How do we feel about Therkla?

[Fyraltari]

1. Why you matter
Look around you (or rather above and below, in this case :-))
Sometimes I just need to sooth my sorrow with this world and the crap that is humanity.
Specifically, sometimes I need to assure myself that out there there ARE still people who *get* ethics. In the way you do. Thank you for living.

I don’t know what to say. I’m touched. Thank you.

2. I don't know much Star Wars EU. For me Boba is a guy who willingly delivers people to the evil empire. Like Enor & Ganji. As long as I don't have more information, I judge them (as literary characters) by this information I have. And that's solidly evil in my book.

Fair enough.

3. Yes actions are evil. But thoughts can be as well (although not quite as harmful in a direct way).

I respectfully disagree.
Thoughts can be dangerous (especially to oneself) but never evil.
Crimethink is not something anyone should believe in. Good and evil are ultimately about choice and one has little to no choice about what they think. Besides it isn’t completely impossible to judge someone on their thoughts alone since you have (presumably) no access to that.

[Schroeswald]

See my problem with judging movie Boba is that he doesn’t have a character, because he isn’t one, if it turns out he was an emotionless droid the entire time his character (outside of the prequels) wouldn’t change one bit. Sure the things we see the cool looking armor do are Evil, but they also can be done by someone of any any non-Good alignment.

[Mightymosy]

(...) Sure the things we see the cool looking armor do are Evil, but they also can be done by someone of any any non-Good alignment.

See this is where I disagree.
For me the things he does are clearly evil and as long as I don't have other information this would makd me judge him as evil if this was for example a D and D campaign.
Yes, it is possible that he is an avatar of law and good inside, but he has a brain maggot inside that telepathically forces him to be evil - theoretically - but the most easily fitting explanation of his actions is just that the person is evil and that's that.

[Schroeswald]

See this is where I disagree.
For me the things he does are clearly evil and as long as I don't have other information this would makd me judge him as evil if this was for example a D and D campaign.
Yes, it is possible that he is an avatar of law and good inside, but he has a brain maggot inside that telepathically forces him to be evil - theoretically - but the most easily fitting explanation of his actions is just that the person is evil and that's that.

I said explicitly that these actions aren’t compliant with a Good alignment, so I don’t know why you took the most uncharitable way for him to be non-evil and acted as if that’s what I’m saying. What I am saying is that yes, these actions are clearly Evil, but what we know about him is that he’ll capture Han for Vader and Jabba, an Evil action and if you have to give him an alignment based on this it would be Evil, but that is one thing, and trying to give anyone an alignment based on one thing that he’s actually done is an exercise in futility that one shouldn’t do.
and of course that some other works I have seen Fett in show fairly clear non-Evil alignments

[Mightymosy]

Well to be clear you said no-good which includes neutral as I understand D&D.
And for me this simply isn't neutral, neither with Boba nor with Enor&Ganji.

Sorry if you feel misunderstood, this is what I meant.

[Schroeswald]

Well to be clear you said no-good which includes neutral as I understand D&D.
And for me this simply isn't neutral, neither with Boba nor with Enor&Ganji.

Sorry if you feel misunderstood, this is what I meant.

You misunderstood why I feel misunderstood, I do think Boba Fett is Lawful Neutral in the (old) EU, I took offense to you saying that it is possible “he is an avatar of law and good inside, but he has a brain maggot inside that telepathically forces him to be evil”, which I feel is a pretty absurd representation of my beliefs, as Boba Fett is very clearly not good (if you really want to know why I think he’s LN ask and I’ll give my reasonings) and I said he isn’t. I don’t really take offense with the idea that Fett is Evil (he definitely gets close), but I don’t like the idea of taking the one action we’ve seen the man take (which isolated from motivations is Evil) and using it to give an example on how to be any alignment or extrapolate anything about the dude (I find say, trying to find General Chang’s alignment just as ridiculous).

But back to the original topic of this thread, Gannji and Enor’s alignment The reasons they are Neutral (as opposed to Evil, cause they are very clearly not Good) are: they try to avoid killing people as much as possible, their motivations are mostly just having yummies, they mostly take criminals and other not great people in (they were hired to arrest the Linear Guild), they show sympathy to workers (or well, sort of, what they see as workers, not Good after all) and finally are currently involved in a resistance to overthrow an Evil government for free.

