What alignment was Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader?

[PoeticallyPsyco]

I'm sure this has been asked before, but a quick search through the site wasn't enough to find it.

What do you guys think Anakin Skywalker's alignment was, before and after transforming into Darth Vader?

From the prequel trilogy and what I've seen of the Clone Wars show, I'd say Anakin was Chaotic Good; devoted to doing the right thing, but also rebellious and not inclined to respect authority that wasn't named "Padme", "Obi Wan", or "Palpatine". OTOH, he was still a member of the Jedi, the order devoted to maintaining the law; I've seen some pretty compelling arguments that the Jedi are far more the Law to the Sith's Chaos than the Good to the Sith's Evil. That could pull him more towards Neutral Good.

As Vader, I don't have as much to go on, knowing nothing about the Expanded Universe from that time period, and we don't actually see all that much of him in the movies. Red Fel's excellent guide to Lawful Evil pegs him as not just Lawful Evil, but LE with an emphasis on Law. That said, I can definitely see an argument for Neutral Evil, as he doesn't seem to care all that much about maintaining the system (and in fact literally Death Starred a planet illegally), keeping his deals (hello Lando), or loyalty to authority ("Join me, Luke, and together we will [kill Palpatine and take his place]"). That could be read as Lawful Evil with an emphasis on self-serving evil, or as Neutral (or maybe even Chaotic) Evil but recognizing that The Empire is the only real game in town, serving out of fear of Palpatine's power and willing to toe the line because the benefits outweigh the annoyances.

[Rynjin]

The entire Sith ideology is Chaotic Evil. The Empire being "Law" doesn't really factor into that.

Boiling down their ideology to its core, it's simple "survival of the fittest" with a side of acting on every single one of your basest desires, giving into them for more power.

[Fyraltari]

The Empire has only one law. Do what the Emperor says. Tarkin Death Starred Alderaan, not Vader and he did it with the implicit approval of the Emperor.

[Mechalich]

Attempting to map the alignment system to Force Users in Star Wars is an extremely poor match. The Force, as a moral arbiter, is super weird. It is explicitly divorced from time and equally dependent upon the emotional state of the user. This means that morality exists only in the present - in the Force there is only what you are doing right now all past actions are irrelevant - and that the ethical viability of an action literally shifts depending upon the viewpoint of the actor (SWTOR demonstrates with perfect explicitness, in that sometimes an Imperial player and a Republic player will have the exact same actions coded as the moral opposites of each other). This gets doubly weird because the same rules do not apply to those who cannot use the Force. Luke cannot strike the Emperor down in anger lest he loose himself to the dark side, but Han Solo can (and in Legends did, Han shoots the final clone of Palpatine in the back at the conclusion of the Dark Empire line and suffers no detrimental effects).

In terms of the law/chaos axis, you have to manage to define what those terms mean in the context of Star Wars, which isn't exactly easy. This is particularly difficult with regard to the Clone Wars, since the nature of that conflict is extremely muddled (because Palpatine manipulated it so heavily) and the result was a brutal war, conducted by proxy armies, between a weak, ineffectual, and staggeringly corrupt failed democracy and greedy, factitious, and staggeringly corrupt corporate oligarchy. Anakin, paradoxically, chaffed against the rules of the institution he belonged to, but more than almost any other Jedi championed Palpatine's consolidation and centralization of the Republic as the Clone Wars continued. He was also, as shown in TCW, far more comfortable with the whole 'clone army' bit than many of the other Jedi.

One way to conceptualize Anakin is a person with naturally authoritarian impulses gradually slipping and sliding down an ethical slope as he grows older and less respectful of the various mentor figures who try to instill boundaries and a sense of humility in him. In fact, Anakin is far more respectful of those who directly assert authority and power rather than those who seek to earn it through deeds or example, something that carries over into his existence as Vader. There's even an interesting bit where you can trace that back to his childhood upbringing and say that he never managed to leave Hutt Space behind.

[Dienekes]

There are a few things that makes this difficult: the actual meaning of Lawful/Chaotic and the difference between a character's words and actions.

On the Lawful/Chaotic front, the meaning has changed several times from the original D&D to now. I personally prefer the description that Lawful individuals think that a rule of law and government is the best way to run a society, while a Chaotic individual believes that laws are oppressive. In this definition, characters like Han Solo are characterized by being Chaotic, because he obviously dislikes law and government and chooses to live outside of it. While Leia becomes Lawful, because she is fighting for a more perfect rule of law, even if she is rebelling against the current law in place.

Other people with a different view of the alignment system may point out the lying is described as a Chaotic action and the destructive actions that destabilized society might make Leia Chaotic or at least Neutral. Or they bring up how emotionality and free will have been tied to Chaotic, which I've always thought just muddied the entire system. As though a law abiding person can't have emotional fits. They're not wrong, I just disagree with them. And that's the stance I'm going to take on the alignment discussion.

Then on the other side of things there is the philosophy the character espouses and the one he actually follows.

