He caught of his son's hand and had his daughter tortured, so I'm going to go with "no" except for the last few minutes of his life when he threw Palpatine into the Death Star shaft and asked Luke to remove his helmet.
I don't really think the original question was meant seriously. It's supposed to be some kind of joke, obviously.
I think it's a serious attempt to penetrate the network. New poster. Heavy user name. Spare provocation in degenerate electron state - could go anywhere. I never watched The Sopranos. Like an infinite amount of worthy television, I also do not have time for that title. But the James Gandolfini character comes to mind in response to this prompt. To say that the James Gandolfini character was a "family man" is to hijack or kidnap the word family and use it for purposes antithetical or quite at odds to its conventional meaning. Same for the Breaking Bad (have never carved out time) character played by Bryan Cranston. Before the dark times, before Disney, before Abrams, the Force was a metaphor. You decide what it was a metaphor, for. But it wasn't a metaphor for choking another person that was out of arm's reach - because that's not physically possible. Darth Vader, if the metaphor is removed, used force to enact will. The two characters ^^ are studies in voluntary corruption (as far as I'm going to appreciate from the outside looking in) to maintain a framed picture of a "family" that does not coordinate with the conventional meaning of "family". They use force out of all conventional norms to strive towards their framed picture of a "family". So this question is a trap, or leading question. Do best terms exist for what James Gandolfini character or Bryan Cranston character are? Are they psychopaths that have families? Are they fathers who take steps? The former is farther along the dialectic towards Aristotelian pity, and the latter is farther along towards sympathy.