But one question, who would you see as Neutral? It feels like your definition excludes one of the core ways to be Neutral so I am legitimately asking this.

[Aquillion]

What I am saying is that yes, these actions are clearly Evil, but what we know about him is that he’ll capture Han for Vader and Jabba, an Evil action and if you have to give him an alignment based on this it would be Evil

Wait, why do you think that?

Fett isn't some expert on Han's life. This is what Fett knows: Han is a scoundrel, smuggler, and criminal who owes Jabba money and fled rather than pay. It's not like Jabba is going to offer more information than that, and Fett has no reason to ask any further questions (straightforward deadbeats like that are probably his bread-and-butter.)

It's not good, but I don't see how it's evil? Han isn't, like, some starving widow who fell into debt due to circumstances. (We see him give Jabba some excuses, but honestly given who Han is and his general reputation, both Jabba and Fett could entirely reasonably conclude that Han is simply stealing from them.)

Gannji and Enor seem similar. Yeah, they don't ask many questions, but as far as they know Elan is a wanted criminal (wanted for murder!) Like... supposing they'd actually gotten the right guy, and successfully brought in Nale. Would that be an evil act? Nale was, in fact, guilty of everything the poster said he was.

[Mightymosy]

You misunderstood why I feel misunderstood, I do think Boba Fett is Lawful Neutral in the (old) EU, I took offense to you saying that it is possible “he is an avatar of law and good inside, but he has a brain maggot inside that telepathically forces him to be evil”, which I feel is a pretty absurd representation of my beliefs, as Boba Fett is very clearly not good (if you really want to know why I think he’s LN ask and I’ll give my reasonings) and I said he isn’t. I don’t really take offense with the idea that Fett is Evil (he definitely gets close), but I don’t like the idea of taking the one action we’ve seen the man take (which isolated from motivations is Evil) and using it to give an example on how to be any alignment or extrapolate anything about the dude (I find say, trying to find General Chang’s alignment just as ridiculous).

But back to the original topic of this thread, Gannji and Enor’s alignment The reasons they are Neutral (as opposed to Evil, cause they are very clearly not Good) are: they try to avoid killing people as much as possible, their motivations are mostly just having yummies, they mostly take criminals and other not great people in (they were hired to arrest the Linear Guild), they show sympathy to workers (or well, sort of, what they see as workers, not Good after all) and finally are currently involved in a resistance to overthrow an Evil government for free.

But one question, who would you see as Neutral? It feels like your definition excludes one of the core ways to be Neutral so I am legitimately asking this.

Neutral = Not delivering victims to an evil empire.

For me it's as simple as that, regarding this case.

SURE, Boba COULD be some neutral guy whose one evil deed in life was trying out to be a bountyhunter for Jabba for one job and afterwards decided this was too evil and went back to baking bread for Tattooine's population.

It's just more likely from the movies that he is a professional bounty hunter by his own choice. For evil people (Jabba and Empire).

Now of course people find it interesting and tense to play characters like bounty hunters, thieves or even assassins (think the popularity of James Bond or Boba Fett, for example).
So game system I feel often go out of their way justifying such 'profession' as acceptable, labeling them with descriptions like 'neutral', in this case.

And yeah, playing the scoundrel in a role playing game can be fun. Because it is a game.
But if you take a step back and view this with RW eyes I can't find these as ethically 'neutral' professions, sorry.

I mean, go ahead, explain why you think Boba is neutral, I just fear the key difference is you accept something as morally neutral that I just don't.

[The Pilgrim]

The problem with the reasoning that Bobba Fett is Evil because he captures people for the Evil Empire, is that it begins with the assumption that Bobba Fett considers the Empire to be Evil.

Who is Bobba Fett? A man who, as an infant, got his father beheaded in front of him by a Jedi.

Who are the Imperials, for Bobba Fett? The guys that obliterated the Jedi Order. Emperor Palpatine is the man who killed his father's murderer, specifically.