Anakin in the prequels talks a big game about being a lawful character. He gives his kindergarten level philosophy about the just rule and dictates of the Jedi. And then a few scenes later will give an account of his desired government, which is basically the definition of a lawful evil dictatorship. So his philosophy seems on the lawful end.

But his actions are all the way on the other side of things. He constantly butts heads with any establishment set up against him. He flagrantly ignores the laws and decrees of everyone. Now one could consider this an act of rebellion against oppression. Like his daughter Leia after him. But it isn't. Every step of the way is not justified by a desire to create a better governing body. It is entirely rationalized by what he wants to do at any given time damn the consequences. And since actions speak louder than words, I would put him as overall either Neutral or Chaotic.

I don't think I can ever really consider him Good. Maybe in the Clone Wars show, but I'm going to focus on the movies. In the movies, almost every action he performs is inherently selfish. Even those times he saves people, he is saving them because they're his friends and family. And well, even evil people have loves ones. You don't get goodie points for helping your friends and family, that's what a normal person does. A good person helps even those that aren't in their inner circle. And Anakin never really does that. Then of course there's his massacre of the Tusken Raiders. This is pretty much unquestionably evil. He doesn't do anything like it again until his fall. But it's still a part of pre-fall Anakin's make-up.

So overall, I'd give him a True Neutral with Chaotic Evil leanings.

Then comes the actual Darth Vader. He's evil. That bit's unquestioned. Now is he Lawful or Chaotic evil?

Now Rynjin is right, when he says that the Sith philosophy is Chaotic Evil to the core. However, the Code of the Sith was not present during the first movies. Vader never mentions them. The word Sith is never even seen or used anywhere in the movies. It does appear in the novelization, but not with an accompanying philosophy. So I'm going to disregard it and just look at Vader himself.

And unlike Anakin, Vader seems for the most part content with the rule of law now. Sure he may choke a peon or two. But when someone higher up the food chain than him tells him to jump he jumps. With no hesitation or back talk. In the first movie Tarkin gives him a few orders, but on the whole he acts as an advisor to the Grand Moff. All his actions are in support of the evil code of law of the Empire. In the second movie, we do get at the end the implication that he wishes to kill the Emperor. But even then it is not to destroy the empire, either to create a new rule of law or to smash the laws completely. No, he wants to kill the Emperor so he can become the Emperor and rule this organization that will finally allow him to fulfill his desired political state he discussed all the way back in Attack of the Clones. And now he's taking actions to put that in place.

So yeah, I'd give Vader a pretty firm Lawful Evil.

[Xyril]

Now Rynjin is right, when he says that the Sith philosophy is Chaotic Evil to the core. However, the Code of the Sith was not present during the first movies. Vader never mentions them. The word Sith is never even seen or used anywhere in the movies. It does appear in the novelization, but not with an accompanying philosophy. So I'm going to disregard it and just look at Vader himself.

If you read through the Legends continuity--and especially contrast the contemporary era stuff with early KOTOR era--Palpatine really comes off as a crappy Sith. He bends the heck out of the Rule of Two, which is one of the few really prescriptive Sith doctrines (everything else I can think of off the top of my head is more a statement of principles or philosophy.) Depending on whether you want to scrub New Jedi Order from your mind, it's implied that aside from ego and self-preservation, a major motivation for building the Empire was to build a force that could defend the galaxy against an invading force that the Republic was no match for (maybe the Chiss, probably the Vong or one of the many threats from the Unknown Regions that the Chiss were fighting.)

Even the whole xenophobia thing seems at odds with Sith philosophy--despite what you'd expect from years of proximity to Jar Jar, Palpatine doesn't seem to have any sincere belief in the inferiority of non-humans, so the Empires institutionalized racism doesn't seem to count as him giving in to his own impulses. Given the origins of the Sith and Palpatine's personal association with powerful non-human Force-users, it's hard to see xenophobia naturally arising from the Sith or Palpatine. The Rule of Two clearly demonstrates the Sith unwillingness to trade short-term, group strength (the immediate benefit of having multiple Sith apprentices under one or more masters) for long-term individual weakness (the natural consequence of allowing multiple weaker Sith the opportunity to gang up on the more powerful before fighting over the spoils.) This seems at completely incompatible with the Empire, which arguably strengthens group by creating a homogeneous ruling class--thus minimizing sectarian conflict and creating a self-serving philosophy to galvanize the ranks--at the cost of long-term individual strength by effectively depriving the Empire of a large pool of individual talent.

[Red Fel]

Red Fel's excellent guide to Lawful Evil pegs him as not just Lawful Evil, but LE with an emphasis on Law.

Oh, hi there!

Well, I know I suggested he was LE, but here's the thing...

