguement and people keep screaming about the prequels. Keep doing your thing man.
If you look at people as a whole, I think the vast majority are some sort of neutral alignment. I actually don't like the classifications of 'good' or 'evil' as they are myopic in their views of the vast arrays of different types of human morality throughout history up until today. Sherman burnt down Georgia in his mind to end the war early and save as many union soldier's lives as possible, while Lee is said to have conducted himself with honor yet fought for a system that would perpetuate slavery... Lee would have been lawful good for his country, but seen as lawful evil by the north, by the south Sherman is seen as Chaotic Evil, while by the north, he'd have been chaotic good. So it's all about perspective, it's something I've always hated about D&D, there are no true definitions of good and evil, because they are different for all of us.
You are absolutely correct that the D&D Alignment System is flawed. Your examples are perfect illustrations. the problem is that morality is subjective and the system itself is a collection oversimplified generalizations. Granted, complicating said system is not a solution to the problem. For the purposes of this series, I tried to alleviate some of the ambiguity by using more specific terminology to classify the two axis. Yet, even those newly defined alignments are malleable as far as interpreting examples. I intend on touching on all this again when I do the conclusions video to the series, but I definitely don't disagree with you. However, I do think that people can't really be lumped into one category or another. We're just different people every day of our lives. People would be/are constantly shifting between the alignments. I argue that the categories work more as a moral snapshot.
***** Absolutely, I love characters that can evolve, as we do in our own lives. I only played a few sessions of call of cthulu in Iraq, one of our platoonmates brought the books with him and we were bored out of our minds half the time so we gave it a go... I actually liked it, but we never had any alignments, just characters we made. I like the fantasy setting, so I feel like I would like to try something like D&D, and I've also played the Baldur's Gate series when I was a kid, so it's something I would be into, my major hang up with the system always came down to the alignments, but I see that with the right dungeon master perhaps they could be more fluid and diverse as long as people are playing their characters like real people, there are endless story telling possibilities.
Thanks! For the compliment and for commenting! With these videos I know a lot of people won't agree with me (especially with the unexpected examples), but my goal is to just get people thinking about the topic. I may present things objectively, but of course they're my interpretation, otherwise I'd be quoting people left and right! Anyway, that's awesome that you were able to discover roleplaying while off-duty like that. I have a friend who used to play battletech while stationed in Germany. He said that the military setting used to work great with his unit because they'd just keep the same command structure. As for exploring D&D, I wouldn't worry too much about the alignment. It's mostly for the DM anyway (for spells and such). A lot of players tend to focus too much on it. The way you're used to running players is the ideal way to go. Get to know the character, their ambitions, their fears, and use those to guide their actions. Fortunately, a lot of DM's either don't use the alignment system, or just don't worry about it. My best advice for if you want to try Dungeons and Dragons is find a group online through groups on Facebook (like our RPG Brigade) or websites like Roll20. Just be sure to talk with the DM before hand and be upfront with how you're used to playing, and what you're looking to get out of the game. Not every DM/group is the same, so if you find one or two that don't fit, don't worry about it. There's a group/game out there for you. Also, if you find D&D intimidating (a lot of people do), there's plenty of other fantasy games out there to try. Maybe check out Fantasy AGE, or Savage Worlds Fantasy.
+Rudy Schmidt which is why I like the never winter nights system because it allocates how evil or good and how chaotic they all are for example darth vader is lawfull evil and hitler is lawfull evil but hitler is far more malicious than darth vader while vader is more rule bound than hitler
I strongly disagree with the way you say Darth Vader isn't evil, even if I do understand where you are coming from. He's shown to not be completely without selfish intent if we are taking in the fact he considered taking out Palpatine so he can rule himself. Now ofc "evil" is something everyone argues what counts and what doesn't count as such, however I would consider what Darth Vader is to be more of the "Lawful over Evil" type of lawful evil (see the TV Tropes page for LE if you don't know what I mean) than outright lawful neutral.
So with Darth Vader, your saying that good vs evil is completely dependant on motivation and disjointed from weather the actioms are good or evil? I think I see your point about motivation being important but if feels like your underplaying the value of character actions. Doing harm to innocent would be evil, even if that will harm isn't comming from a personal motive. Unless you're under mind control you still have a conscience and Vader has to choose to ignore that conscience to perform these hanus acts. That's evil.
Everybody here seems to conveniently forget that Anakin did it all for love. In the end, it was misguided love, and he was taken advantage of by Palpatine when the fledgling Lord Vader literally disarmed Windu. He was willing to do anything he could to save Padmé from his mother's fate.