As far as Bobba Fett (and the average Joe of the Galaxy) is concerned, the Empire is the legitimate goverment, Jabba the Hutt is a respectable businessman from Tatoonie, and Han Solo is a scoundrel that has stolen money from Jabba and is colluding with terrorist insurgents.

Yeah, if you are good aligned, it doesn't takes you a lot of analysis to conclude that the Empire is evil (specially after the destruction of Alderaan) and Jabba is a crime lord. But the Average Joe doesn't stops to think about the grand scheme, they just try to carry on with their lives.

Hence, Bobba Fett is Neutral.

[hroþila]

Does the EU say anything about oppression within the Empire itself? I mean, not within the imperial military or in how it wages its wars, but at the home front.

[Schroeswald]

Neutral = Not delivering victims to an evil empire.

For me it's as simple as that, regarding this case.

SURE, Boba COULD be some neutral guy whose one evil deed in life was trying out to be a bountyhunter for Jabba for one job and afterwards decided this was too evil and went back to baking bread for Tattooine's population.

It's just more likely from the movies that he is a professional bounty hunter by his own choice. For evil people (Jabba and Empire).

Now of course people find it interesting and tense to play characters like bounty hunters, thieves or even assassins (think the popularity of James Bond or Boba Fett, for example).
So game system I feel often go out of their way justifying such 'profession' as acceptable, labeling them with descriptions like 'neutral', in this case.

And yeah, playing the scoundrel in a role playing game can be fun. Because it is a game.
But if you take a step back and view this with RW eyes I can't find these as ethically 'neutral' professions, sorry.

I mean, go ahead, explain why you think Boba is neutral, I just fear the key difference is you accept something as morally neutral that I just don't.

Okay what your problem is that you feel like the act of arresting someone for an Evil Empire is something that you can’t do without being Evil or all other actions you’ve ever done, and I find that ridiculous, you can have done any act and still be Neutral (if you’ve been redeemed or are trying to Good often), and Evil Empirers arrest all sorts of people, some of them are like Leia, some are like Han, and others are like Nale, and I can’t call arresting such a clearly Evil dude like Nale as Evil, and while Han was being arrested by Vader for doing the rebellion (a Good thing) he was arrested by Jabba for being a scoundrel, and if he arrested Han at the start of ANH it probably wouldn’t have been an Evil act (to me Han was CN at that point).

Now for my defense of his Neutral-hood (as seen by his actions in the LoTF series) I’ll have to start by explaining how he is Lawful. He believes that his word is his bond, that is his core rule that guides everything else that he does, he will never, ever break a deal (the one betrayal he ever did he worded the deal so he was able to betray them yet still be better than them) he also hates making the person you are going to kill suffer, in fact that the Yuuzhan Vong do it is one of the reasons he hates them, if you’re going to kill, you must kill clean, and finally he believes in Order, that the galaxy should be nice and orderly and those like the Jedi mess with that by creating war and conflict (a very common view by many non-Jedi in the old EU). He also fights against the Yuuzhan Vong and Caedus, partially for self defense, partially for revenge, but also partially because he thinks the way they rule is terrible for the galaxy and thus they need to be stopped through killing them. He also is the leader of the Mandalorians and does care for them and protect them to the best of his ability

Spoiler

Show

Eventually the same thing applies to his family

Oh and he isn’t actually, Good, because his job description is to kill or capture people for money, some of whom are Good and others are Evil.


EDIT due to checking new posts:
To hroþila, besides the whole, totalitarian dictatorship and the destroying of their own planets things, yes they do have plenty of confirmed Evilness. The Empire hates non-humans with a passion, disenfranchising them and limiting their ability to progress in the military and other works (ever notice how Thrawn is the only non-human imperial? Well that’s for a reason). They are also known for enslaving the entire Wookiee species, renaming Kashyyyk into Wookiee Planet C, placing it under martial law, manipulating the Nogrhi into working for them by poisoning their crops (though no one knew it at the time), enslaving the people and destroying the government of Mandalore and then stripping all of its supplies of Beskar, and those are just the cruelly treated planets I remember, I’m sure if I searched for some Legends planets for a bit longer I’d discover a few other places they completely ruined.

