Anakin Skywalker - Personality & Traits

On a moral level he is.

Palpatine tops him but that is about it.

 

Wow, are we really splitting hairs over whether Anakin actually committed genocide or not?

He's still a mass murderer, even if it wasn't genocide. And he KNEW he'd done wrong, because he covered it up! If there was a shred of remorse that wasn't self-centered (oh, if I tell Obi-Wan/the Council/Yoda, they'll punish me and I might not become a Jedi Knight!), he would have done the right thing and confessed his misdeed to Obi-Wan. Padme doesn't count, she was already dazzled by love at that point even if she was still in denial.

Anakin wasn't born tragically flawed. The tragedy of Anakin Skywalker was that he allowed his best qualities (his love and concern for those he loved, his attachments, his brash self-righteousness) to be twisted by Palpatine because Palpatine was the only person who continuously fed his ego from almost the moment they met.

As for Mace Windu, Anakin chose his own selfish desires over his duty as a Jedi. He never should have placed Mace Windu in a position where Palpatine could kill him. Anakin may not have thrown him out that window, but if Windu's focus hadn't been split by the fact that ANAKIN HAD CHOPPED HIS ARM OFF, he stood a better chance of defeating Palpatine even with Anakin standing there with his thumb up his keester.

As for Alderaan, Vader could have stepped in and told Tarkin to hold off and remain in orbit until Leia's information could be verified. In addition to that, can we call the destruction of Alderaan a genocide in which Vader was an active participant? Or if a handful of Alderaanis happened to be offworld at the time, does he slip off the hook for that atrocity as well?

 

Yes. I think the issue is with the word "genocide." Yes, Anakin killed several innocent women and children, and that was wrong. Few people will argue with that. Why is it necessary to use the word "genocide"? As most of us associate "genocide" with Hitler's extermination of the Jews, which is in no way comparable to what Anakin did, it seems like a word used for shock value or to further demonize Anakin. The reason Anakin's deeds are not comparable with Hitler's are, one, motivation. If the Tuskens in that tribe had not brutally tortured Anakin's mother to death, Anakin would not have killed any of them. He did not harbor an innate hatred for Tuskens in general, as Hitler did for the Jews. Two, the word "genocide" implies the extermination of an entire race. See my prior sentence about Anakin not harboring an innate hatred or desire to kill Tuskens in general, and he would not have touched them if they had not kidnapped and murdered his mother.

And even if you (general "you") want to argue with these points, I still don't understand the need to use the word for shock value. Why not just call him a mass murderer (if that makes you happy) and be done with it?

Yes, he knew what he did was wrong. He said so. And I think Padme should have encouraged him to tell Obi-Wan what happened. I wonder if things might have unfolded differently if the war hadn't started immediately after Shmi's death. Maybe not, but it's worth thinking about.

I agree. It irritates me that Anakin was so gullible to Palpatine's manipulations. I blame Palpatine for that as much as I blame Anakin though. I want to smack Anakin for being so stupid, but at the same time, Palpatine did the manipulating so some blame has to be directed at him.

Agreed.

I don't entirely disagree here, however, I will ask if Vader had the option of telling Tarkin to hold off. I got the impression in ANH that Vader was under Tarkin's command. Still, the right thing for Vader to do would be to intervene and take whatever consequences came from doing so. Genocide? No, because Alderaan's population was comprised of humans and its destruction did not exterminate all humans.

 

Alderaan was an ENTIRE PLANET!

Maybe the Alderaanis were human, but Alderaan was its own planet, its own culture. People from Alderaan identified themselves as being FROM Alderaan.

If Hitler, God forbid, had managed to exterminate all the Jewish people in Europe, it wouldn't have been a complete genocide just because they were one group belonging to the human race on one part of the planet?

As for Palpatine, yes, he was the ringmaster, but Anakin was his willing sideshow. And for what? Because Palpatine gushed over him and complimented him and stroked his ego and fed into his delusions of grandeur. Anakin was no confused gullible child. He allowed himself to believe what Palpatine was saying because it put himself, Anakin, in the best possible light.

 

I don't consider "Alderaanian" as a "race." That's what I was pointing out. As far as Hitler and the Jewish people, again, motivation. Did Vader hate all Alderaanians and make it the mission of his government to exterminate them simply because they were Alderaanians? I saw the Alderaan extermination, horrifying as it was, as an attempt by Tarkin to manipulate Leia and possibly a punishment for Bail for being part of the Rebellion.