Um, no, sorry, but even by your own code of alignment, which I do essentially agree with, this is incorrect. Name one point prior to Return of the Jedi that Vader shows ANY remorse for anything he's done. Padme's death isn't one, because he believes it was his fault (It was, just dead after having the kids), and he wanted to save Padme for purely selfish reasons that he knew would lead to the deaths of many, to the point of murdering children. Even setting aside the prequels, he repeatedly force chokes people for no other reason than they've momentarily displeased him. NOT at the Emperor's order, but at his own discretion. That's SELFISH. Even when he finds out he has a son, his only ambition at that point is to have Luke help him murder the Emperor, so that he can rule the galaxy with Luke at his side. That's SELFISH on a galactic scale. He never mentions helping anyone, and he screws over Lando on his own choice, with no input from the Emperor. Again, that's SELFISH.
We are talking about later in his life. Darth Vader was evil he had nothing to live for the woman he loved was dead he gave into the darkside and he thought she died during pregnancy. He had nothing. Then Luke came along and he felt the first real emotion in years and yes he did originally want to get Luke to help him kill the emperor. In a later conversation though Luke tried to redeem him but he felt that he was bound to his master. He really wanted to change but his code forbade him from doing so. It wasn't until Palpatine was going to kill his son that Vader ended up turning on the emperor. Up until that point he was lawful evil.
Depends on who's writing vader. Lucas and those who write him similarly: vader is lawful evil. Those who see him more as an uncaring, unmotivated yet principled servant: lawful neutral.
Darth Vader is evil. The culmination of all his actions makes him evil as well as the methods he employs. A neutral character does not: 1) choke those that fail and displease them to death. 2) slaughter an entire temple of innocent children. 3) slay a boy's father in front of him and then take said boy as a slave. 4) help a madman make a weapon capable of planetary destruction. 5) attempt to turn his own son to darkness. 6) kill a good man and once brother-in-arms for the sake of his own selfish goals. 7) hunt down every last person that devoted themselves to being guardians of the weak. 8) enslave entire planets of alien races to use as heavy labor. 9) clone assassins that grow to become madmen, make them fight each to see which is the most useful, and proceed to dispose of them even if they were loyal. That he was redeemed does not make him any less evil. Evil can be tragic and can be sympathized with, but the methods, results, and utter lack of respect for life except as a tool to further his own ends clearly point to, as you stated, a SELFISH character, and as such, by your definition, an EVIL one.
Sadly enough people are not a constant that can be expected to remain the same over the course of their lives, people can and will change their beliefs over time. This is especially apparent in a character that goes from Jedi Knight to Sith Lord in a short amount of time. To be honest the vast majority of your examples can be explained away by the lawful part of his alignment. Simply enough in order to follow his code of ethics he had to commit acts that are certainly evil even though he does them out of a sense of duty and not personal pleasure.
+Daniel Thompson He telekinetically choked people to death for failing him. A Lawful Good Jedi Knight would not do that because the end result is murder and according to all civilized nations and major religions, evil. He acted out of anger and malicious intent, which led to an evil act just because he was displeased with a person's performance. By your logic a lawful good paladin would do the same because of their beliefs in order. Trying to pull that with any sane dungeon master would cause a loss of paladin status or at least a warning to change their ways back to good.
Picard has to be neutral good. leaning lawful. Vader is lawful evil in his actions until repenting. But on the inside because he is actually like all siths interested in his own power, hoping to one day overthrow the emperor, and become the sith lord as is the rule of two, whether or not that was in the original movies, he still like all siths was primarily self driven, vader is neutral evil.
Vader is neither lawful nor neutral. His entire training by Sidious was designed to break him from his lawful code, and he does evil because he believes good is restricting of those who should be in power. Sith are by design chaotic evil. The sith code directly teaches chaos. I think you're glossing over the evil he commits too much, as well as how often he's willing to turn on people or go back on his word. There's no way to get around the destruction of Alderaan as one of the most ultimate acts of evil as has ever been depicted on the silver screen. He goes through the motions of a loyal knight because he has nothing and so he lives solely to destroy and reshape a galaxy that did nothing but hurt him. He obeys because it suits him. Literally the moment he has something more than just crushing the old way, he is willing to throw Sidious under the fucking bus and betray him fully. The only rule the Sith really obey at all is the rule of two, which is just them trying to not get hammered by the Jedi, and Sidious pretty clearly expected to end that chain by just constantly switching apprentices and staying in power himself indefinitely. So even by their own code, the Sith aren't lawful. Certainly the Darth Vader YOU describe is Lawful Neutral, but the Darth Vader in the movies is much more than you describe, and much more evil.
Vader isn’t lawful neutral slaying children and Tusken Raiders including women and children has nothing to do with code, honor, or tradition of the Jedi Order
This guy always gets it twisted. Prehaps he over thinks everything. If you know anything about StarWars their is more to Vader and the Sith then to be a subjected servant to the dark side. You are attracted to the dark side because you are evil. You dont do evil because the code dictates it!