[KorvinStarmast]

I tend to agree with The Pilgrim on this (in terms of analyzing it in-world) with the following caveat: the Star Wars Universe was not built on the Gygaxian two-axis alignment chassis.

George Lucas seems to me to have overlaid a home brewed dualism over his mystical "future/past" of the Star Wars setting that takes place long ago in a galaxy far away .

[Peelee]

Neutral = Not delivering victims to an evil empire.

For me it's as simple as that, regarding this case.

Your Neutral sounds remarkably like Good.

[Schroeswald]

Your Neutral sounds remarkably like Good.

Of course this reminds of the one thing I forgot in the post that took a few hours to actually compose

Mightymosy, you didn't actually answer my question, who, in your mind, qualifies as a Neutral character, you just gave one action that a Neutral character wouldn’t take, which disqualifies Enor, Gannji, Geoff and Fett, but doesn’t disqualify Xykon, Redcloak, Roy or Elan (the latter 4 of course being not Neutral, but they haven’t turned anyone over to Evil Empires).

[The Pilgrim]

I tend to agree with The Pilgrim on this (in terms of analyzing it in-world) with the following caveat: the Star Wars Universe was not built on the Gygaxian two-axis alignment chassis.

George Lucas seems to me to have overlaid a home brewed dualism over his mystical "future/past" of the Star Wars setting that takes place long ago in a galaxy far away .

Yep, for George Lucas, the Star Wars universe is white-and-black morality. In his movies, there are only two sides: The good guys and the bad guys. There are no evil or shady characters working with the Good Guys, and there are no good or conflicted characters working with the Bad Guys. Therefore, Bobba Fett is automatically Evil by Association, in he original movies.

The Star Wars' Expanded Universe, however, is more complex. It was only natural that they evolved the popular Cool-Armor-Guy into neutrality.

[Mightymosy]

Your Neutral sounds remarkably like Good.

I can't say how much your statement depresses me, yet it doesn't surprise me much (which, come to think of it, is depressing itself)

Of course this reminds of the one thing I forgot in the post that took a few hours to actually compose

Mightymosy, you didn't actually answer my question, who, in your mind, qualifies as a Neutral character, you just gave one action that a Neutral character wouldn’t take, which disqualifies Enor, Gannji, Geoff and Fett, but doesn’t disqualify Xykon, Redcloak, Roy or Elan (the latter 4 of course being not Neutral, but they haven’t turned anyone over to Evil Empires).

Sorry I missed that. So you want examples of neutral characters?

This may surprise you, but I think most stormtroopers might be neutral. (because I assume most were likely pressed into service, given what the empire initially was probably modeled after (RW example).

I don't judge people if they need to do bad things when forced, or to survive.
Boba and Enor and Ganji are all depicted as freelancers. As in: they Freely chose to hunt down anybody the evil empire wants. They even take pride in their profession.

Enor and Ganji only started fighting Tarquin AFTER he betrayed them. That doesn't make them neutral or good in any way shape or form in my eyes.

Most bystanders in Star Wars are probably neutral.
But since Star Wars is a fairy tale about Good VS Evil, it is not surprising that most named characters fall firmly on either side.

Speaking of which, Han Might have been neutral at the start of Episode 4. He didn't care for others, but also didn't do evil stuff. Textbook neutral I would say.

[Schroeswald]

I can't say how much your statement depresses me, yet it doesn't surprise me much (which, come to think of it, is depressing itself)


Sorry I missed that. So you want examples of neutral characters?

This may surprise you, but I think most stormtroopers might be neutral. (because I assume most were likely pressed into service, given what the empire initially was probably modeled after (RW example).

I don't judge people if they need to do bad things when forced, or to survive.
Boba and Enor and Ganji are all depicted as freelancers. As in: they Freely chose to hunt down anybody the evil empire wants. They even take pride in their profession.

Enor and Ganji only started fighting Tarquin AFTER he betrayed them. That doesn't make them neutral or good in any way shape or form in my eyes.

Most bystanders in Star Wars are probably neutral.
But since Star Wars is a fairy tale about Good VS Evil, it is not surprising that most named characters fall firmly on either side.

