Mandalorian Alignment Chart Challenge

[godisawesome]

Since I’m a teacher who wants to decorate my room, I'm thinking about having some fun and making a D&D style Alignment Chart using Star Wars… and since the Mandos can more fluidly switch between the different alignments without changing designation like a Jedi or Sith would, I thought thye’d be good for them.

What I’ve got so far is:

Lawful good - Fenn Rau (This was the hardest category to pick for without going for Satine)

Neutral Good - Din Djarin

Chaotic Good - Sabine Wren

Lawful neutral - The Armorer (I figure a fundamentalist fits the category)

True neutral - Jango Fett

Chaotic Neutral - Boba Fett

Lawful Evil - Almec (I was trying to figure out high profile examples, but Gar Saxon fits the next one better)

Neutral Evil - Gar Saxon

Chaotic Evil - Pre Viszla

How would you do it?

[thwhtGuardian]

Eh, while Almec, Gar Saxon and Pre Vizsla were clearly antagonists to the heroes on Clone Wars I don't know if any of them fit the mold of evil(whether lawful, neutral or chaotic) in the traditional sense. It's like trying to put Republicans and Democrats on the D&D spectrum, slightly amusing but not a true fit.

[BeastieRunner]

I can't see Jango in the middle spot and Boba might be moving his alignment due to the new show. The Fetts teamed with the super duper bad guys of the SW universe which is why I can't see them in the middle. From a Mando's perspective, wouldn't Death Watch be "the middle" ... so maybe Bo-Katan?

Mandos are a bit like placing political figures on a scale ... it is all about your perspective.

You may want to just use characters from the show, like below:

[thwhtGuardian]

I can't see Jango in the middle spot and Boba might be moving his alignment due to the new show. The Fetts teamed with the super duper bad guys of the SW universe which is why I can't see them in the middle. From a Mando's perspective, wouldn't Death Watch be "the middle" ... so maybe Bo-Katan?

Mandos are a bit like placing political figures on a scale ... it is all about your perspective.

You may want to just use characters from the show, like below:

Eh, I don't think the Fetts really teamed up with any seriously evil guys as far as they knew. Sure, we know the Sepratists were run by Sith but to your average citizen of the Galaxy were they really any worse than the Republic? So Jango is definitely pretty neutral.

Boba's a little bit more of a gray area as he does work for Jabba...but again, sure we assign a negative to Jabba and call him a crime lord but in the scheme of things it seems like he was the legitimate ruler of Tatoine so in that case does agreeing to work for him mean you're evil?
For all the "There is the dark side and there is the light side" simple duality there is to the mythos of Star Wars the wider galaxy is a much les simplistic place.

[BeastieRunner]

Eh, I don't think the Fetts really teamed up with any seriously evil guys as far as they knew. Sure, we know the Sepratists were run by Sith but to your average citizen of the Galaxy were they really any worse than the Republic? So Jango is definitely pretty neutral.

Boba's a little bit more of a gray area as he does work for Jabba...but again, sure we assign a negative to Jabba and call him a crime lord but in the scheme of things it seems like he was the legitimate ruler of Tatoine so in that case does agreeing to work for him mean you're evil?
For all the "There is the dark side and there is the light side" simple duality there is to the mythos of Star Wars the wider galaxy is a much les simplistic place.

I don't think the Separatists or Jabba have been portrayed as neutral forces ... the former may have become that later in the series. Aren't the Hutts vastly known as crime lords? That puts you on the evil side of organized crime ... and both attacked Jedi, Rebels, and other good guys throughout the series. Boba's been in countless "villain only" books .. he worked for Darth Vader. I mean ... I just can't see either Fett as neutral; they both picked a side. Din is far more true neutral in that case.

Wouldn't Death Watch be more in the middle in terms of Mandos, though?

I just am not sure Mando's are the easiest to place like this since a lot of their motives shift and depends on the canon or perspective you take.

[thwhtGuardian]

I don't think the Separatists or Jabba have been portrayed as neutral forces ... the former may have become that later in the series. Aren't the Hutts vastly known as crime lords? That puts you on the evil side of organized crime ... and both attacked Jedi, Rebels, and other good guys throughout the series. Boba's been in countless "villain only" books .. he worked for Darth Vader. I mean ... I just can't see either Fett as neutral; they both picked a side. Din is far more true neutral in that case.

Wouldn't Death Watch be more in the middle in terms of Mandos, though?

I just am not sure Mando's are the easiest to place like this since a lot of their motives shift and the depends on the canon or perspective you take.

What I'm saying is we see the Sepratists and Hutts as bad guys because they are in opposition to the heroes but in terms of actual good and evil were the Seperatists really a worse regime than the Republic policy wise? We think so as viewers because we know the whole civil war was orchestrated by the Sith but to your average citizen there were a myriad of valid reasons why the Sepratists were worth allying with. And its the same with the Hutts, we're told by Qui Gon and Obi Wan that the Hutts are a bunch of gangsters who control the sector but by the same token they are the legitimate governing body there and the average people there don't seem to mind so does working for them really make you evil? It just depends where your certain point of view lands.