Would Al Qaida's mission to kill Americans be considered an attempt at "genocide"? I equate planets in the GFFA with countries here, not races.

And yes, as you asked earlier, why exactly are we splitting hairs over this? I'm going to ask the question again, why is calling Anakin a "mass murderer" not enough? Labelling what he did "genocide" in any circumstances is not going to change the opinion of those of us who like him. It just leads to discussions like this over what constitutes "genocide."

 

Okay, I think you and I just have different ideas about the numerous factors going into genocide, but I will follow your wishes and use the term "mass murder" when talking about the Tuskens, even if we're talking about more than "several."

But I believe that the criteria for genocide is met when speaking of an entire planet with billions of people being blown up. But Vader/Anakin can slip off that hook because he didn't actually give the order.

Am I to assume that anyone really believes that being a "mass murderer" is somehow less monstrous than an agent of "genocide?"

 

If you've been following the recent Tusken thread, there is dispute over how many Tuskens Anakin killed. No one really knows, I don't even think there's anything on Wookieepedia about how many Tuskens normally comprised a tribe.

I do think there has to be a motivation to kill a race of people simply due to their race in order to label it "genocide." That factor did not exist in Anakin's slaughter of the Tuskens. The destruction of Alderaan? I haven't read the ANH novelization recently so I don't know if the planet had been considered a target due to its leaders' alliance with the Rebellion, and I also don't know what the hierarchy was regarding Tarkin and Vader so I don't know what kind of position Vader was in regarding stopping the order. So I don't know how much blame he gets, other than not getting the blame for actually giving the order.

But yes, "mass murder," as ugly a term as it is, is less ugly than genocide, just a hate crime committed solely based on someone's race or sexuality is uglier than a crime of passion, which is essentially what Anakin committed. Doesn't mean the latter isn't ugly. But Anakin did not commit a "hate crime" against the Tuskens. Tarkin against Alderaan? Again, I don't know.

 

Well, duh. The fact that he later became Darth Vader kind of makes it difficult to NOT be morally flawed. Also, I don't think Palpatine is morally better than he is. He manipulated a lot of people, which isn't okay at all. He also was sadistic and enjoyed what he was doing. He showed no remorse for his actions. And, I wouldn't be surprised if HE slaughtered children as well. Unlike Anakin, I'm sure he wouldn't feel any remorse for his actions. And he, unlike Anakin, hasn't done any morally good things. Anakin has---for example, he saved a whole planet. Even if it was a accident, that doesn't change how noble the act was. I'm sure Anakin also did lot's of good things as a war hero and as a young child on Tatooine. Then, he was also a Jedi which meant he most likely did plenty of heroic things before the Tusken Raider slaughter. I'm not saying we should let him off the hook for the slaughter, but we shouldn't forget he did good things in his life as well.

But really, I honestly do not get what is so wonderful about Palpatine. Sure, he is intelligent but the fact that he used his intelligence for evil ruins it. About Anakin's deeds, I think GL went too far with Anakin's deeds. I love Anakin, but I definitely think GL should have made the darkness in Anakin more subtle. Now, I would like you to keep in mind that this is a place to list Anakin's flaws AND strengths, because that is something people seem to be forgetting. Honestly, if you think Anakin was never a good person, then you have missed the point of the saga. Because if Anakin was evil the whole time, he didn't truly fall from grace. Anakin is a good person who became a bad person, not a bad person who became worse.

Anyways...I agree with anakin_girl. Anakin was fooled by Palpatine, but Palpatine deserves some blame for manipulating Anakin in the first place! And, Anakin didn't commit genocide. He committed mass murder out of revenge. Believe it or not, I don't think doing that makes Anakin a monster---it shows us that Anakin can't control his emotions, has a vengeful streak, and is capable of doing the things he does as Darth Vader. If it weren't for the Tusken Raider slaughter, I wouldn't have expected Anakin to turn to the Dark Side at all. I still believe GL should have made it to where Anakin AT LEAST didn't slaughter the women and children, though. Not only did Anakin go too far when he did that, but so did GL when he made Anakin do that.