Attempting to map the alignment system to Force Users in Star Wars is an extremely poor match. The Force, as a moral arbiter, is super weird. It is explicitly divorced from time and equally dependent upon the emotional state of the user. This means that morality exists only in the present - in the Force there is only what you are doing right now all past actions are irrelevant - and that the ethical viability of an action literally shifts depending upon the viewpoint of the actor (SWTOR demonstrates with perfect explicitness, in that sometimes an Imperial player and a Republic player will have the exact same actions coded as the moral opposites of each other). This gets doubly weird because the same rules do not apply to those who cannot use the Force. Luke cannot strike the Emperor down in anger lest he loose himself to the dark side, but Han Solo can (and in Legends did, Han shoots the final clone of Palpatine in the back at the conclusion of the Dark Empire line and suffers no detrimental effects).

A whole lot of this.

In terms of LE as an obedient, evil subordinate, Darth Vader fits the bill. But that doesn't mean Darth Vader as a whole fits the LE mold, and that certainly doesn't take into account Anakin Skywalker's crazy deal. Anakin, before having a James Earl Jones voice modulator installed, was a lot of things - you could easily argue, for example, that he was CE, for what he did to the Sand People. ("Not just the men, but the women and children" is freaking dark.) By contrast, kid Anakin was arguably CG - not a fan of following rules, sure, but a good kid who wanted to help out.

Point is, throughout his life, Anakin/Vader could be pinned as a lot of different alignments. Even in his time as Vader, you could make arguments for Chaotic, Neutral, or Lawful Evil, and probably have a point anywhere you fall. His capacity for redemption could even suggest something else. It's really, really hard to say, with any degree of conviction, "Nope, this is it, this is the correct alignment."

[dancrilis]

I think that since decent cases can be made for Law and Chaos we would say in the absence of other evidence probably Neutral (for both names).

A different question might be if he was Good or Evil.
Anakin killed his enemies and stood by his friends but put his family above his friends - I think that sounds fairly neutral.
Vader was a significant figure in what he seems to have regarded as an Evil regime but he seemed fairly apathetic about it, he wasn't in it for the joy of hurting people or the power he could wield over them he just sortof stumbled into it and had no real way out (or reason to find a way out) and so went along with it and when he did have a reason to get out he took it - that also sounds fairly neutral.

[NotASpiderSwarm]

I think that since decent cases can be made for Law and Chaos we would say in the absence of other evidence probably Neutral (for both names).

A different question might be if he was Good or Evil.
Anakin killed his enemies and stood by his friends but put his family above his friends - I think that sounds fairly neutral.
Vader was a significant figure in what he seems to have regarded as an Evil regime but he seemed fairly apathetic about it, he wasn't in it for the joy of hurting people or the power he could wield over them he just sortof stumbled into it and had no real way out (or reason to find a way out) and so went along with it and when he did have a reason to get out he took it - that also sounds fairly neutral.

Man, the prequels were just terrible. I disagree somewhat, but your characterization there isn't wrong, and that says more about the quality of the prequels than any 300-page thread on the topic.

I'd definitely say Vader is LE. He's almost the poster boy for it. Now, probably more E than L, but he's the attack dog for a fascist dictatorship. That's LE by default, and Vader doesn't do anything actually chaotic to move himself over. Even his death, he's saving his son. That's not good or chaotic, it's the bare minimum of humanity.

Anakin...CN actions, LN words. He likes people, wants them kept safe, but mostly acts to defend himself and his friends/wife/troops. That's N on the good/evil axis. He basically ignores every rule and authority figure in his life in favor of doing whatever seems best to him at that moment, which is definitely Chaotic. His espoused ideal galaxy, though, is Lawful. Eliminate suffering through governmental power. Not good, really, he doesn't seem to be considering actual people much, but he's not after personal power in this government, he just wants to know that the people in charge are actually in charge and using their power to improve things.

[Wraith]

As an alternative opinion, I would say that each of the films specifically maps a change in Anakin's alignment, approximately one step per, until he ends up *appearing* Lawful Evil as the fully formed and cybernetically rebuilt Darth Vader.

In Phantom Menace, Anakin Skywalker is Neutral Good with Lawful Good aspirations. He has good intentions and does everything he can to help out his new 'friends', but obviously chafes to be anywhere but Tatooine, and do anything but be an indentured servant. He's only a kid, so that isn't a mark against him - it just shows that he has an idealised view of the Jedi as proud warriors and sources of infinite compassion and justice, whereas he himself has good intentions and performs good actions but lacks the patience and wisdom to fully understand how to be Lawful.

In Attack of the Clones he remains Neutral Good for the most part. Again he is a compassionate and noble Jedi, but he chafes under the instruction of Obi-Wan and has a reputation for being headstrong and wayward, traits which more often than not get him into trouble and cause the council to make their fateful decision that he is not yet worthy of the title of Master. That Anakin at this point begins his relationship with Padme, similarly in defiance of the Jedi code, all adds together to show that he isn't fully Lawful.

Then comes the watershed moment - when he discovers that Shmi has been kidnapped and killed by Tuskan Raiders, and in response he performs an Evil act with Evil intentions; murder, for the purpose of revenge. This drops him to True Neutral as he's disillusioned with the Jedi and is fully prepared to disregard their authority for his own motivations (Padme) and has committed Evil, but hasn't yet signed up with a specifically Evil side or philosophy (aka, Sidious and the Sith). He's absolutely tempted to do so, but that comes later.