[ZeroBG82]

Eh, while Almec, Gar Saxon and Pre Vizsla were clearly antagonists to the heroes on Clone Wars I don't know if any of them fit the mold of evil(whether lawful, neutral or chaotic) in the traditional sense. It's like trying to put Republicans and Democrats on the D&D spectrum, slightly amusing but not a true fit.

Pre Vizsla was willing to enslave or annihilate the aliens on the planet Death Watch fled to after being exiled from Mandalore (I forget the episode, it's the Lux Bonteri and Ahoska one). And Gar Saxon was perfectly willing to annihilate the Protectors, despite their loyalty to Mandalore (at that point, only Fenn Rau had betrayed the Empire, and only under duress). I think they both pretty easily qualify as evil.

Almec is more ambiguous. He was willing to enrich and aggrandize himself, but selfishness is nowhere near the level of the violence the other two displayed. Still though, I don't think it's a huge leap to put him in the evil camp, just on account of how utterly corrupt he was.

And I agree with whomever upthread put the Fetts in the neutral category. Very much so. Chaotic neutral maybe, but they are mercenaries. They go where the money lives without regard for politics or ideology. They are antagonists in the films, but are never played as truly evil. Even Jango is just doing a job during AotC. Makes you wonder why the Jedi didn't just make him a better offer, instead of old Mace going for the full lightsaber lobotomy. We'll see what Book of Boba has to add to the conversation, but everything in the trailers continues to play him as a neutral force. Keyword being force, from the looks of things.

[Ascended]

What I'm saying is we see the Sepratists and Hutts as bad guys because they are in opposition to the heroes but in terms of actual good and evil were the Seperatists really a worse regime than the Republic policy wise? We think so as viewers because we know the whole civil war was orchestrated by the Sith but to your average citizen there were a myriad of valid reasons why the Sepratists were worth allying with. And its the same with the Hutts, we're told by Qui Gon and Obi Wan that the Hutts are a bunch of gangsters who control the sector but by the same token they are the legitimate governing body there and the average people there don't seem to mind so does working for them really make you evil? It just depends where your certain point of view lands.

I don't think you can really apply moral relativity to alignment charts. Everyone is the hero of their own story. Like, the Hutts may be the lawful governing body of Tatooine (are they?) but Jabba feeds people to his pet monster if they don't do exactly as he wants. He disintegrates droids for fun. He runs a major smuggling ring across the Outer Rim, freezes people who don't do their job to his satisfaction.....if he is the lawful authority on Tatooine he supports and allows slavery. The cities are wretched hives of scum and villainy, the small towns half feral, forced to largely fend for themselves against the environment, sand people, etc. The citizens aren't happy, they're beaten down. There's really no ethical or moral axis where the Hutts *aren't* evil, except for their own creed which claims greed, murder, and violence are virtues and not vices.

And the Separatists did have some valid concerns and problems with the Republic, which had grown fat, corrupt, and inept. But the planets we see under Separatist rule are plundered for their resources and exploited in every way possible, usually more so than what the Republic was doing. The people aren't free, and don't seem any better off. There may well be planets that did benefit from leaving the Republic but if so, they're portrayed as being a small minority (usually the homeworld of a Separatist leader).

If the Sith hadn't been involved in the Separatist movement? Things might've been different. But really, the whole galaxy was screwed either way, the Sith pulled the strings from both ends.

Anyway, I think Din is lawful neutral. At least at first. He follows a code he refuses to break, even under threat of his life (lawful doesn't have to mean following the laws of the land, a personal creed is lawful too). He takes any job that pays, whether it's legal (the bail jumpers) or not (the Imperial gig). And I get the feeling that his particular sect of Mandos are all very much alike in that; they're a lawful neutral tribe.

I think now Din's lost much of the "lawful" element and is straight neutral. He breaks his code when he feels like he has to, and basically does whatever he thinks is necessary. He's not setting things on fire just for fun (chaotic) but he's not inflexible in his actions either (lawful). I think he's still neutral on the secondary axis though; he'll do anything and sacrifice everything for Grogu, but just because he's that way with a loved one doesn't mean he's that way with everybody. He's still a cold blooded, ruthless son of a bitch with everybody outside his little, makeshift family. Virtually every person Din has helped, he's helped as a side effect of helping Grogu. Saved a village? Only because he and the Child need a place to hide. Helped defeat an Imperial remnant? Only because he was protecting the Child. Those are good things to do, but Din didn't do them from a place of civic mindfulness and the good deed was largely incidental.

And that's a pretty common thread in this kind of "wandering cowboy" archetype.