Speaking of which, Han Might have been neutral at the start of Episode 4. He didn't care for others, but also didn't do evil stuff. Textbook neutral I would say.

So are Neutral people not allowed to do Evil things? Because it sounds like that’s what you think, and that is an overly simplistic view. Also Han did do Evil things, he killed people, he abandoned the Good people to save his own skin, but he also usually is out for himself and isn’t cruel or anything, pre-Empire he is textbook CN.

And Enor, Gannji and Boba don’t do everything the Empire says, they work for money and the Empires paid them money, one time, to capture criminals, Enor and Gannji went after unequivocally Evil people and Boba went for a CN dude, not super Evil unredeemable acts by any means, E&G then worked for Good for free and one time in Legends Fett helped out the Jedi to defeat a mutual super Evil enemy.

[Peelee]

I can't say how much your statement depresses me, yet it doesn't surprise me much (which, come to think of it, is depressing itself)


Sorry I missed that. So you want examples of neutral characters?

This may surprise you, but I think most stormtroopers might be neutral. (because I assume most were likely pressed into service, given what the empire initially was probably modeled after (RW example).

I don't judge people if they need to do bad things when forced, or to survive.
Boba and Enor and Ganji are all depicted as freelancers. As in: they Freely chose to hunt down anybody the evil empire wants. They even take pride in their profession.

Enor and Ganji only started fighting Tarquin AFTER he betrayed them. That doesn't make them neutral or good in any way shape or form in my eyes.

Most bystanders in Star Wars are probably neutral.
But since Star Wars is a fairy tale about Good VS Evil, it is not surprising that most named characters fall firmly on either side.

Speaking of which, Han Might have been neutral at the start of Episode 4. He didn't care for others, but also didn't do evil stuff. Textbook neutral I would say.

..... So Han, who worked for the evil Jabba, was Neutral. And stormtroopers, who work for the evil Empire (and are elite troops, unlike regular army (which we see in Solo)) are Neutral, but Fett who does jobs for Jabba and the Empire is Evil.

Gotcha.

[Mightymosy]

..... So Han, who worked for the evil Jabba, was Neutral. And stormtroopers, who work for the evil Empire (and are elite troops, unlike regular army (which we see in Solo)) are Neutral, but Fett who does jobs for Jabba and the Empire is Evil.

Gotcha.

Anything but Gotcha
Intentions and actions count

Smuggling = neutral
Smuggling slaves = evil
Capturing people =???
Capturing people for LG government = neutral or good depending why you do it
Capturing people for Darth Vader or Tarquin or Jabba = straight up evil
I don't think the movies ever said Han was smuggling slaves for Jabba, that is why he gets away as neutral while Boba does not.


Really, why am I being called simplicistic here?

To be fair, this stuff does seem pretty simple to me.
Doing bad stuff to other people for money = evil

Notice I specifically mentioned stormtroopers who are pressed into service, and would likely be shot if they disobeyed orders. Big difference to Han, Boba, Enor and Ganji. See Finn as an example. I think Finn is exceptionally good, whereas some of his comrades may well just be neutral and hope their superiors don't shoot them. Still others are firmly evil and enjoy killing villagers.

I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp, but then I think this discussion is futile at best. Let's both enjoy our lives and be glad we don't have to argue over real stuff but just an unimportant internet forum.


Edit: Enor and Ganji DO NOT work for free. They don't work for Good.
They work for personal revenge. And that currently helps the good side.
Big difference.

[Fyraltari]

I can't say how much your statement depresses me, yet it doesn't surprise me much (which, come to think of it, is depressing in itself)

See, that’s one problem I have with D&D’s alignment system (or at least how most people represent it around here): it encourages the action that standing being complicit in a non-active way to evil or committing evil actions out of a purely self-centred goal (but not a cruel one), basically acting selfishly is not evil.

Speaking of which, Han Might have been neutral at the start of Episode 4. He didn't care for others, but also didn't do evil stuff. Textbook neutral I would say.[/QUOTE]
Dealing drugs for a slave trader is not evil for you?

So are Neutral people not allowed to do Evil things? Because it sounds like that’s what you think, and that is an overly simplistic view.