By Revenge of the Sith, Anakin slides further and further into Neutral Evil and crosses the line when he formally takes the title of Darth Vader, having saved Sidious and killed Mace Windu. That whole scene was a demonstration of Anakin's misguided selfishness, of the depths that he would sink to in order to get what he wants and damn all the rest even though he protests that he's only killing lots of people for 'good' reasons (ie, saving Padme).

He flirts briefly with Chaotic Evil - killing the younglings and toppling the Jedi Order which in itself is an institution of Law and usually/nominally Good - and by the end has the appearance of Lawful Evil (subservient as he is to the Emperor), but in the expanded universe, novels and comics he generally only uses that as a facade while he continues his own plots to overthrow Sidious and take his place as the Master, as is the destiny of all Sith.

So, what alignment was Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader? Refusing to make the pithy observation that they are both very different characters even down to having different names, the accurate answer would be 'Neutral' with a scale sliding from Good to Evil over time. He's the textbook example of a Good person who tries to hold himself to even higher values, but then he slips a couple of times and instead of learning from his mistakes he refuses them and spirals downwards into a corrupt and perverted reinterpretation of what he thinks 'Good' really is, which in turn is a textbook example of Evil.

[Strigon]

Personally, I think the biggest indicator for whether he's Lawful or Chaotic is this question:
Does Darth Vader do things he'd rather not, or abstain from things he'd rather do, out of deference to a higher power, even when there would be no penalty for not doing so? This higher power needn't be a person; it could be a code, for example.
My knowledge of Star Wars lore says "no". Darth Vader does whatever Darth Vader wants to do. Even the emperor can only control him when Vader believes he's being watched - he has consistently defied direct orders, and his own word, on a whim. He's almost a Rattigan kind of CE - one that puts on airs of being Lawful and civilized, but really just wants everyone else to be perfectly obedient to him, while he does whatever he wants.

And really, is there a more CE line than "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it further."?

... In terms of LE as an obedient, evil subordinate, Darth Vader fits the bill...

Shoot, man, I wouldn't even go that far. He was an extremely disobedient subordinate. Even within the OT, he spends half his time recruiting Luke so he can kill the one person he serves and take over! If we expand it into the EU, half of Vader's story arcs are ones where the emperor expressly forbids a course of action, Vader begrudgingly says "as you command, master," then proceeds to go behind his back and do it anyway. Then the Emperor finds out, punishes Vader in some clever way, and the whole thing repeats all over again.

[The Pilgrim]

Star Wars morality is white and black. The Force is LG and the Dark Side is CE. There is no room for more. There is only one right way to be a Jedi, as anything else pulls you to the DarK Side. And when the Dark Side gets you into it's grasp, it pulls you into CE behaviour. Because you don't control the Dark Side, it's the Dark Side who controls you.

Anakin in the prequel is neutral, leaning between LG and CE. He wants to lean towards LG, but he can't fit, he breaks the rules, let himself be carried away by his emotions, and is finally pulled into the evil side. By the third movie, he believes himself to be Lawful, he wants to bring order to the Galaxy. But that's only the ruse Palpatine uses to attract him into the Dark Side.

After becoming Darth Vader, he still believes himself to be Lawful. But he is still carried away by his emotions, breaking deals, killing anyone, even valuable subordinates, on a whim. Tarkin knows that Vader is a rabid dog that must be held with a short leash. Palpatine knows Vader is a rabid dog that must be held with a short leash.

Palpatine only controls Vader because he is the top dog. But after finding Luke, Vader feels they together are strong enough to overcome the top dog. This is the point where Palpatine has to step in and remember Vader who the top dog is. Making him feel his power, in presence, directly. And Vader, as the weaker dog, kneels down, tail betwen his legs. Because that's what being a Sith is. That's what being under the yoke of the Dark Side is.

In the end, Vader breaks out of the Dark Side's yoke. He couldn't have rebeled against a more powerful master without doing so. He is capable of doing so thanks to Luke's presence and the bright of the Force shinning inside his son. In that way, Luke saves him, as he made him capable of breaking out of the pull of the Dark Side and, thus, the thrall Palpatine has over him.

The Empire, the pretense of Law and Order, is just a sham. Star Wars is a black and white morality universe, where the Force is LG, the Dark Side is CE, and everything else is leaning between the two. It is, like DnD original and DnD 4ed, an one axis alignment system, not a two axis one.

[Rynjin]

Star Wars morality is white and black. The Force is LG

I would argue the Light Side/Jedi (presumably what you mean here) is Lawful or True Neutral at best. There's not really anything demonstrably "Good" about Jedi philosophies, which is part of why it's so easy for them to slip from their self-imposed pedestals into evil. It's a rigid and ultimately self-serving philosophy that really only masquerades as Good. They often DO good things, but not for any truly altruistic reasons; it's just their role in the galaxy as its appointed peacekeepers.