Someone explained this with shopping carts --
Lawful good: returns cart to inside store
Neutral good: leaves cart in parking lot but makes sure it's not blocking a space
Chaotic good: gives cart to someone just arriving
Lawful neutral: puts cart in that little corral in parking lot
True neutral: leaves cart wherever he finishes with it
Chaotic neutral: shoves cart in random direction and walks away
Lawful evil: puts cart in corral backwards so that it wastes space and makes the guy's job harder
Neutral evil: puts cart so that it blocks someone from pulling out or getting his door open
Chaotic evil: steals cart
I have to agree with your analysis on Darth Vader. If we follow D&D's definition of "evil", then Darth Vader, as we see him in the movies, is not truly evil, but neutral, since his actions are not driven by selfish motivations. However, this only shows the limitations of D&D's system of alignments. Because Darth Vader is really evil by common standards.
Evil is just a point of view, and from my point of view you the Jedi are evil.
Exactly!
@@WildAce001
Just because the jedi are evil, doesn't make the sith good.
_Both_ are evil in their own ways.
evil can be a tendency, a personality or an actual principle. just as you can be good by inclination or by principle. choosing any one side of the force is not neutral unless youre trying to correct an imbalance. but the switching sides does suggest moral ambiguity.
Vader could be argued as neutral with just the OT. Now that Vader has many comics under Marvel I think it's pretty clear he's evil.
The best way to describe it is "I just follow orders"
Of course the people who said that were only following their legal council's advice.
It'e Hegelian Dialectus, Not Personal Animosity.
Except if it goes against morals I have no problem not following it
This is a perfect description of LN and its why that's my favourite alignment.
I love Lawful Nuetral characters.
I like the take on the alignment system. But I have to disagree on the neutrality of Darth Vader. Murdering a room full of children is evil regardless of motivation. Especially when Anikin Knew that it was wrong.
Precisely, Anakin was clearly evil because he was acting on selfish desires. What I'm arguing here is that following the events of Episode III, Anakin died on the inside, giving himself up to the new personality of Darth Vader who is little more than a machine until he learns of his son's existence.
***** isn't it kinda selfish when he is talking with Luke in ep5 and wants to overthrow the emperor and rule the galaxy instead of his master?
Absolutely. When Vader learns about Luke, he has his first real emotions in a decade+, which take him right back to what he was last feeling as Anakin. Then, in episode six we see the flip side, where he feels a burst of selfless emotion in the climax. These two scenes in particular were what I had in mind when I mentioned that "his emotions start to reawaken".
Originally, I went into how these scenes show him struggling to be a motivated human being again, rather than the usual interpreted good overcoming innate evil. I decided to cut it because I didn't want the video to drag on too long.
@@Rithkingwill That's part of the Sith Code though.
My problem is how he deals with the failure of his subordinates and the fact he kills them. The Emperor didn't tell him to do it he does it for his selfish desire to feel powerful. Now my example would be Master Chief from Halo as he just follows orders and never questions the morality of his actions even believing all soldiers are machines and nothing else.
This video is amazing. Samara is a great character and you disected her nature to the tiniest detail, great work.
But this piece was really cutting in its arguments, and actually made me look again at Darth Vader.
It's astounding how many people on here just keep harping on and on about "Darth Vader is Lawful Evil".
Every single person who does is ultimately missing the fundamental argument of this video, and this series. And that is that the Good/Evil position of the Character is defined by the MOTIVATION of the character. Not their actions. And there is tremendous logic within that.
Actions are methods by which the character actively (or passively) affects the world around them. If alignment of the person was was determined by action, the alignment of a character could change every scene they were in; I walk down a hallway in a calm, orderly fashion. Are my actions therefore neutral? Each action can and does get judged as righteous or abhorrent by the perspectives of those around them.
But this piece consistently argues that the Good/Evil characterization is determined by the motivation behind actions, not the action themselves. And there is very good reason for that. And certainly by that standard, Darth Vader is the picture of Lawful Neutral. From the end of Revenge of the Sith, until the revelation of Luke's paternity, the sum of Vader's motivation was continuation of his role as the Iron Hand of the Galactic Empire. That was the complete sum of his character.
Even if his desire to destroy the Emperor (which from point A to point B was never expressed) was evil, it was never acted upon, and in very large measure out of personal connection to the Emperor. Moreover, his desire to destroy the Emperor was in very large measure a desire for revenge. And revenge is not in of itself evil. And if he did desire the throne out of lust for power, it was certainly out of a desire to rule a galaxy of absolute order. With the possible exception of his duel with Obi Wan, where he was after revenge, the sole motivation of Darth Vader was upholding the Empire and the Sith.
I thought the same thing man, his description was perfect. When he was human he might have turned evil because all he wanted to do was destroy and inflict his pain on others. But after he was rebuilt his only motive was responsibility.
Even better work than I expected and this is why I love alignments.
Guildmasterdan: Says Darth Vader is Lawful Neutral.
also Guildmasterdan: Puts Darth Vader in Lawful Evil column of intro.
