He started as true neutral and then became neutral good? Why neutral good and not chaotic good: he was an acting general in the rebel army, so chaotic doesn't sound plausible to me.
DarkBanishing schrieb:
Why neutral good and not chaotic good: he was an acting general in the rebel army, so chaotic doesn't sound plausible to me.
You mean because the Rebel Army is a well structured organization? I would say that the fact that he served in such a organization does not preclude that he himself is chaotic good.
But you must admit his character made some alignment shifts over the years. In Star Wars IV A New Hope he is certainly not a good character, rather neutral. That ends when he comes back to save Luke. From then on he evolves to a good alignment. In the later movies he's also more responsible. He takes up his responsibility to go to the forest moon of Endor, although he's a pilot. So I think he's not chaotic good just because of this responsibilities he takes on his shoulders. He's quiet a good leader too, does that suits a real chaotic good character? My feeling tells me he's a neutral good character in SW V and VI.
Well, he certainly got trough a development process. I think he was a pretty cynic human being to begin, but that in itself don't specifies his alignment imho.
He was what he was because of the political and social circumstances of the Empire. Trying to keep as much freedom for himself as possible but without any means to change the regime he apparently also despised.
The way he is portrayed in A New Hope, (but not only there) is the reason why I think that "Chaotic" is not only the right but the only description for him.
By definition: "Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."
The "good" part is ambivalent (or not defined) until he acts the way he acts at the end of A New Hope.
The "good" part is ambivalent (or not defined) until he acts the way he acts at the end of A New Hope.
The lack of doing heroic deeds in D&D defines a neutral character. So he definitely didn't start as a good character if we follow D&D logic. 😉
The second thing is that the empire isn't the legitimate authority. The senate is, but the emperor disbanded it. So as I see it, even a lawful good character can resent authority (f.e. princess Lea) if it isn't a legitimate one. Being chaotic for me is doing what you want without thinking of the consequences of doing so. Han's actions aren't chaotic, they're just heroic actions that defines him as good later on in the movies.
Lets focus on Luke for now, what do you think of his alignment. 🙂