[NotASpiderSwarm]

I would argue the Light Side/Jedi (presumably what you mean here) is Lawful or True Neutral at best. There's not really anything demonstrably "Good" about Jedi philosophies, which is part of why it's so easy for them to slip from their self-imposed pedestals into evil. It's a rigid and ultimately self-serving philosophy that really only masquerades as Good. They often DO good things, but not for any truly altruistic reasons; it's just their role in the galaxy as its appointed peacekeepers.

I'd say that the Jedi code is Lawful, individuals are anywhere from LN to NG, with more Good than Law. It feels like individuals generally do what they can to help people, but just get tied up by the Code, Senate, or sheer practicality. And while failing to help someone due to the rules would normally be Lawful rather than Good, the fact that every Jedi has the little voice in the back of their mind saying "if you screw up, if you fall, you could kill millions", tells me that choosing to obey the rules that keep you from falling even if you hate them is a Good act.
But the code:

Spoiler: Shatterpoint

Show

The Separatists are not the true enemies of the Jedi. They are enemies of the Republic. It is the Republic which will stand or fall in the battles of the Clone War.
Even the reborn Sith are not our enemy. Not really.
Our enemy is power mistaken for justice.
Our enemy is the desperation that justifies atrocity.
The Jedi's true enemy is the jungle.
-Mace Windu

Yeah, the Jedi's true enemy is chaos, and their code is Lawful.

[Aeson]

Then comes the watershed moment - when he discovers that Shmi has been kidnapped and killed by Tuskan Raiders, and in response he performs an Evil act with Evil intentions; murder, for the purpose of revenge. This drops him to True Neutral as he's disillusioned with the Jedi and is fully prepared to disregard their authority for his own motivations (Padme) and has committed Evil, but hasn't yet signed up with a specifically Evil side or philosophy (aka, Sidious and the Sith). He's absolutely tempted to do so, but that comes later.

The only reasons why I might be willing to call Anakin non-Evil after his slaughter of the Tusken village are that he had the significant provocation of finding his abducted mother tortured and near death immediately prior to going on his rampage, that he does not (in the Prequel Trilogy movies) repeat the offense until he takes the final plunge, and that he debatably demonstrates some degree of regret for his actions in his confession to Padme. I do not care how good Anakin has been to his friends, how willingly he assists others - even complete strangers - with no expectation of reward, or how many puppies he's petted, and I do not care that someone with a twisted idea of morality put "Good Behavior + Evil Behavior = Neutral Behavior" into a rulebook; knowingly and willfully engaging in Evil activity is demonstrative of Evil alignment - far more so than knowingly and willfully engaging in Good activity is demonstrative of Good alignment.

The idea that committing both good acts and evil acts - even extremely evil acts - somehow balances out to a Neutral alignment is more in the line of self-deception than anything else; it's one of the things Hell's salesman ought to be telling you when he's trying to pitch you your first steps down the road to damnation, right alongside "but it'll feel so good." It's kind of like saying that drinking that diet soda is okay because it's a diet soda and anyways you had celery for lunch, except that for some reason we're equating things like "inflicting grievous bodily harm on another" with "donating an hour to charity."

[Mechalich]

I'd say that the Jedi code is Lawful, individuals are anywhere from LN to NG, with more Good than Law. It feels like individuals generally do what they can to help people, but just get tied up by the Code, Senate, or sheer practicality. And while failing to help someone due to the rules would normally be Lawful rather than Good, the fact that every Jedi has the little voice in the back of their mind saying "if you screw up, if you fall, you could kill millions", tells me that choosing to obey the rules that keep you from falling even if you hate them is a Good act.

The Jedi Code represents a statement of intent towards a particular form of idealized religious enlightenment, 'oneness with the Force,' rather than any sort of practical statement. The Sith Code is roughly the same, only the oneness it seeks is directed in the opposite position, rather than open and humble, it is closed and domineering.

The Jedi Order, rather than the Code, is an institution with a set of rules and dictates and sometimes legal agreements tide to extant galactic governments. The precise nature of that order and its rules change both over time and continuity. The Order was by no means dedicated to service to the largest galactic government - Palpatine broke the Order's power and killed as many Jedi as he possibly could because he knew they would implacably oppose him post Clone Wars regardless of the nominal legality of his actions.

The PT-era Order did indeed have a bunch of very strict rules in place that were probably to the detriment of maximizing the ability of the order to do good, such as the strict age limitations on recruitment and the no attachments rule. There were various justifications for those rules (they differ between Legends and the Disney Canon), of varying validity, but they were institutional rules, and subject to change as the institution changed, they were not some fundamental aspect of the Jedi way.

[hamishspence]

I do not care how good Anakin has been to his friends, how willingly he assists others - even complete strangers - with no expectation of reward, or how many puppies he's petted, and I do not care that someone with a twisted idea of morality put "Good Behavior + Evil Behavior = Neutral Behavior" into a rulebook; knowingly and willfully engaging in Evil activity is demonstrative of Evil alignment - far more so than knowingly and willfully engaging in Good activity is demonstrative of Good alignment.