Twice.
I'm incredibly impressed with this series. So engaging that after watching the first episode, I had to binge watch it like it was something on Netflix. Can't wait to see more.
I do have to agree with someone from an earlier video in the series though, when it cuts to music it is often far too loud (compared to the softness of your voice) and I think it was a little rough on my speakers.
My apologies for your speakers. I have since learned better editing techniques. I'm glad that you're enjoying the series though! ^^
There are plenty of examples for Vader and why he is evil. So the question is, do we look at a character's aligment for only a certain period of time or do we try to label the entirety of their actions? Can the characters (and we) change alignment? Can great moments and events in one's life signify those swifts? I can accept Vader ended his life as a Lawful Neutral, but at which point did that change occur?
Not gonna lie. but right up until the reveal, I thought your second example was gonna be robocop.
I hope you're still doing dnd and/or whatever you love. You're unashamedly giving off all the nerd/basement vibes that people get crap for. We need more people like you that do what you love because you love it
The pre-gen character I got who I named Hilda Harefoot was listed as Lawful Neutral, however I think I played her more Chaotic Neutral as Hilda was a little too...Loot happy, and I'm not a very Principled person by nature
Didn't Vader also want power, though? "Join me" to "rule" and all that? He wanted to betray Palpatine and made his OWN world order.
I like your definition. I always play lawful neutral characters as I will show you the meaning of duty.
This is the alignment I always play for my Monk characters, so it's nice to know I had the general gyst of it right. And I can definitely see the Vader example enraging but it does make sense with some context.
I looked this video up for my first LN character and I am glad you could explain this to me.
You said in the lawful good video that Goku is good.
I would make the argument using your definitions that Goku is in fact lawful evil.
he is lawful because he has principles. He fights fairly and keeps to that fairness even when he or his friends are endangered by it.
This plays into the evil(selfish) part. He is lawful because it challenges him. One of his main driving forces is the desire to have exciting fights, he wants to face the strongest fighers and his obsession with fighting the best puts others at risk.
On the other hand he frequently shows that he does care about his friends and would happily sacrifice himself to save them. So how is he evil?
The latest season really highlights the selfishness of his motivation as he convinces the god of everything to hold a tournament between the strongest fighters of multiple universes. When it is revealed that the winning team gets to live (the losing universes will be erased from existance) he doesn't seem the slightest bit concerned that everyone he knows and supposedly cares about could die. He either doesn't care. Or is so arrogantly overconfident that he will win that he isn't concerned at all when everyone else is.
top that off with more historical evidence. He doesn't raise his children in favour of training, he doesn't earn money for his home unless his wife harasses him, he eats enormous quantities of food with no concern for the person providing it or paying for it.
So there you have it. Goku is evil.
Infact over the course of Dragon ball, vegeta has moved further up the good spectrum than Goku. He's actually a family man and will place the needs of his family above his needs or ego.
This is a great series. I'll definitely be checking out your channel some more.
And here is where the entire notion that evil is just selfishness comes crashing to the ground as unsustainable. Sure, being selfish is usually evil, but its not what evil actually is. It's possible to be selflessly evil; it's possible to be self-centered by not be evil.
Matthew Reynolds What evil "actually is" is an artificial construct. Applying D&D alignment to the real world makes about as much sense as playing chess with only checkers.
Exactly when did I say anything about the real world?
Let's say for the sake of laughs I agree with you that evil is just an artificial construct, and that it only applies to the world of D&D. Well, we still have to deal with the Law vs. Chaos distinction, often defined axiomatically as, "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one." (Law) vs. "Harm no one, do what you wish." (Chaos). Now, let's say that evil is selfishness as is suggested. This doesn't present a big problem with respect to chaos. Non-evil chaos elevates the individualism and freedom implied by the philosophy to something like the ethic of reciprocity, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.", while chaotic evil simply becomes, "Do what you wish." However, you ought to be a little bit uncomfortable to notice that we've just defined chaotic evil as more selfish self-centeredness. The fact that we are supposed to have two independent axis and there seems to be some overlap ought to give one pause.
But when we try to apply this definition to Law, things fall apart completely. Lawful Good has the same nagging problem as Chaotic Evil. We have someone that believes in sacrificing self-interest to serve others...only more so? But Lawful Evil becomes a self-contradiction in terms - the person puts the needs of others before himself but is also supposed to be doing that selfishly? That doesn't even seem possible. And yet at the same time, if you thought about it, you could probably imagine someone that legitimately believed he was putting the good of others before themselves, who you'd also want to say was acting wrongly.
Regardless of what you believe about good or evil in the real world, even just as game mechanics the definition of "good" and "evil" within the game has to be self-consistent. If you define Evil as selfishness, it's never going to be self-consistent with Law and Chaos being an independent axis. And trying to define Vadar as not evil is an example of the ridiculous consequences of accepting 'selfish' as evil itself, rather than one possible consequence of evil (a vice, if you would).