As for the Hitler comparison, Palpatine fits it much, much better than Anakin. Remember, Hitler was a manipulator, and so was Palpatine. Anakin wasn't a manipulator at all---he was a horrible liar, and hated keeping his marriage with Padme a secret as evidenced by his "I'm tired of all this deception! I don't care if they know we're married!" statement in ROTS. Even as Vader, the closest he got to manipulating others was threatening them to do things or else he'd kill them. Now back to the Hitler comparison, Hitler made people hate Jews by saying they were taking over. Palpatine did the same thing when he convinced others, including Anakin, into believing the Jedi were taking over.

About the Alderaan thing? Well, it is true that Tarkin deserves more blame than Vader. Even though Vader not trying to prevent it was sick, he still isn't the person who blew up the planet. Also, I don't believe Vaderkin hated the people on Alderaan. He has no reason to hate them, after all. I think the reason why he didn't intervene is because like Leia said, Tarkin had Vader on a leash. I'm not saying his lack of intervention was okay, but I think the reason why Vader didn't intervene isn't because he hated the Alderaan people.

 

It can be enough, but why limit yourself?

When someone does something so atrocious it is only natural to use strong words. A whole planet being destroyed?

Let's use the strongest words we have!

 

Because by not "limiting yourself," as you put it, you (general "you" again) are starting an argument over the definition of a word as opposed to discussing the events in question--or the thread topic. And the intention of using the "strongest words possible" seems to be to shut down discussion as opposed to promoting it.

The discussion over "genocide" did not start over Alderaan anyway, and a discussion of Alderaan leads to a discussion over how much was Vader's fault vs. how much was Tarkin's fault, a discussion that I would think belongs in the Classic Trilogy forum. I actually think that could be a good discussion--maybe there is some information on Wookieepedia about the hierarchy of authority on the first Death Star? I don't know--but again, it didn't happen in the prequels era.

 

Usually I find it does not start any debate. If it does I would argue that the semantics are unimportant, as in this case. Because I find Vader to be guilty I go with the strongest word I can find.

Genocide is a little weak to be honest.

Meh.

 

I've never seen the destruction of Alderaan as genocide. And I know this might be a controversial opinion but...I've always felt it could more readily be interpreted as an analogue for the bombing of Hiroshima. Of course, Hiroshima was an important target militarily, but many, many innocent noncombatants, women, and children were killed in that attack. In that sense, I see the Death Star as a metaphor for nuclear weapons (Star Wars planets have always come across to me as being about equal to cities on Earth anyway). After all, to call it genocide would presuppose that Tarkin or Anakin specifically hated something about the people of this planet. The film never gave me this impression, where it seems that Alderaan is being targeted because its people are Rebel sympathizers (its princess is a member of the Rebellion at the very least) while at the same time making an effective power demonstration and pressuring Leia. There's also the fact that the people of Alderaan are all human, and their murders are not carried out because the Empire finds anything particularly disagreeable about humankind. Anakin is certainly culpable, in my opinion, for not doing more to prevent such a senseless and, in the long term, strategically pointless attack, but I would say the film gives no evidence that he truly sought the planet's destruction.

 

genocide, noun: The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.

Extermination of the Jedi = cultural/religious genocide. The Jedi were a culture/religion, and Vader played a huge part in carrying out their complete extermination. The goal was to completely exterminate the Jedi, as a people, it was both systematic and widespread. There was no mercy, there was no surrender, all Jedi everywhere must be killed. That's called genocide.

They didn't quite fully succeed, but close enough. The Jews weren't wiped out, yet people still call that genocide. What's going on in Africa right now is called genocide. That's why "attempted" is in the definition.

As for Alderaan, basically all Alderaanians were wiped out and that was the intention. Alderaanian, of course, is a nationality, and fits in the above definition.

I'm not sure what the argument is about, genocide clearly fits in both situations. Vader was very active in the genocide of the Jedi, and stood by and watched the genocide of the Alderaanians.

 

The only trouble with this is that Alderaanians have a distinct cultural identity, and the assumption is that, if a weapon is used that has a strong likelihood of destroying the planet, that most, if not the vast majority of Alderaanians would be killed. The Empire knows what the Death Star is capable of, and there is zero chance of surviving an attack like that. The Allies knew the nuke was powerful, but it was a new weapon and its potential was only known theoretically; they only learned the body count later on. The Empire knew full well that if the Death Star fired, it would net a guaranteed multi-billion body count.

