If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   What if the Game of Thrones characters had Dungeons & Dragons alignments?   (io9.com) divider line 174
    More: Interesting, Dungeons & Dragons, coalitions, Ned Stark, Westeros, midgets, falling in love, good leader, Khal Drogo  
•       •       •

8097 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 03 May 2012 at 2:11 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



174 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-03 06:53:38 PM  

Warrener: Calling Stark LG is pretty stupid.

Anyone that when given a choice between keeping the acknowledged heir on the throne or throwing the kindom into a bloody civil war with Winter coming sure as hell isn't good.

The LN stick was so far up Stark's ass that I was happy when he died. (shocked, admittedly, since he was supposed to lead the defense of the Wall but still happy)


No. A Lawful person who knew the heir was illegitimate would try to remove him. Also being Good, they would try to do so in a way that didn't lead that illegitimate heir and their family to the headsman's sword. They might not assume that everyone else is going to do as the law demands of them and go along with the "coup" the way Ned did, but that isn't an alignment issue.

And he certainly wasn't choosing between civil war and letting Joffrey stay on the throne. That civil war was a possible outcome never crossed his mind. The way he saw it, he would force Joffery from the Throne, the Lannister's would surrender when confronted with the evidence of his illegitimacy, and the crown would pass to Stannis as the only rightful heir. Nothing in any of this is not in keeping with Lawful Good.
 
2012-05-03 06:57:28 PM  

Heron: Quiefenburger: Varys' and Littlefinger's true agendas have yet to be revealed...they both continue to work for their own murky purposes...so it is a bit early to determine if one is good or evil. The rest of the characters have show pretty clear intent one way or the other.

I'd say Varys is True Neutral. His one objective is to pursue what he feels is good for the realm regardless of what actions that entails, and as he reads the situation, there will be no political stability until a sane Targaryens sits on the Iron Throne. He acts against Robert because Robert is a terrible king, yet far from helping to yank down Ned, as the second most responsible man for the Targaryens' demise, he sees him for the truly honorable man he is and does what little he can to try and protect him while still paving the way for the Targaryen return. Similarly, he sees Lannister rule as ultimately destructive for Westeros, and as such does everything he can to destabilize and isolate Cersei while she is regent.


Bah poor editing on my part.
FTFM
 
2012-05-03 07:27:56 PM  

OceanVortex: You make a good point. Not sure how much that feeds into the 'good vs. evil' debate, but it does create an interesting "smart by being stupid" argument. If she were smart, Little Finger would have killed her. (well, because he is smart, he would have tricked someone else into thinking it was their idea to kill her). But instead he can keep her around since she is no threat. But that goes more a previous Farker's comment that she is more like an animal-- she is Little Finger's pet by the last book.



More than that, she was Varys' useful idiot. Varys was actively working to keep her in power, so that with her distrust of and contempt for the Tyrells, she'd end up actually undermining the Kingdom's ability to unite against Aegon's invasion.
 
2012-05-03 07:29:44 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Warrener: Anyone that when given a choice between keeping the acknowledged heir on the throne or throwing the kindom into a bloody civil war with Winter coming sure as hell isn't good.

Or, leaving an evil, illegitimate git like Joffrey on the throne could be seen as a greater threat to Westeros than civil war. Besides, he did his best to undo the damage, but Joffrey wasn't having any of it. it was JOFFREY who started the civil war, not Ned Stark.


It was Catelyn Stark who did that when she had Tyrion captured and locked up in the Eyrie.

SPOILER ALERT:

I was so happy when that whiny biatch got snuffed. I was very, very close to skipping all of the Catelyn POV chapters to avoid the constant whining about war that she started. Ugh...

END SPOILER ALERT
 
2012-05-03 07:31:14 PM  

knightofargh: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: War of the Roses had dragons, zombies, and wizards? Holy shiat, I need to bone up on my English history! :p

Hence "reskinned" brah.


The reason that you're getting blow-back is that the term "reskinned" is amazingly dismissive of all the original content that Martin has created. (But you knew that, so congratulations on the bites, I guess.)

Yes, he was inspired by the War of the Roses (and freely admits it), and it follows some of the broad outlines of that war, but it's absolutely not the case that he just took the events and personages of tWotR and gave them different names and settings.