The idea that good people can’t do evil things that you’ve expressed here:

Sure the things we see the cool looking armor do are Evil, but they also can be done by someone of any any non-Good alignment.

isn’t much more nuanced, to be fair.

Also Han did do Evil things, he killed people, he abandoned the Good people to save his own skin, but he also usually is out for himself and isn’t cruel or anything, pre-Empire he is textbook CN.

And Enor, Gannji and Boba don’t do everything the Empire says, they work for money and the Empires paid them money, one time, to capture criminals, Enor and Gannji went after unequivocally Evil people and Boba went for a CN dude, not super Evil unredeemable acts by any means, E&G then worked for Good for free and one time in Legends Fett helped out the Jedi to defeat a mutual super Evil enemy.

But the questions then are ‘is cruelty absolutely indispensable to be evil? Isn’t killing and inflicting suffering passionlessly evil too?’ And ‘Would Bobba Fett and Enor&Gannji accept to hunt down good people for their evil employers? Also why are they trusting the propaganda-enthusiastic empires with regards to the crimes of their target?’

[Peelee]

Anything but Gotcha
Intentions and actions count

Smuggling = neutral
Smuggling slaves = evil
Capturing people =???
Capturing people for LG government = neutral or good depending why you do it
Capturing people for Darth Vader or Tarquin or Jabba = straight up evil
I don't think the movies ever said Han was smuggling slaves for Jabba, that is why he gets away as neutral while Boba does not.

Smuggling = neutral
Smuggling space-cocaine for Jabba = totally not Evil

Capturing people for Darth Vader = straight up Evil
Working as an elite military force that swears allegiance to the Emperor = totally not Evil, it's not like they're capturing people or anything.

Again, gotcha.

[Schroeswald]

See, that’s one problem I have with D&D’s alignment system (or at least how most people represent it around here): it encourages the action that standing being complicit in a non-active way to evil or committing evil actions out of a purely self-centred goal (but not a cruel one), basically acting selfishly is not evil.

The problem with saying that selfishness is an inherently Evil thing, is that Neutral means nothing, to bring up another selfish but clearly non-Evil character:

Spoiler

Show

Right-Eye, he wants himself and his family and friends to have a nice life, but he wasn’t willing to go all murdery and whatever, fairly textbook Neutral, but complicit in some Evil actions

The idea that good people can’t do evil things that you’ve expressed here:

isn’t much more nuanced, to be fair.

For Good people to do evil things and retain their alignment they either have to like, regret it on-screen and work to fix it, or be very Good in all other situations, so yes technically Fett could have a Good alignment, but I find the situation that gives him one to require quit a bit of character development and a fairly absurd amount or changing the character, which maybe could have been said, but that wasn’t really the point, my point is that while Fett’s one action was Evil the character could fairly easily fit into any non-good alignment with it.

But the questions then are ‘is cruelty absolutely indispensable to be evil? Isn’t killing and inflicting suffering passionlessly evil too?’ And ‘Would Bobba Fett and Enor&Gannji accept to hunt down good people for their evil employers? Also why are they trusting the propaganda-enthusiastic empires with regards to the crimes of their target?’

1. No it isnt, but not taking pleasure in killing certainly helps as well as the fact that he (mostly) kills in self-defense.
2. Probably, but G&E would try to avoid killing them and if they found they liked them for some reason might let them go and Fett’s neutrality mostly comes from the good he does off-jobs
3.Do they know that the empire loves propaganda? And does the Empire frame people? Cause Han was guilty of every crime he was accused of.

[Peelee]

See, that’s one problem I have with D&D’s alignment system (or at least how most people represent it around here): it encourages the action that standing being complicit in a non-active way to evil or committing evil actions out of a purely self-centred goal (but not a cruel one), basically acting selfishly is not evil.

Evil acts do not equate to evil overall alignment. For example, the rules state that a paladin who commits a single evil act will fall. They do not state that a paladin who commits a single evil act is no longer good, because good characters can commit evil acts (albeit not as a common thing, obviously). Similarly, neutral characters can commit evil acts while still remaining neutral. They can also commit good acts while still remaining neutral.

[Fyraltari]

elite military force that swears allegiance to the Emperor

"elite". Yeah, yeah I know, they let them go in ANH and plot armor and stuff, but it still makes me smile.