But its a rather pointless argument because, genocide or simply mass murder, Vader still stood by and watch it happen. He also hunted down Jedi and Force-users systematically, which is genocide. Whatever term you decide to use, Vader still had the blood of many millions of innocent victims on his hands.

 

Very true.

If Alderaan and the Tuskens were mass murder (and I still quibble over both), the Jedi were genocide.

Anakin HATED the Jedi by the time he became Darth Vader and if you're killing the innocent Jedi children yourself, you're way beyond mass murder at that point. Anakin deluded himself with the self-justification that the Jedi were "evil," when they just didn't think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

But doesn't motivation play a significant role in terming something genocide? It's similar to a hate crime in that manner. I'm not arguing that the Empire wasn't fully aware that they'd likely be killing all the Alderaanians, they just didn't care. A planet was selected to make a point and Alderaan happened to fit the bill because it was populous, wealthy, and had Rebel sympathies -- sending a message, so to speak. And honestly, the Allies knew when they dropped the atomic bomb that there would be significant casualties after all the testing they'd done at Los Alamos. They knew innocents would die and felt the losses would be acceptable -- such is the nature of war.

Now the destruction of the Jedi is certainly genocide (and meets almost every criteria, for that matter). It was a state-sponsored slaughter of a particular (minority) religious group in which Anakin participated. However, I find that there's some interesting, and rather chilling, mitigating factors when it comes to Anakin's role. For one, the Jedi were a powerful organization before their destruction, an elite minority rather than an oppressed people. They were also a military institution. Even the children received combat training, as we saw with Yoda's instruction of the younglings in AOTC. There's also the fact that the role of children in the GFFA (or, at the very least, Anakin's mind) is significantly different from our own. From a young age, he was exploited by others with greater authority and forced to participate in life-threatening activities (like podracing). He was also clearly aware of how important an individual's power and skill were to their own survival ("I wouldn't have last so long if I weren't so good at fixing things).

Then, there's the war to consider. The Republic and Jedi essentially told Anakin (and he probably agreed) that it was perfectly okay to have ten year old children with no free will (the clones) fight and die for freedoms the populace is not willing to defend by themselves. Is it really that surprising, then, that Anakin, who'd been fighting alongside enslaved children and watching them die for the sake of the Republic, would turn his blade on other children when asked by the leader of that same Republic? It's a rather unnerving question to ponder.

 

Yes, the murder of the Jedi was genocide. I won't deny that. Nor will I try justifying it. However, as an Anakin fan I will try seeing things from his point of view. When he killed those Jedi children, he probably thought he was "saving" them from the horrible fate of being adult Jedis. That obviously doesn't justify it, but Anakin may have tried excusing his actions that way.

Also, Anakin didn't hate the Jedi only because he was frustrated about them holding him back. Anakin was also a hero of the republic before he turned to the Dark Side. Even though the Jedi rewarded him for his heroism by making him a Jedi Knight, they then not only denied him Mastership, but also told him to spy on his best friend. And, people are wrong when they say "But it's a honor to even be on the Council!" Why? It's because the Jedi did *NOT* put Anakin on the Council to honor him. They put him on the Council so they could use him to spy on Palpatine. It's funny, because the reason why they made him spy on Palpatine is because they were suspcious of Palpatine, and yet putting Anakin with Palpatine gave Palpatine the opportunity to further manipulate Anakin.

Yes, people, Palpatine was manipulating Anakin. ROTS isn't the only time he manipulates Anakin. Prior to that, Palpatine has obviously been pretending to be Anakin's friend. He's also been giving Anakin excessive flattery which resulted in Anakin becoming arrogant. Not only that, but he's also been telling Anakin that the Jedi were holding him back. And as evidenced by ROTS, Palpatine told Anakin a lot more ugly things about the Jedi. Also, the reason why Anakin believed Palpatine isn't so much because Anakin is naive---it's because Palpatine tells Anakin half truths rather than full lies. And although the Jedi are not evil, they are corrupt and have a manipulative streak which makes it much more easier for Anakin to believe the "Jedi are taking over!" lie. Let's not forget when the Jedi said they would possibly take over the Senate. That definitely didn't help. Then, the Jedi didn't free Anakin's mother from slavery, which resulted in Shmi getting tortured to death. Keep in mind that I'm not bashing the Jedi Council, or trying to justify Anakin's actions. I'm just saying that Anakin has actual reasons for believing the Jedi are evil, even if it's not true.