The idea that committing both good acts and evil acts - even extremely evil acts - somehow balances out to a Neutral alignment is more in the line of self-deception than anything else; it's one of the things Hell's salesman ought to be telling you when he's trying to pitch you your first steps down the road to damnation, right alongside "but it'll feel so good." "

Even in the context of D&D, there's a strong theme of "evil acts outweigh good ones for the purposes of determining afterlife destination".

And, to some extent, for the purposes of determining alignment as well.

When it comes to "balancing evil deeds with good ones, and good intentions, and remaining Neutral" I would say that tends to apply only to mild Evil deeds.

[Wraith]

The idea that committing both good acts and evil acts - even extremely evil acts - somehow balances out to a Neutral alignment is more in the line of self-deception than anything else

That's entirely true, but not what I was trying to demonstrate.

The point that I was trying to make is that Anakin starts out as a Good character and through various circumstances is led into making an Evil act. In Star Wars morality, as The Pilgrim says above, there is only black and white and doing evil things means that you are evil, but in D&D it's generally a lot harder for someone to plunge straight from Good to Evil.

Is killing the Tuskan Raiders a Evil act? Absolutely, yes. At the same time, it's not part of his consistent behaviour until much later, when he sides with Sidious. He feels emotional pain and regret over what happened so he clearly recognises it as a Bad Thing and doesn't revel in it. He's on the slippery slope for sure, but I think such a radical shift based on one event might be overkill.

Maybe some GMs would say that yes, killing the pack of evil, barbarous - but never the less cultured and sentient - beings in a fit of rage is a damning act and you'd drop to Evil. Fair enough, the Golden Rule is in effect and I can agree that's a perfectly logical conclusion, please don't mistake my theory as an attempt to insist upon others.
I just feel that the arc of the prequel trilogy works better in three steps in three films, if Anakin goes from Imperfect Good to Confused And Wretched, then from Confused And Wretched to Certifiably Evil rather than being irredeemably monstrous from Film 2: Act 2. If the latter is the case (And we pretend we have never heard spoilers from The Empire Strikes Back, of course! ) then it removes a lot of the tension and drama from the next 5 hours of movie. "Anakin is Evil now, he can't be redeemed, there's no chance of contrition or redemption, oh well" just isn't as interesting a story as the struggle he faces between remaining a Jedi and Sidious' corruption slowly eating away at him.

[Noldo]

Man, the prequels were just terrible. I disagree somewhat, but your characterization there isn't wrong, and that says more about the quality of the prequels than any 300-page thread on the topic.

I'd definitely say Vader is LE. He's almost the poster boy for it. Now, probably more E than L, but he's the attack dog for a fascist dictatorship. That's LE by default, and Vader doesn't do anything actually chaotic to move himself over. Even his death, he's saving his son. That's not good or chaotic, it's the bare minimum of humanity.

Anakin...CN actions, LN words. He likes people, wants them kept safe, but mostly acts to defend himself and his friends/wife/troops. That's N on the good/evil axis. He basically ignores every rule and authority figure in his life in favor of doing whatever seems best to him at that moment, which is definitely Chaotic. His espoused ideal galaxy, though, is Lawful. Eliminate suffering through governmental power. Not good, really, he doesn't seem to be considering actual people much, but he's not after personal power in this government, he just wants to know that the people in charge are actually in charge and using their power to improve things.

I think this illustrates quite well one of the reasons why the prequels had so hard time to tell the tale they wanted to tell. Vader is definitely one of the poster boys for LE, but since Anakin's fall is portrayed more as a "rebellion gone bad", creating contradictions between Anakin's thoughts/expression (which are crafted to support the future Vader) and his actual actions (which tell the tale of youngster rebelling against all authorities and pushing himself to wrong path). In the end the path and the end result do not match.

[The Pilgrim]

The only reasons why I might be willing to call Anakin non-Evil after his slaughter of the Tusken village are that he had the significant provocation of finding his abducted mother tortured and near death immediately prior to going on his rampage, that he does not (in the Prequel Trilogy movies) repeat the offense until he takes the final plunge, and that he debatably demonstrates some degree of regret for his actions in his confession to Padme. I do not care how good Anakin has been to his friends, how willingly he assists others - even complete strangers - with no expectation of reward, or how many puppies he's petted, and I do not care that someone with a twisted idea of morality put "Good Behavior + Evil Behavior = Neutral Behavior" into a rulebook; knowingly and willfully engaging in Evil activity is demonstrative of Evil alignment - far more so than knowingly and willfully engaging in Good activity is demonstrative of Good alignment.