This is just another stupid variation of the "story A and story B share some plot elements, therefore story A is a total rip-off of story B" school of amateur lit-crit.

Being inspired by things the real world is what drives 90% of fiction. Inspiration is the grist that artists use to create their worlds. If it was just a matter of "reskinning" things, any asshole could be a successful writer, which is clearly not the case.
 
2012-05-03 07:32:30 PM  

OceanVortex: wingnut396: But perhaps we can agree that her blazing stupidity is the very thing that saves her from being killed, where as the 'smart' members of the Stark family are dead or cast to the winds. Does that fit the constrains for fark irony?

Spoilers:
You make a good point. Not sure how much that feeds into the 'good vs. evil' debate, but it does create an interesting "smart by being stupid" argument. If she were smart, Little Finger would have killed her.


No. Littlefinger wants to *marry* her. Sansa is the closest thing that Petyr will get to Catelyn. And that's a pretty defining part of his personality.
 
2012-05-03 07:33:23 PM  
I'm an old school D&D player. I mean, we started playing with the original set-- the one that was a paper scroll in a little box.

And let me say: I think assigning D&D alignments to Game of Thrones characters cheapens them.

It's a great book/TV series, and I don't really want to second-guess any of the characters, or pigeonhole them. I like the idea that things can and will change, including the allegiances and motivations of every character in the story.
 
2012-05-03 07:36:26 PM  
Debates like this are why when I DM, I throw away alignment, at least for player characters. Alignment is a somewhat useful guideline for NPCs, but heroes have the capacity for agency in the future of the world. Good and evil for them are the result of actions, not fixed personality traits.
 
2012-05-03 07:40:20 PM  

TheHopeDiamond:

/Even though I personally think the Scarlet Crusade is freakin' awesome.


My Forsaken mage would give you the finger but he's been retired and living on a reclusive cabin in Dustwallow Marsh for over a year now.
 
2012-05-03 07:55:20 PM  

kyoryu: OceanVortex: wingnut396: But perhaps we can agree that her blazing stupidity is the very thing that saves her from being killed, where as the 'smart' members of the Stark family are dead or cast to the winds. Does that fit the constrains for fark irony?

Spoilers:
You make a good point. Not sure how much that feeds into the 'good vs. evil' debate, but it does create an interesting "smart by being stupid" argument. If she were smart, Little Finger would have killed her.

No. Littlefinger wants to *marry* her. Sansa is the closest thing that Petyr will get to Catelyn. And that's a pretty defining part of his personality.


I think his desire for power is a larger part of his personality. I also question his love for her or if that is just another head fake. Either way, I have no doubt that if he had to choose between her and power, he'd sacrifice her without a moment's pause.
 
2012-05-03 07:59:00 PM  

FightDirector: SharkTrager: FightDirector: knightofargh: SpoilerAlert: What other lists could we make up?

What farker would they be?

Robert Baratheon = Drew Curtis
Cersei = Grable's Daughter
Tyrion = Pocket Ninja
Jon Snow = Gat_00
Hodor = meowsaysthedog
Joffery = Bevets


Hmmm...I like this game...

Then why are you so bad at it?

Only read the first book?


No, just know several of those Farkers.
 
2012-05-03 08:02:06 PM  

ZeroCorpse: I don't really want to second-guess any of the characters, or pigeonhole them.


The only pigeonholing that comes from alignment EVER comes from people who misunderstand the purpose.

The reason why I use alignment (and I don't accept excuses from people who complain it's confining) is because the players who opposed it the most didn't role-play. They'd claim that alignment pigeonholes their characters, but in every alignment-free D&D game I've played, Bob was Bob no matter what he played or what his character name was. Bob the paladin. Bob the wizard. Bob the bard. The choices were always simple, obvious, predictably logical. Alignment FORCES players to make decisions based on additional factors, makes n00bs wear different skins. If Bob sees a guy dying on the road clutching a bag of gold, Bob just takes the gold -- simple logic. The guy's beyond help, he's not going to need it when he's dead, and if Bob doesn't take it, someone else will. Bob doesn't care, doesn't have to care. But if Bob is SUPPOSED to be a LG paladin, now he has to consider falling out of favor with his diety if he douches his way through this encounter. And as a DM this means I can actually motivate the characters to do shiat more interesting than throw an adventure hook at them, watch them take a pass out of pure apathy and then whine that I'm not giving them anything to do.