Matthew Reynolds Your mistake lies not with good and evil within the context of the game, but law and chaos. Good and evil is selflessness vs selfishness, and law vs chaos is order vs freedom, principle vs instinct, discipline vs desire. Lawful neutral is no more selfless than chaotic neutral, it simple upholds principle over personal motivation. Someone who is chaotic evil isn't selfish and selfish, they are selfish and self determined. Good is about the good of the many, and law is about the good of the society.... a subtle distinction, but it is there.
Matthew Reynolds you should watch the first video.
Very informative and detailed talk. Thank you. I'll need to return to this at a later time.
I don't know... being indifferent to torture, and choking co-workers to death, is more evil than neutral, I think.
you are both right and wrong. it is evil from your standpoint because you your good principals. but having lawful principals and vaders law being the law of the empire. choking a co worker to death and torturing people is neutral from his (the empires) principals. because he does not care about any feelings associated over just getting the job done. think of it like this, you are born into a noble family. a family who governs a large sum of land. your families land and titles were gained through military force and the use of certain evil acts during, that led your family to acquire this land and title. those acts are now law, or at the very least legal and not punishable by law. and if torture (evil) is legal and not frowned upon by law in the land you come from. and you as a character uphold all the laws and duties from the land you come from even though you may feel bad about it but still perform it to get the job done. then you do so neutrally. and you also do so lawfully because where you come from it is your law. so you in turn are lawful neutral.
You know even lawful good can torture given the situation....lawful good does not mean being nice so i think similar actions can stand with neutral and evil
7:15 About Darth Vaders motivations.
I know you probably have a billion fans commenting, but Darth Vader in the books was plotting to overthrow Palapatine but lacked the power to due so in his vulnerable form (in return of the Jedi only a tiny bit of force lightning took him out for example) In Return of the Jedi we see this again as he asks Luke to help him overthrow the emperor so they could rule the galaxy together. (Another example is in Revenge of the sith where he tells Padme he could overthrow the emperor.) But yes he does usually act LN because there is no opportunity to better his situation other than obeying Palapatine, he truly does become a tool.
you used revenge of the sith for all the examples when return of the jedi should be in there
Completely my mistake, I was listing g to a soundtrack of revenge of the sith, I must have mixed it up in my head.
Actually it took a lot of force lightning to take him out. Lightning was shooting through his skull and frying his life support it wasn't until later that he died from his injuries.
This description perfectly describes The Operative from the movie Serenity is an example of Lawful Neutral. Coincidently the same actor played Mordo in the MCU Doctor Strange, another Lawful Neutral character.
I know I know some of you are going to get a little bit mad at me for saying this (even the creator of this video maybe) but Darth Vader did have some very noble motivations for everything he did.. Even if you stick with the original trilogy he seems to be always laboring to do what he can to bring order out of the chaos that came about after the end of the clone wars.. in short I think he was driven an utilitarianism drive to bring happiness, safety, and prosperity by always acting in a way that would offer the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Which is why I think he's lawful neutral
Sorry but the Vader example is terrible. He made choices that lead to his condition. Those choices were evil and he knew that when he made them. He was motivated by a selfish desire for power and control. I mean the prequels may suck, but they are canon. He ended up a cyborg for a reason and his reasons were evil. He didn't become less evil in sublimating his old personality. He didn't redeem himself or repent. He was cold and logical in his desire for power but not ambivalent at all. He enjoyed the power and control he had achieved. You don't force choke people for disrespecting your belief system during a staff meeting because its a logical means to an end, you do it because you enjoy the fear, pain and embarrassment of others.
his change was due to needing to follow the sith lord to learn. His stopping Mace Windu's attempted illegal assassination was a lawful good act whwn he did it. He did not need power, he needed those in power to use it to benifit all. He was not evil, just not in favor of democracy and willing to be the one in power if need be. The foce chokings were not always fatal, and demonstrated that the religion was not faith, but fact. Undeniable once you are force choked.
Actually, no it wasn't illegal. The chancellor was Sith, illegal within the Old Republic (Remember that whole Sith war? Yeah, since then) and they had evidence he was the one who started the Clone Wars, as well as the war with the Naboo, from BOTH SIDES. He's clearly guilty of the deaths of millions, no matter how you look at it, and plunged the whole galaxy into epic scale war. Those ARE grounds for impeachment. He was then also armed with a lightsaber and fought the rightful authorities when they came to arrest him.
And who did Vader help after achieving power? Oh right, no one, not until it was his own son on the line. No, sorry, but he's evil, he can quibble all he wants, but at no point until Return of the Jedi did he EVER express, show, or refer to any sense of remorse for anything he did, nor show anything but enjoyment in his sadism.
