Greetings folks, just thought I’d share some musings with you.  I am big fan of the Star Wars tabletop roleplay game, specifically the D20 Wizards of the Coast version.  As such, I was lured into playing Dungeons & Dragons by some friends (my fall to the dark side of the nerd was now complete).  First thing I learned was the D&D alignment system, and I couldn’t help but mentally apply it to Star Wars.  Doing so, things began to make a lot of sense.  See if any of you agree with me on this:

   






Okay, that’s the chart.  For those who don’t know, you cross-reference your character’s belief in good or evil, with their love of law and order or their love of freedom and independence.  If you are a Republic Senator who loves justice and the laws of democracy, and is determined to see those things help protect the people of the galaxy, you are Lawful Good.  If you are a brutal Sith Marauder who slaughters people for fun and cares not for any rules, you are Chaotic Evil.

Now, here is my point.  The system allows for characters to follow leaders or groups with ‘up to one step difference’.  So, I could be Neutral Good (not particularly for or against law and order, but still very moral in regards to helping others and not killing for fun), but I could still serve in a regime dedicated to Lawful Good.  I would focus on their ‘good’ morality and just have to stomach their adherence to rules and hierarchy.


My theory is:

Senator Palpatine was Neutral Evil.  He was out for himself, and had no real love of order.  He simply joined and subverted a Lawful group (the Republic) because it was the number one power in the galaxy.  If Hutt crime cartels ran all of known space (a Chaotic group, I would say) he would happily have joined them instead.

However, he needed order to make his rule secure, and created the Lawful Evil Galactic Empire (he is only ‘one step’ from this so it is easy for him to be part of).

This Empire attracted other Neutral Evil beings (opportunists like Prince Xizor), Lawful Evil beings (like Grand Moff Tarkin), and Lawful Neutral beings (Like Captain Pellaeon).

Palpatine dies, and people vie for his throne.  Eventually, Grand Admiral Thrawn comes along.  He is blatantly Lawful, but was he Evil?  I am not sure.  Certainly he executed people for failing, but he may have just been following the rules of the Empire (and not derived any sadistic pleasure from the act).  Certainly, he did not lay waste to vast civilian populations, and had no Imperial sense of racism or sexism (in the former case he was an alien himself, and in the second case he respected Mara Jade, a woman, and offered her a captaincy in the Empire).

Anyway, be he Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral, he dies, and years later Pellaeon becomes de facto leader of the Empire.  Pellaeon is certainly not evil, but he is not really good either (Did he slaughter civilians?  No.  Did he protest that other Imperials used weapons like the Death Star?  No).  He is Lawful Neutral and slowly the Empire itself moves ‘one step’ and becomes Lawful Neutral too.

On these terms, the Lawful Neutral Imperial Remnant finally signs a peace with the Lawful Good New Republic, because they are only ‘one step’ apart.

That is the canon timeline by alignment.  I would go further and suggest that the Vast Empire is also Lawful Neutral.  Thus some of our characters are Lawful Good, some are Lawful Neutral (such as my own Pherik Zail, who cares only for order and cares not if it comes with a smile or a threat), and some of us are Lawful Evil.  Some of our NPCs are simply Neutral (the cooks and cleaners don’t care for politics or morality, they just get paid by whoever is in power on their planet).


A little long, but that’s my idea.  What does everyone think?  What are your characters?  Which do you think Thrawn really was?  Or do you hate the D&D alignment system as overly simplistic and just pigeon-holing characters that are too complex to be easily explained by a three by three square grid?

As someone who considers myself a writer more than a role-player, I find the D&D alignment system a bit simplistic, and detrimental to good storytelling if a writer adheres to it slavishly.  It's useful as a broad-strokes guide as you're thinking about a character and relationships, but once we get into particulars with specific, multi-dimensional people, it becomes more a hindrance to character development than anything else.  My two credits: life (and therefore, good fiction) can't be reliably modeled with nine boxes.

With that said: if you find value in it, awesome!  My way is not the only route to Imperial Center, as they say. 

I... I thought Palp was all about unifying the galaxy?

Plus, we're mired in deontological morality here. I personally find the notion that right and wrong is fixed, depending entirely on the actions one makes REGARDLESS of the situations...well, I find it quaint.

So, the situation is this:

You have been raised for as long as you can remember in a religion, taught that many, many of your forefathers have lost their lives in a long-reaching war. Your religion, your very beliefs are outlawed and if you are found out, you'll be killed.

You're faced with the choice of renouncing your beliefs and essentially abandoning your duty to the people who raised and trained you - and to those who died to give you the power and tools that could free your people.

Or, you can live a lie all your life, looking over your shoulder in case you are killed for no other reason than that you were raised in a cult.

Or, you can fight back. You can use the power, the tools and the knowledge you've gained and bring down your sworn enemy - who masquerade as keepers of the peace whilst 'protecting' a corrupt government who doesn't even care for its people. If you succeed, you will finally be able to live free.

Which answer is good, which is netural, which is evil?

Here, let's complicate things by adding the knowledge available to Palpatine in Timothy Zahn's novel 'Outbound Flight'.

So now, you know that in about fifty years, a massive, extragalactic invading force that is IMMUNE to the abilities of both yourself and the current government's only fighting force, is on its way. This force fully intends to burn your worlds, convert or kill your people and dominate your galaxy and shape it in their own image.

The Republic as it stands, doesn't have a chance in hell. It has no army. It has no defences. The second option is no longer viable - you think the Vong will spare you when they take over? One way or another, you have to take action.

You can renounce your religion and try to organize the galaxy's defence without using your powers and abilities. Chances of success? Almost nil. Who would listen to an ex-Sith? Hell, there's still a chance the Jedi will kill you before you can even warn anyone. It causes no harm to anyone directly...but by not doing everything you can to stop it, do you not share in some responsibility for the deaths that result?

Or, you can throw convention out the window, and do whatever it takes to make sure the galaxy will be able to stand against this threat. Use your powers, your skills, your knowledge, bring the weak parts of the current establishment crashing down and make it strong. Sure, it'll cause a lot of hardship and pain in the short run, but is that worse than letting the galaxy burn?

Because let's face it. The Vong would not have lasted five days against the full might of the Galactic Empire at the height of its power. Yes, the Clone Wars happened and the Jedi were wiped out as a result, and a totalitarian regime was instituted...

...but read the NJO series. I don't think the Clone Wars were quite that bad. On the most part, the devastation was limited to the outer rim, between two forces CREATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DYING.

So, tell me. If I was faced with this situation, and took the decisions that Palpatine did, where do I fall on the alignment pane? How do the needs of the many weigh against the sense of righteousness of one?

Oh, you're not alone. I'm pursuing a major in Philosophy, and specializing in Ethics in particular, so the idea of a black-and-white notion of good and bad is something I find personally offensive. If that is indeed the path things are going to go down, I might have to stop buying the books. At least, the new ones >:3

The Empire in generally is Lawful Neutral or Evil. Certainly, the Vast Empire is somewhere between those, with the odd case of Chaotic Evil or Lawful Good.

Very interesting read, and I especially liked the questioning of moral relativism.  It does instantly prompt the question of relative to what?  Determining moralty relative to the community is obvious, but there are of course other measures.

Tricky stuff, and yes, a lot more complex than 9 boxes!