That reminds me---Anakin is a person who hates lies and deceit. Even when he was hiding his marriage to Padme from the Jedi, he hated it and planned on leaving the Jedi Order. So, when the Jedi revealed their manipulative tendencies, Anakin may have jumped to the conclusion that it made them evil. Now, why was he so eager to believe that? Well, consider how horrendous Anakin's actions were. When he said the "In my point of view the Jedi were evil!" statement he simply couldn't deal with the guilt. He HAD to justify his actions or else he'd lose his sanity completely. And when he finally did realize how wrong he was, he thought he couldn't be redeemed as evidenced by when he says "It's too late for me, son." If Anakin had lived, then it's obvious that he would never forgive himself.

That's what is so ironic about his character. If you think about, guilt actually motivated Anakin quite a bit. Part of the reason why he murdered all those Tusken Raiders is because he felt guilty about leaving Shmi. If you think about it, it even explains why he felt he was responsible for Shmi's death. It's because if Anakin hadn't left her to become a Jedi...She might of never died. And then, the same guilt Anakin felt over his mother's death motivated him to try to save Padme. Then, Palpatine told him he killed Padme. And Anakin believed Palpatine's lie, which tells us just how insecure he is. And the guilt Anakin feels over believing he caused Padme's death is why Anakin stayed with Palpatine---he thought he was beyond redemption.

 

Just re-read the OP, which was very specific in saying "NOT Darth Vader" so there's not much point in discussing the raid on the Jedi Temple here. Or Alderaan, or anything else that happened after Anakin knelt before Palpatine and received his new name.

Going to go back to something Valairy_Scot posted earlier:

I agree with all this, except for the part about the script not showing a good man who chose the wrong path out of love--I disagree to a point there. I think there was way too much crammed in the scripts of AOTC and ROTS, so I understand to a point why some folks did not see that, but I saw it, and it made ROTS that much sadder.

I especially agree with the part I boldfaced. The negative traits that he had, particularly the arrogance and impulsivity, were magnified by his immaturity.

Just thinking of the gunship scene in AOTC, perfect example of the "Padme outweighs everything else" choice, I have to wonder if he would not have reacted the same way if Obi-Wan had fallen out of the gunship. Or if it had happened in TCW series and Ahsoka had fallen out. I think his reaction would have been very similar if not the same.

 

You're right. Before Anakin turned to the Dark Side, he was actually a pretty good person, despite his faults. And considering Anakin's past as a slave, it's pretty amazing how compassionate he was as a kid. Even in AOTC, he still was fairly compassionate as evidenced by him fixing one of Watto's droids. I know I seem like I'm exaggerating how kind that was of him to do, but the fact that Anakin was kind enough to help the same person who enslaved him, his mother, and possibly beat him at times is remarkable in my eyes. If I were Anakin, I'd have been more angry at Watto.

Also, I agree that Anakin's immaturity highered his faults. Interestingly, his immaturity contrasts the maturity he has as Darth Vader. And yeah, it's true that Anakin would have reacted the same way if Obi Wan or Ashoka fell out of the gunship. Padme was not special----Anakin may have even joined the Dark Side to save Obi Wan or Ashoka if he had visions of them dying, too. Most of all, I agree that Anakin was a good person---especially when you consider had horrible his background was.

Speaking of that, do you think Anakin was really affected by his slavery, anakin_girl? Obviously, he was angry at the Jedi for not freeing his mother, but I'm not sure if Anakin was angry about being a slave himself. I also wonder if his past as a slave had to do with his fear of loss. Personally, I think it did affect Anakin to a extent. For example, while Anakin may be a generally dominant person he is actually pretty submissive in his personal relationships as evidenced by him saying "I'll do anything you ask" to Padme and Palpatine. Then, notice how Anakin usually calls Obi Wan "Master" even when he isn't Obi Wan's padawan anymore. Remember the turn scene as well, and how Anakin is on his *knees* and looks up at Palpatine as if he is worshipping him? In that scene, I think Anakin was in slave mode...