Sean McTiernan Arresting Studious would have been legal, they had a whole conversation about it. Windu wanted to execute him though. Windu is Chaotic (chaotic good, though I love to play devil's advocate and argue that the Jedi order is corrupt as hell) Sidious is some form of evil (too early in the morning to anilize again... and as I can't say immediately, I'll say neutral evil) and Vader is Lawful Neutral. He does as his master commands as that is how he gains power, not just for himself, but because he believes the republic is ineffective and a new political system is required for the benefit of all. Annikin, unlike Sidious, did not demand himself to be the power in charge, just that there should be one and he was willing if no one else could. He wanted power... but to better serve others. Not being a Republican is not the same as being evil, even if we think that form of government is less free. Intention dictates alignment. The worst attrosities are often performed with the best of intentions.
You are attracted to the darkside because you are evil. You don't do evil because the code dictates it!
horizonkage Lawful Neutral: he follows the code, which occasionally demands acts that are evil, for the GREATER good he believes are the ends to these evil means. The US killed many people in ww2, even targeted civilians to try to spark revolt in Hamburg. That was an evil act done for a greater good, following a code of military service. Vader saught order for the galaxy, not chaos or something in between. He is following the code of the Sith. This makes him lawful even if it violates the standard law. He is neutral because it is not out of greed or selflessness that he does these things, but some aspects of both. He wants the best for the galaxy, but certainly not purely selfless in this pursuit.
at first i wanted to argue that vader is not lawful neutral, since he offers luke the opportunity to overtrow palpatine in the return of the jedi, but the dark side as well as the rule of two both promote that. FAK.
How can you separate belief from motivation?
since neutral on both axes (Principled-Unprincipled and Selfish-Selfless) deals with ambiguity, I'm starting to believe that Jaime Lannister might be True Neutral.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS BTW:
Ambiguous Beliefs: he truly wants to be a "true knight" and be remembered well but he just loves to do an "abominable" act by sleeping with his twin sister.
Ambiguous Motivation: he forewent his oath as a kingsguard and became practically a social pariah as "Kingslayer" in order to save King's Landing from being burnt to the ground. However, he did kinda push a kid out of a tower window and forced himself on his sister next to the corpse of his incest-son....
Thoughts?
I must give the clarification that I can only speak from the perspective of having watched the show. I have yet to read the Song of Ice and Fire books, so keep that in mind with my comments.
Jamie Lannister is a tough one alright. If anything I think he's a good argument that the D&D alignment system is flawed, at least as far as the concept of pigeonholing characters into a single alignment. He shifts so often between alignments it's hard to keep track, but then, as I said in the first episode, all characters shift throughout their lives. That being said, I can see your point. Because of so much ambiguity around him one might be able to classify him as True Neutral on the whole.
At the moment, having only thought about it for the few minutes it took me to type this response, I'd say I also lean towards calling him Neutral Evil. A lot of his actions are selfishly motivated, but as you said he does have a noble streak in him.
Does anyone else have any thoughts?
***** good points. Have you read the Easy Damus webpage about "real" character alignments and making them fit for "real life"? If you haven't you can just google "real alignments" and it should pop up first.
Rithkingwill I have not, I'll have to check it out. Thanks for the suggestion!
My LN Definition:
- One who follows own order and code no matter what.
- What most are called: The Officer.
- Examples: Eddard Stark, Nick Fury, Jean-Luc Picard, Principal Skinner, President Curtis, etc.
✍🤖📕
Interesting, i always saw JLP as lawful good.
For those who haven't played Mass Effect and care, beware of SPOILERS!!
This assumes that a person can do anything without a selfish motivation. Interesting concept.
Excellent as always, refreshing to see that someone actually gets this alignment
Bold take on Vader, but I think he was a very "dualistic" person who underwent unusually rapid changes in alignment. He had issues with rules and ultimately obedience big time. How he hated it too when they Masters would admitted him to the council but refused to accept not making him master yet. I'd call him neutral good and neutral evil respectively...
would the Qunari be lawful nuetral? they follow their law but dont care for others generally
I totally agree with you on Samara and your point of view is pretty well argued. Im notnsure how to word why i disagree with you on Vader, so I wont waste any time on it, but i think its kinda sad that you specifically called on original trilogy vader for the arguement and people keep screaming about the prequels. Keep doing your thing man.
am pretty sure someone would have already recommended Stannis Baratheon yes?
If you look at people as a whole, I think the vast majority are some sort of neutral alignment. I actually don't like the classifications of 'good' or 'evil' as they are myopic in their views of the vast arrays of different types of human morality throughout history up until today. Sherman burnt down Georgia in his mind to end the war early and save as many union soldier's lives as possible, while Lee is said to have conducted himself with honor yet fought for a system that would perpetuate slavery... Lee would have been lawful good for his country, but seen as lawful evil by the north, by the south Sherman is seen as Chaotic Evil, while by the north, he'd have been chaotic good. So it's all about perspective, it's something I've always hated about D&D, there are no true definitions of good and evil, because they are different for all of us.