And the thing is, any advanced players who understand this concept can easily work within an alignment system, because they'd just start with a personality and work backwards from there. That's really what this thread is about.

ZeroCorpse: I like the idea that things can and will change, including the allegiances and motivations of every character in the story.


Characters in D&D are perfectly capable of alignment change. Alignment is a descriptor. There can be tangible effects of alignment change (falling out of favor with a god, for example), but everything is driven by the character's behavior so if they go astray they should fall out favor anyway. If not your DM is a pussy.

As for changes within SoIaF, that can mean the characters are complex, but if it's too inexplicable all that means is that the characters are inconsistent. Setting any of those arguments aside, I don't crave character inconsistency for the sake of it. If someone's gonna do a 180, there'd damn well better be some life-altering epiphany to explain it.
 
2012-05-03 08:02:30 PM  

OceanVortex: kyoryu: OceanVortex: wingnut396: But perhaps we can agree that her blazing stupidity is the very thing that saves her from being killed, where as the 'smart' members of the Stark family are dead or cast to the winds. Does that fit the constrains for fark irony?

Spoilers:
You make a good point. Not sure how much that feeds into the 'good vs. evil' debate, but it does create an interesting "smart by being stupid" argument. If she were smart, Little Finger would have killed her.

No. Littlefinger wants to *marry* her. Sansa is the closest thing that Petyr will get to Catelyn. And that's a pretty defining part of his personality.

I think his desire for power is a larger part of his personality. I also question his love for her or if that is just another head fake. Either way, I have no doubt that if he had to choose between her and power, he'd sacrifice her without a moment's pause.


I never said love. I think "obsession" is probably a more accurate noun.

I'm pretty convinced that a big part of the reason for knocking off Ned was to clear the road between him and Catelyn. But that didn't work out too well, unfortunately for him.
 
2012-05-03 08:04:30 PM  

dragonchild: As for changes within SoIaF, that can mean the characters are complex, but if it's too inexplicable all that means is that the characters are inconsistent. Setting any of those arguments aside, I don't crave character inconsistency for the sake of it. If someone's gonna do a 180, there'd damn well better be some life-altering epiphany to explain it.


See: Jaime Lannister. Well, that was more of a life-altering event than an epiphany, but still.
 
2012-05-03 08:04:38 PM  

theurge14: Mike Chewbacca: Warrener: Anyone that when given a choice between keeping the acknowledged heir on the throne or throwing the kindom into a bloody civil war with Winter coming sure as hell isn't good.

Or, leaving an evil, illegitimate git like Joffrey on the throne could be seen as a greater threat to Westeros than civil war. Besides, he did his best to undo the damage, but Joffrey wasn't having any of it. it was JOFFREY who started the civil war, not Ned Stark.

It was Catelyn Stark who did that when she had Tyrion captured and locked up in the Eyrie.

SPOILER ALERT:

I was so happy when that whiny biatch got snuffed. I was very, very close to skipping all of the Catelyn POV chapters to avoid the constant whining about war that she started. Ugh...

END SPOILER ALERT


SPOILERS AGAIN

Technically Tyrion started it. His slapping the crap out of Joffrey in front of the soldiers over Joffrey's indifference to Bran's injury is why Joffrey sent an assasain to kill Bran
 
2012-05-03 08:18:10 PM  
It depends, is it real D&D or that abomination WoTC stuff?

3rd wasn't too bad and Pathfinder is decent. However, 4th ed...
 
2012-05-03 08:22:05 PM  

dragonchild: The reason why I use alignment (and I don't accept excuses from people who complain it's confining) is because the players who opposed it the most didn't role-play. They'd claim that alignment pigeonholes their characters, but in every alignment-free D&D game I've played, Bob was Bob no matter what he played or what his character name was. Bob the paladin. Bob the wizard. Bob the bard. The choices were always simple, obvious, predictably logical. Alignment FORCES players to make decisions based on additional factors, makes n00bs wear different skins.


So?

How is alignment any more a motivator than role? If you can prod people for failing to play their alignment, you can do exactly the same thing for roles. If Bob's playing a paladin and he's not farking acting like a paladin should, then make his character experience the consequences of acting outside of his role. You're the GM, you have that power and, if you're not a dick about it, eventually the players will get the point.