The idea that committing both good acts and evil acts - even extremely evil acts - somehow balances out to a Neutral alignment is more in the line of self-deception than anything else; it's one of the things Hell's salesman ought to be telling you when he's trying to pitch you your first steps down the road to damnation, right alongside "but it'll feel so good." It's kind of like saying that drinking that diet soda is okay because it's a diet soda and anyways you had celery for lunch, except that for some reason we're equating things like "inflicting grievous bodily harm on another" with "donating an hour to charity."

The Tusken Slaughter is basically the turning point were neutral Anakin stops leaning towards LG and begins to drift into CE. But the seed was already there before the Incident, because Anakin was struggling to play by the rules. He only shown token respect for the Jedi code and traditions, and lets himself get attached to Padme. He is too chaotic, he is too dominated by his emotions. His unability to discipline himself drives him to let himself loose on the tusken and it's all downhill from there.

The point is, again, that Star Wars morallity is black and white. A single axis, like the original DnD morality was. Under that paradigm, Order equals Good, and Chaos equals Evil. Even after the two axis alignment system was introduced in DnD, the idea that Lawfulness was more good than Chaos, and thus LG, LN and LE characters were "better" than their CG, CN and CE counterparts, was present until at least 3rd Edition. The big jump in the DnD alignment system was to acknowelde that Chaos can also mean Freedom, and not just selfish self-indulgence, and that Law can also mean Tyranny, and not just righteous self-discipline. But such interpretation is out of the scope in a black-and-white morality system. Georges Lucas always rejected the idea that the Sith philosophy might have a point about personal freedom. No. The Dark Side means allowing yourself to be enslaved by your emotions. And once you have fallen into it's pull, it's like being trapped in a black hole, you can't break free.

Darth Vader was Palpatine's slave, because Palpatine was stronger than him and thus used his greater dark side power to bend Vader to his will. Like a stronger dog forces a weaker dog into submission, just by letting his presence be felt by the underling. Darth Vader plays the strong guy when he is around weaker beings, acting like a fearsome despot, but lowers tail as soon as Palpatine is around.

Vader is only able to break free thanks to Luke's presence. The Force in Luke allows Vader to overcome the thrall of the Dark Side and become Anakin again, and thus sacrifice himself to destroy Palpatine. He breaks free from the Dark Side's pull and becomes fully attuned with the Force, possibly for the first and only time in his life. And that's thanks to Luke's presence. That's how Lukes saves him. Anakin knows it and tells his son so, before dying.

Under that morality system, Darth Vader can't be LE. Because you can't be LE in a one-axis morality system. You are either LG, or CE. Non-force sensitive characters can be just Good, or Neutral, or just Evil, because the Force is not strong in them and thus they don't feel the strong pull of the Dark Side towards CE. Jedis are strictly LG because they feel the pull, and know that the only way to resist it is to matain a strict self-discipline, avoiding emotions as much as possible.

[Aeson]

Is killing the Tuskan Raiders a Evil act? Absolutely, yes. At the same time, it's not part of his consistent behaviour until much later

The problem with this argument, to me, is that Evil versus non-Evil is more about the depths to which you're willing to allow yourself to sink - especially when away from any external authority capable of holding you accountable for your actions, as Anakin was on Tatooine but not later (at least in the films) - than about maintaining a consistent pattern of Evil or non-Evil behavior over the long term. Very Evil people might behave in a consistently-Evil manner, but that doesn't mean that people who only engage in Evil activity occasionally, when they think they can get away with it, and otherwise behave in much the same way as a Good or Neutral person might is non-Evil. Temptation to do wrong is far easier to resist when you're around other people - especially those whose respect you desire, or who have the power and authority to punish you for your misdeeds - who would disapprove of your actions than it is to do so when you're on your own, because in the latter case only you can bring yourself to task for your actions.

[hamishspence]

Very Evil people might behave in a consistently-Evil manner, but that doesn't mean that people who only engage in Evil activity occasionally, when they think they can get away with it, and otherwise behave in much the same way as a Good or Neutral person might is non-Evil.

A person does not have to be very evil to consistently engage in Evil acts. They can be, in the D&D sense, "evil aligned" and only engage in petty evil acts - a person who cheats customers and bullies underlings can be Evil and yet have done nothing "worthy of death".

Conversely, a non-Evil person can have done worse things than the Evil person has - but because their evil acts are not part of a consistent pattern of behaviour, they haven't (yet) gained an evil alignment - but at the same time, their record is much worse.

Post AOTC , pre ROTS Anakin has a much worse record than "random petty crook" but the crook may be Evil to Anakin's Neutral, because the crook is far more selfish overall than Anakin is.

[Aeson]

Post AOTC , pre ROTS Anakin has a much worse record than "random petty crook" but the crook may be Evil to Anakin's Neutral, because the crook is far more selfish overall than Anakin is.