You are absolutely correct that the D&D Alignment System is flawed. Your examples are perfect illustrations. the problem is that morality is subjective and the system itself is a collection oversimplified generalizations. Granted, complicating said system is not a solution to the problem. For the purposes of this series, I tried to alleviate some of the ambiguity by using more specific terminology to classify the two axis. Yet, even those newly defined alignments are malleable as far as interpreting examples. I intend on touching on all this again when I do the conclusions video to the series, but I definitely don't disagree with you. However, I do think that people can't really be lumped into one category or another. We're just different people every day of our lives. People would be/are constantly shifting between the alignments. I argue that the categories work more as a moral snapshot.
***** Absolutely, I love characters that can evolve, as we do in our own lives. I only played a few sessions of call of cthulu in Iraq, one of our platoonmates brought the books with him and we were bored out of our minds half the time so we gave it a go... I actually liked it, but we never had any alignments, just characters we made. I like the fantasy setting, so I feel like I would like to try something like D&D, and I've also played the Baldur's Gate series when I was a kid, so it's something I would be into, my major hang up with the system always came down to the alignments, but I see that with the right dungeon master perhaps they could be more fluid and diverse as long as people are playing their characters like real people, there are endless story telling possibilities.
***** and thanks for your response, I am loving your series by the way.
Thanks! For the compliment and for commenting! With these videos I know a lot of people won't agree with me (especially with the unexpected examples), but my goal is to just get people thinking about the topic. I may present things objectively, but of course they're my interpretation, otherwise I'd be quoting people left and right! Anyway, that's awesome that you were able to discover roleplaying while off-duty like that. I have a friend who used to play battletech while stationed in Germany. He said that the military setting used to work great with his unit because they'd just keep the same command structure. As for exploring D&D, I wouldn't worry too much about the alignment. It's mostly for the DM anyway (for spells and such). A lot of players tend to focus too much on it. The way you're used to running players is the ideal way to go. Get to know the character, their ambitions, their fears, and use those to guide their actions. Fortunately, a lot of DM's either don't use the alignment system, or just don't worry about it.
My best advice for if you want to try Dungeons and Dragons is find a group online through groups on Facebook (like our RPG Brigade) or websites like Roll20. Just be sure to talk with the DM before hand and be upfront with how you're used to playing, and what you're looking to get out of the game. Not every DM/group is the same, so if you find one or two that don't fit, don't worry about it. There's a group/game out there for you. Also, if you find D&D intimidating (a lot of people do), there's plenty of other fantasy games out there to try. Maybe check out Fantasy AGE, or Savage Worlds Fantasy.
+Rudy Schmidt which is why I like the never winter nights system because it allocates how evil or good and how chaotic they all are for example darth vader is lawfull evil and hitler is lawfull evil but hitler is far more malicious than darth vader while vader is more rule bound than hitler
Are You Going To Finish This Series, And Is A Character Who Follow Logic Purely Lawful Neutral Or True Neutral?
I strongly disagree with the way you say Darth Vader isn't evil, even if I do understand where you are coming from.
He's shown to not be completely without selfish intent if we are taking in the fact he considered taking out Palpatine so he can rule himself.
Now ofc "evil" is something everyone argues what counts and what doesn't count as such, however I would consider what Darth Vader is to be more of the "Lawful over Evil" type of lawful evil (see the TV Tropes page for LE if you don't know what I mean) than outright lawful neutral.
So with Darth Vader, your saying that good vs evil is completely dependant on motivation and disjointed from weather the actioms are good or evil? I think I see your point about motivation being important but if feels like your underplaying the value of character actions. Doing harm to innocent would be evil, even if that will harm isn't comming from a personal motive. Unless you're under mind control you still have a conscience and Vader has to choose to ignore that conscience to perform these hanus acts. That's evil.
Lawful Neutral is the "Party Pooper". ⚖
Everybody here seems to conveniently forget that Anakin did it all for love. In the end, it was misguided love, and he was taken advantage of by Palpatine when the fledgling Lord Vader literally disarmed Windu. He was willing to do anything he could to save Padmé from his mother's fate.
although I agree Lawfully Neutral doesn't seem quite right, but understand the arguement. But maybe a neutral evil might fit better.
Um, no, sorry, but even by your own code of alignment, which I do essentially agree with, this is incorrect. Name one point prior to Return of the Jedi that Vader shows ANY remorse for anything he's done. Padme's death isn't one, because he believes it was his fault (It was, just dead after having the kids), and he wanted to save Padme for purely selfish reasons that he knew would lead to the deaths of many, to the point of murdering children.