Neutral means nothing

Yup, you got that right.

For Good people to do evil things and retain their alignment they either have to like, regret it on-screen and work to fix it, or be very Good in all other situations, so yes technically Fett could have a Good alignment, but I find the situation that gives him one to require quit a bit of character development and a fairly absurd amount or changing the character, which maybe could have been said, but that wasn’t really the point, my point is that while Fett’s one action was Evil the character could fairly easily fit into any non-good alignment with it.

Interesting, I don't remeùber Han regreting any of his past misdeeds, though. Also what do evil characters who do good things have to do to retain their alignment?

1. No it isnt, but not taking pleasure in killing certainly helps as well as the fact that he (mostly) kills in self-defense.

You still talking about the guy that Vader felt the need to single out when insisting the quarry be brought alive and not disintegrated? But if not taking pleasure in killing is not enough not to qualify as evil and killing and capturing people for an evil dictatorship and murderous crimelords is not enough to qualify I wonder what it would take for Bobba to be evil in your eyes.

2. Probably, but G&E would try to avoid killing them and if they found they liked them for some reason might let them go

Source? Also remember, they tried to kill Roy for asking questions.

and Fett’s neutrality mostly comes from the good he does off-jobs

Which aren't shown in the movies are they? Yet you still claimed that based solely on the movie Fett could be any non-good.

3.Do they know that the empire loves propaganda? And does the Empire frame people? Cause Han was guilty of every crime he was accused of.

Which were none. Vader and Jabba just put a price on his head. And considering that Fett is not volunteering to serve the Empire he has not to buy their propaganda. As for Gannji&Enor, have you seen Bleedhaven?

[Schroeswald]

Yup, you got that right.

Well there’s the core of our disagreement, I think Neutrality in alignment is possible, and you don’t.

Interesting, I don't remeùber Han regreting any of his past misdeeds, though. Also what do evil characters who do good things have to do to retain their alignment?

He works to make the galaxy a better place and does Good in just about every situation starting with his return to save the rebellion. And Evil is easier than Good.

You still talking about the guy that Vader felt the need to single out when insisting the quarry be brought alive and not disintegrated? But if not taking pleasure in killing is not enough not to qualify as evil and killing and capturing people for an evil dictatorship and murderous crimelords is not enough to qualify I wonder what it would take for Bobba to be evil in your eyes.

Fett would often choose the quick clean kill over the capture because it’s easier. Fett would be totes Evil if we got to see him do more than one thing, or have motivations, or be a character and none of them were the Neutral stuff in the EU, I don’t think one action is easy

Source? Also remember, they tried to kill Roy for asking questions.

When you’ve been attacked one too many times by someone asking questions you start to be a lot more willing to preemptively hit back. And yeah, I don’t know exactly what they’d do, but they (mostly) avoid killing during bounties and haven’t done anything super-Evil, Neutral makes sense for them and those are things Neutral people would do (especially since the Giant think they are Neutral, if the Giant wrote them into a situation of capturing Good people they know are good he’d write them to respond like Neutral).

Which aren't shown in the movies are they? Yet you still claimed that based solely on the movie Fett could be any non-good.

Not because he does anything particularly non-Evil, but because he doesn’t do more than one thing to judge him for.

Which were none. Vader and Jabba just put a price on his head. And considering that Fett is not volunteering to serve the Empire he has not to buy their propaganda. As for Gannji&Enor, have you seen Bleedhaven?

Ok then maybe none were said, but do you think bounties don’t explain why they are being tried? And Han committed quite a few crimes, including rebellion and killing imperial soldiers, the Empire has not been seen accusing people of false crimes or using any more propaganda than I would expect of a normal country. Also, G&E could know about all the propaganda, but a lot of it is just imperial Rome stuff if you don’t look too closely at it (and have they been to Blledingham to get it? It might very well have been posted and spread around the continent without them ever needing to know more than it’s the Empire of Blood).

[Peelee]

Which were none.

Last I checked, treason was a pretty universal crime.

[Jasdoif]

Last I checked, treason was a pretty universal crime.

It's treason, then?