Except that in the films Anakin's basically never committed an unambiguously selfless act since he was nine, and his confession to Padme of his massacre of the Tusken village looks to be far more a request for validation to help him ignore the voice in his head that's saying that what he did to the Tuskens was wrong than a sincere expression of remorse or guilt. He does more or less what is expected of him as a Jedi when others are there to see him do it, but he slaughtered a village when no one was watching, it didn't take much for Palpatine to push him into decapitating the disarmed Dooku, and he doesn't seem to regret either of those much beyond the intellectual level of knowing that what he did was wrong and falls far short of the standard of behavior to which a Jedi should be held - and if he feels even that much about killing Dooku, it's not really shown in the films beyond a brief hesitation before he does the deed. That isn't a pattern of behavior that's all that consistent with Good or even really Neutral alignment; it's far closer to "Evil, but I'll toe the line as long as somebody's looking."

Quite possibly the only truly good act Anakin does in the entirety of Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith is refusing to leave Obi-Wan pinned and unconscious on the Invisible Hand despite Palpatine explicitly encouraging him to do exactly that and despite it being more expedient than carrying the inert body of his friend and mentor while trying to get Palpatine off the ship, but putting personal loyalty before expediency is not that high a bar to clear.

[Darth Credence]

The biggest problem I have with trying to apply alignments to Star Wars comes down to the Jedi Mind Trick. Of all force powers, that's the one that seems unambiguously evil. You are taking over someone's mind and forcing them to be a slave to your will. And yet, it's done by the "good" guys. Things like Force Lightning are neutral to me - it's a weapon, and the weapon can be used for good or ill. Same with Force Choke. Force Healing of others might be the only power that I see as "good".
Now, on to Anakin. He used mind tricks in the prequels - on Zam, right before she dies. But after he becomes Vader, I don't recall him ever using it. And it could have helped - instead of crushing Captain Antilles throat, he could have used a mind trick to learn what he wanted to know. This obviously doesn't make him good, but it does make me wonder why the Jedi are considered good when they are the ones taking over people's minds.

[Strigon]

The biggest problem I have with trying to apply alignments to Star Wars comes down to the Jedi Mind Trick. Of all force powers, that's the one that seems unambiguously evil. You are taking over someone's mind and forcing them to be a slave to your will. And yet, it's done by the "good" guys. Things like Force Lightning are neutral to me - it's a weapon, and the weapon can be used for good or ill. Same with Force Choke. Force Healing of others might be the only power that I see as "good".
Now, on to Anakin. He used mind tricks in the prequels - on Zam, right before she dies. But after he becomes Vader, I don't recall him ever using it. And it could have helped - instead of crushing Captain Antilles throat, he could have used a mind trick to learn what he wanted to know. This obviously doesn't make him good, but it does make me wonder why the Jedi are considered good when they are the ones taking over people's minds.

The issue with that is it assumes temporary control of one's mind is an unambiguously Evil act. It's a popular opinion among modern countries that place a high emphasis on personal freedom and liberty, but there isn't a fundamental reason why that should be the case. It doesn't, in and of itself, harm anyone, and it isn't by itself an unpleasant experience. From a purely practical perspective, there isn't really a difference between mind controlling someone to press a button, and simply overpowering them with brute force and pushing down on a button with their hand, for example. Despite this, the former is seen as more evil than the first.

And besides, while he isn't shown using that particular trick for interrogation, he is shown torturing them for the same end. I can't see any argument where torture is better than mind control, considering the end effect is the same, and everything before that is significantly worse.

[Sapphire Guard]

They seem to use mindtricks as uninvasively as possible, doing little beyond 'you never saw me'. If you use it like Starkiller does in TFU2, then that's pretty evil (making Stormtroopers kill themselves). Comes down to how you use it.

The darkside equivalent is Kylo painfully tearing thoughts out of your brain by force.

[hamishspence]

Except that in the films Anakin's basically never committed an unambiguously selfless act since he was nine, and his confession to Padme of his massacre of the Tusken village looks to be far more a request for validation to help him ignore the voice in his head that's saying that what he did to the Tuskens was wrong than a sincere expression of remorse or guilt.

9 to 20 is a huge age gap. And Shmi conversation with Qui-Gon suggests that Anakin's behaviour back then, was normal for him - not a one-off "altruistic moment".

It's reasonable to presume Anakin spent most of the next 11-odd years acting like that.

[Jeivar]

Chaotic Lucas?

[LibraryOgre]

I'd class Anakin Skywalker as pretty much True Neutral, leaning slightly towards chaotic good early on. He's fairly selfish and self-motivated (in the sense that he is motivated by actions for his own benefit and ego, rather than the more traditional meaning), with personal ambition and winning coming above helping people... he's not against helping people, but he's not really motivated it. He's also neutral, ethically; he's aware of the rules, and sees the value of the rules, but also feels they don't really apply to him, in this situation. He can work within a heirarchy, but tends to circumvent it if he thinks it's inconvenient.

By Revenge of the Sith, he's obviously turned evil; he's gone from selfish and self-motivated to actively willing to harm innocents to protect his interests. I don't think he goes completely Lawful or Chaotic; he tends to work within rules because it suits his purposes, and never completely abandons them as irrelevant.

[Caledonian]

Neutral, then Neutral Evil.