I agree with OP. Alignments are, way too often, a hook that lazy players and lazy GMs use to circumvent actual role-playing, which shouldn't fit into simple alignment niches. If anything, alignment should be nothing more than a description of how a given player is playing their role at a given point in time, and not a prescription for how the role should be played [1]. Putting alignment at the forefront gets everything backwards.

[1] And yes, Paladin is something of a bad example since since it's the one role that does have something like an alignment naturally attached to it.
 
2012-05-03 08:35:47 PM  
They forgot Lawful Neutral and as has been said above by a few, Stannis is probably the most perfect example of that in any medium. Which is also why most everyone in Westros wants him no where near the throne.
 
2012-05-03 08:38:11 PM  

Warrener: mongbiohazard: Second, many lawful good characters believe that it's the adherence adherence itself to those laws or moral codes that is the difference between good and evil.

If adherence to a code is how a character defines "good" then they aren't. That's pretty much a perfect description of LN.



In a larger philosophical sense I might agree with you, but not in context. Lawful Good people can be wrong. That's one of the ways you can have a flawed Lawful Good character, such as the aforementioned Miko Miyazaki.

And like I said, not ALL LG characters necessarily need to be like that - obsessing over the law so much they sometimes lose sight of the greater good. It's just that some of them can. It's one way you can make a LG character unpleasant to deal with while still keeping them LG.
 
2012-05-03 09:02:09 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: How is alignment any more a motivator than role? If you can prod people for failing to play their alignment, you can do exactly the same thing for roles.


Because "role" is not something a DM has any direct control over. I can't make Bob do anything specific; I'm just the DM. Now, if the DM is actually forcing people to play roles, then you're doing the same thing that alignment is intended to do. You may deliberately have no name for it, and the particulars of the enforcement can differ, but you're not doing anything fundamentally different.

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Alignments are, way too often, a hook that lazy players and lazy GMs use to circumvent actual role-playing, which shouldn't fit into simple alignment niches.


Yawn. No, I get you, I really do, but in practice I've never seen it work that way. Never. Alignment doesn't constrain people who don't need it, as we both agree it's ideally a descriptor. It gets the most opposition from people who don't like the DM to "tell them what to do", so Bob can get back to playing Bob the Asshole.

Some 'Splainin' To Do: alignment should be nothing more than a description of how a given player is playing their role at a given point in time


Yeah, I said that.
 
2012-05-03 09:12:54 PM  
The dnd alignment system is horrible, and all who like it are horrible.

/agot in dnd? How many 5' steps to kings landing? Forsooth! 'zounds, even!
 
2012-05-03 11:13:02 PM  
A more accurate list...

Eddard "Ned" Stark: Lawful Good
King Robert Baratheon: True Neutral
Queen Cersei Lannister: Neutral Evil
Tyrion Lannister: Chaotic Good
Daenerys Targaryen: Neutral Good
King Joffrey Lannister: Chaotic Evil
Arya Stark: Chaotic Good
Varys: Lawful Neutral
Petyr Baelish: Lawful Evil

The wildling with all the daughters as wives was Chaotic Neutral
 
2012-05-03 11:56:41 PM  
RPGs work better without alignment.

People are who they are, and they don't stick to one "alignment" in everything they do. They vary from situation to situation.

It's easy to say "Hitler was Lawful Evil" but really, Hitler saw himself as Lawful Good, most certainly. The people who followed him saw him as Neutral Good, or maybe Chaotic Good. But maybe he was all of those, and none of those. Maybe he started out with Lawful Good intentions and ended up on Chaotic Neutral actions? Maybe he was Lawful Good when dealing with his family and friends, and Chaotic Evil when dealing with those he perceived as enemies?

Alignment just dumbs down the judgment of a person. I know I'm not always Neutral Good, and I know I might sometimes veer into Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil, depending on my mood, the day, the weather, the people I interact with, and other factors. Maybe tomorrow I'll have a strange day and be true neutral.

Alignment is basic, stupid, and makes for limited characters that don't reflect the true nature of people.
 
2012-05-04 09:16:58 AM  

ZeroCorpse: People are who they are, and they don't stick to one "alignment" in everything they do. They vary from situation to situation.


Says you, but enough of projecting your own lack of standards to the game.
 
Displayed 24 of 174 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report