[KorvinStarmast]

Yep, for George Lucas, the Star Wars universe is white-and-black morality. In his movies, there are only two sides: The good guys and the bad guys. There are no evil or shady characters working with the Good Guys

Hmm, Han Solo starts out as shady character in the original movie, and Lando starts out as very much "I am in it for me" in ESB.

Han seems to change his nature due to falling for Leia, and Lando decides that after cooperating with the Empire he grasps the costs of so doing, he changes out of self interest.

Well, that's my take on those two.

You are right: Boba is painted as "bad guy" in the original 3.

[Fyraltari]

Evil acts do not equate to evil overall alignment. For example, the rules state that a paladin who commits a single evil act will fall. They do not state that a paladin who commits a single evil act is no longer good, because good characters can commit evil acts (albeit not as a common thing, obviously). Similarly, neutral characters can commit evil acts while still remaining neutral. They can also commit good acts while still remaining neutral.

Yet people on these boards will often claim that particularly morally charged actions (like some murders) are neutral in themselves. It seems like people often consider that the list of actions given in the alignment description are of that alignment rather than a list of good/evil things a neutral charcater would do in equal measure.

Well there’s the core of our disagreement, I think Neutrality in alignment is possible, and you don’t.

Almost, I think the alignment system doesn't hold up under scrutiny and that while it's useful to quickly decide what a random charcater would do or to push a player out of their comfort zone, it's not as useful when discussing more complex characters that are not from a game (and certainly shouldn't be used in real-life) as people have very different ideas of how much evil is required to be evil, how one can make up for something, etc. Neutral doesn,'t make sense, but the other two don't either.

He works to make the galaxy a better place and does Good in just about every situation starting with his return to save the rebellion.

Granted.

And Evil is easier than Good.

Highly debatable, but that's another discussion.

Fett would often choose the quick clean kill over the capture because it’s easier.

Isn't killing for convenience's sake extremely evil, though?

Fett would be totes Evil if we got to see him do more than one thing, or have motivations, or be a character and none of them were the Neutral stuff in the EU, I don’t think one action is easy

But it's more than one action, is it? He's clearly worked for Vader before (or has a reputation as being trigger-happy) and was happy to lounge at Jabba's palace watching slave girls being fed to Rancors and choosing to defend Jabba when people fight back against him.

When you’ve been attacked one too many times by someone asking questions you start to be a lot more willing to preemptively hit back.

1) that is certainly not an excuse.
2) that's an ad hoc rationalization, isn't it? Enor & Gannji never even mention that.

And yeah, I don’t know exactly what they’d do, but they (mostly) avoid killing during bounties and haven’t done anything super-Evil, Neutral makes sense for them and those are things Neutral people would do (especially since the Giant think they are Neutral, if the Giant wrote them into a situation of capturing Good people they know are good he’d write them to respond like Neutral).

So one needs to do something "super-evil" to be evil, what's that? And source on them avoiding killing during bounties out of a sense of respect for life? They get paid more for alive.

Ok then maybe none were said, but do you think bounties don’t explain why they are being tried?

"Tried"? By the Empire? By Vader? What?

And Han committed quite a few crimes, including rebellion and killing imperial soldiers

Leaving aside the morality of rebelling against a genocidal dictatorship...

the Empire has not been seen accusing people of false crimes or using any more propaganda than I would expect of a normal country.

You are either picking and choosing from the EU or have a very bleak view of what "a normal county" does, but the empire certainly used a lot of propaganda. If only because of the obvious historical inspiration.

Also, G&E could know about all the propaganda, but a lot of it is just imperial Rome stuff if you don’t look too closely at it (and have they been to Blledingham to get it? It might very well have been posted and spread around the continent without them ever needing to know more than it’s the Empire of Blood).

I think it's safe to say they know a lot about how the Empire of Blood operates.

EDIT:

Last I checked, treason was a pretty universal crime.

When does Vader accuse Han of treason? Or start any leagal action against him?

[Peelee]

When does Vader accuse Han of treason? Or start any leagal action against him?

When he hires bounty hunters to help the Empire find them after they seemingly escape from his fleet. Which is a valid legal action under the Empire.