Voldemort has more on-screen feats of petty malice: torture; random, callous murder; attempted infanticide; etc.
Palpatine was responsible for wholesale destruction and genocide on a galactic scale.
It depends on how one determines evil. Voldemort's actions are much more spiteful; Palpatine's got an infinitely higher body count. Given what we know of each character, I'm inclined to call it a draw.
Originally posted by JokerGetsMeHardPalpatine has the means to achieve a higher body count and his movies also allow for this to happen as they occur on a galactic scale as opposed to just on earth with a magical world thrown inside to boot.
Voldemort has more on-screen feats of petty malice: torture; random, callous murder; attempted infanticide; etc.Palpatine was responsible for wholesale destruction and genocide on a galactic scale.
It depends on how one determines evil. Voldemort's actions are much more spiteful; Palpatine's got an infinitely higher body count. Given what we know of each character, I'm inclined to call it a draw.
I think it's very close but give Voldemort the slightest of edges. Voldemort would throw you down for trying to help him to his feet and I don't think Sidious would do such a thing in the movies anyways. I have no idea about the eu since I haven't read any of them.
quanchi112
Palpatine has the means to achieve a higher body count and his movies also allow for this to happen as they occur on a galactic scale as opposed to just on earth with a magical world thrown inside to boot.
Voldemort's body count was relatively paltry given his means and his aspirations. I respect that Voldemort wasn't going out and slaughtering random people left and right for the lulz, but when Palpatine was operating from behind-the-scenes (like Voldemort), he was still directly responsible for billions of deaths across the galaxy.
quanchi112
I think it's very close but give Voldemort the slightest of edges. Voldemort would throw you down for trying to help him to his feet and I don't think Sidious would do such a thing in the movies anyways. I have no idea about the eu since I haven't read any of them.
Some of it comes down to a measure of subjectivity. If one considers petty behavior and spite to be the true manifestation of evil, Voldemort wins by a landslide. If one puts more weight in death and destruction, Palpatine has the "advantage" so to speak.
Originally posted by JokerGetsMeHardThe point to me is if this sort of action was required by Voldemort with the means to accomplish it no doubt would he have done the same thing.
Voldemort's body count was relatively paltry given his means and his aspirations. I respect that Voldemort wasn't going out and slaughtering random people left and right for the lulz, but when Palpatine was operating from behind-the-scenes (like Voldemort), he was still directly responsible for billions of deaths across the galaxy.Some of it comes down to a measure of subjectivity. [b]If
one considers petty behavior and spite to be the true manifestation of evil, Voldemort wins by a landslide. If one puts more weight in death and destruction, Palpatine has the "advantage" so to speak. [/B]
To me I can't leave it up to massive death and destruction because a star wars character has the greater means and population to dwarf that of the entire hpotter universe.
They're both equally immoral. Both were never anything other than evil, both pretended to fit in and be moral people in their (relative) youth, both manipulated those around them to do their bidding, both targeted a certain group for eradication/enslavement (and if the Expanded Universe is considered for a moment, both went to great lengths to enure their immortality).
The only difference I've seen is that Palpatine had a larger arena (a galaxy) to work with, but that doesn't mean a thing in terms of morality. And Palpatine was more open to display his satisfaction via laughter, though Voldemort's comparative restraint in no way means higher morality.
Saying Sidious wins because he had a larger scale is actually very incorrect.
That said, Sidious is more evil. Feats are on his side. Considering he corrupted what was basically the Messiah of the Star Wars Universe, turning him evil and making him a servant for the rest of his life. Voldy can't lay claim to that.
Originally posted by TheAuraAngelAnakin was a troubled soul and in the end fulfilled the prophecy just fine. Anakin was also very weak mentally imo. Voldemort made a devoted follower in his own eyes suffer for no real reason when all he wanted was Snape dead so he could be the rightful owner of the elder wand.
Saying Sidious wins because he had a larger scale is actually very incorrect.That said, Sidious is more evil. Feats are on his side. Considering he corrupted what was basically the Messiah of the Star Wars Universe, turning him evil and making him a servant for the rest of his life. Voldy can't lay claim to that.
Originally posted by Lord LucienI personally think the amount of deaths killed personally or amount of deaths caused by their commands/actions are irrelevant since they would kill any amount to further their own conquest.
To mark the scoreboard properly, Voldemort has personally killed more people to further his own ends,
Yeah, a near 20 something years later. Lot of evil things happened in those 20 years. Then there was the year before that that Sidious caused. He killed Snape the way he did because there was no other way to do it, considering the wand didn't work. That and it's not like Snape was that devoted to him anyway.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
To mark the scoreboard properly, Voldemort has personally killed more people to further his own ends,
Which isn't always the most effective way to do things. Personally killing someone doesn't make one more evil than someone who orders them killed.
Originally posted by TheAuraAngelHe didn't know Snape was playing for the other side. He considered him a faithful and competent servant. He could have just killed him but he let his Nagini cause him to suffer.
Yeah, a near 20 something years later. Lot of evil things happened in those 20 years. Then there was the year before that that Sidious caused. He killed Snape the way he did because there was no other way to do it, considering the wand didn't work. That and it's not like Snape was that devoted to him anyway.Which isn't always the most effective way to do things. Personally killing someone doesn't make one more evil than someone who orders them killed.
By the same respect scale doesn't make anyone more or less evil either.
Originally posted by quanchi112True, but to those who don't consider that sentiment, Voldemort "appears" to have done more, simply by lieu of being seeing more. But I don't think that should have any effect of one's moral standing.
I personally think the amount of deaths killed personally or amount of deaths caused by their commands/actions are irrelevant since they would kill any amount to further their own conquest.
Originally posted by quanchi112
He didn't know Snape was playing for the other side. He considered him a faithful and competent servant. He could have just killed him but he let his Nagini cause him to suffer.By the same respect scale doesn't make anyone more or less evil either.
He had no other ways to kill him. He didn't think the wand would work at the time against Snape, meaning Snape had to be killed through other means, I.e Nagini. Had he just left Snape there to bleed to death through his throat wound, Snape could always just heal it.
Originally posted by Lord LucienI don't either. I try to see a shred of humanity and I don't really see it in either so at best it's a victory in however you see it personally to varying degrees.
True, but to those who don't consider that sentiment, Voldemort "appears" to have done more, simply by lieu of being seeing more. But I don't think that should have any effect of one's moral standing.
Originally posted by TheAuraAngelHe just used the wand to cut him badly. Why not just cut him until death right away why allow the snake the tortured death.
He had no other ways to kill him. He didn't think the wand would work at the time against Snape, meaning Snape had to be killed through other means, I.e Nagini. Had he just left Snape there to bleed to death through his throat wound, Snape could always just heal it.
Originally posted by Lestov16I would say that so casually killing people and not feeling satisfaction from it, is indicative of a lack of emotion (empathy, caring, delight). Such disconnect from the world at such would render acts of evil to be very easy to perform.
I'm not judging "evil" on kill count, but rather the sadism that went behind those kills. Palpatine killed more out of ruthless ambition than pure malicious sadism, which is why I think Voldy takes this.
Plus he seemed pretty freaking delighted that his plan to kill the Jedi and found an Empire at the cost of a galaxy-spanning war went off swimmingly. He also seemed extremely delighted that his Bigger-Better Planet-Buster was fully operational and that the many thousands of people who opposed him were about to be slaughtered, all the while he relished in the assumed corruption of the last beacon of the Light Side. I'd call his maniacal laughs of victory through war and death to be an indication of sadism.