Even setting aside the prequels, he repeatedly force chokes people for no other reason than they've momentarily displeased him. NOT at the Emperor's order, but at his own discretion. That's SELFISH. Even when he finds out he has a son, his only ambition at that point is to have Luke help him murder the Emperor, so that he can rule the galaxy with Luke at his side. That's SELFISH on a galactic scale. He never mentions helping anyone, and he screws over Lando on his own choice, with no input from the Emperor. Again, that's SELFISH.
We are talking about later in his life. Darth Vader was evil he had nothing to live for the woman he loved was dead he gave into the darkside and he thought she died during pregnancy. He had nothing. Then Luke came along and he felt the first real emotion in years and yes he did originally want to get Luke to help him kill the emperor. In a later conversation though Luke tried to redeem him but he felt that he was bound to his master. He really wanted to change but his code forbade him from doing so. It wasn't until Palpatine was going to kill his son that Vader ended up turning on the emperor. Up until that point he was lawful evil.
would l lawliet be lawful neutral
Depends on who's writing vader.
Lucas and those who write him similarly: vader is lawful evil.
Those who see him more as an uncaring, unmotivated yet principled servant: lawful neutral.
Darth Vader is evil. The culmination of all his actions makes him evil as well as the methods he employs. A neutral character does not:
1) choke those that fail and displease them to death.
2) slaughter an entire temple of innocent children.
3) slay a boy's father in front of him and then take said boy as a slave.
4) help a madman make a weapon capable of planetary destruction.
5) attempt to turn his own son to darkness.
6) kill a good man and once brother-in-arms for the sake of his own selfish goals.
7) hunt down every last person that devoted themselves to being guardians of the weak.
8) enslave entire planets of alien races to use as heavy labor.
9) clone assassins that grow to become madmen, make them fight each to see which is the most useful, and proceed to dispose of them even if they were loyal.
That he was redeemed does not make him any less evil. Evil can be tragic and can be sympathized with, but the methods, results, and utter lack of respect for life except as a tool to further his own ends clearly point to, as you stated, a SELFISH character, and as such, by your definition, an EVIL one.
Sadly enough people are not a constant that can be expected to remain the same over the course of their lives, people can and will change their beliefs over time. This is especially apparent in a character that goes from Jedi Knight to Sith Lord in a short amount of time.
To be honest the vast majority of your examples can be explained away by the lawful part of his alignment. Simply enough in order to follow his code of ethics he had to commit acts that are certainly evil even though he does them out of a sense of duty and not personal pleasure.
+Daniel Thompson He telekinetically choked people to death for failing him. A Lawful Good Jedi Knight would not do that because the end result is murder and according to all civilized nations and major religions, evil. He acted out of anger and malicious intent, which led to an evil act just because he was displeased with a person's performance. By your logic a lawful good paladin would do the same because of their beliefs in order. Trying to pull that with any sane dungeon master would cause a loss of paladin status or at least a warning to change their ways back to good.
Punisher is chaotic good tho...
Love the intro music
Darth Vader Kills prisoners and subordinates alike on a whim. This is an evil act no matter how you spin it. He is Lawful Evil.
Picard has to be neutral good. leaning lawful. Vader is lawful evil in his actions until repenting. But on the inside because he is actually like all siths interested in his own power, hoping to one day overthrow the emperor, and become the sith lord as is the rule of two, whether or not that was in the original movies, he still like all siths was primarily self driven, vader is neutral evil.
Vader is neither lawful nor neutral. His entire training by Sidious was designed to break him from his lawful code, and he does evil because he believes good is restricting of those who should be in power.
Sith are by design chaotic evil. The sith code directly teaches chaos.
I think you're glossing over the evil he commits too much, as well as how often he's willing to turn on people or go back on his word. There's no way to get around the destruction of Alderaan as one of the most ultimate acts of evil as has ever been depicted on the silver screen.
He goes through the motions of a loyal knight because he has nothing and so he lives solely to destroy and reshape a galaxy that did nothing but hurt him. He obeys because it suits him. Literally the moment he has something more than just crushing the old way, he is willing to throw Sidious under the fucking bus and betray him fully.
The only rule the Sith really obey at all is the rule of two, which is just them trying to not get hammered by the Jedi, and Sidious pretty clearly expected to end that chain by just constantly switching apprentices and staying in power himself indefinitely. So even by their own code, the Sith aren't lawful.
Certainly the Darth Vader YOU describe is Lawful Neutral, but the Darth Vader in the movies is much more than you describe, and much more evil.
Nice guys always finish last...
Vader isn’t lawful neutral slaying children and Tusken Raiders including women and children has nothing to do with code, honor, or tradition of the Jedi Order
0:12 hulk Hogan lawful good? hmmmm
Vader is not evil? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)
Fairy taleeeeeeee
This guy always gets it twisted. Prehaps he over thinks everything. If you know anything about StarWars their is more to Vader and the Sith then to be a subjected servant to the dark side. You are attracted to the dark side because you are evil. You dont do evil because the code dictates it!