Do you have adblock enabled?
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 (3 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
 
2012-05-03 01:40:24 PM  
Robert may be a poor and often lazy king, but he clearly has a solid belief in the rule of law. Jack Sparrow is probably the best example of a truly chaotic neutral character in popular culture.

"Chaotic neutral characters like to indulge in everything. This is the insurgent, the con-man, gambler, and high roller; the uncommitted freebooter seeking nothing more than self-gratification...According to chaotic neutrals, laws and rules infringe on personal freedom and were meant to be broken. This character is always looking for the best deal, and will work with good, neutral, or evil to get it; as long as he comes out of the situation on top. The chaotic neutral is constantly teetering between good and evil, rebelling, and bending the law to fit his needs."
 
2012-05-03 01:47:46 PM  
Tyrion is True Neutral? Varys is Neutral Good? LOL WUT.
 
2012-05-03 01:56:37 PM  
Stark never questions King Baratheon whether it be a request to kill his daughter's pet wolf

Mega fail, particularly the example cited. Robert appeased Cersei by ordering Lady killed, which Ned argued with, and Ned ultimately volunteered to do the deed rather than leave it to the headsman.

Other examples? Ned challenging Robert's order to have the Targaryens executed. And then there's the little matter of Jon Snow, if the theories hold up.
 
2012-05-03 02:00:25 PM  
that was written by someone that doesn't really understand the alignments of D&D (any version). Most of those are very wrong.



/nerd war!
 
2012-05-03 02:14:32 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: that was written by someone that doesn't really understand the alignments of D&D (any version). Most of those are very wrong.


It's GoT, mostly Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil with an occasional sprinkling of Chaotic Evil for flavor.

As opposed to GRRM, who is Pedantic Hungry.
 
2012-05-03 02:18:47 PM  
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.
 
2012-05-03 02:19:11 PM  
Everyone would be Neutral Evil except Stannis, who's Lawful Neutral, Tyrion, who's just Neutral, and Joffrey, who's Chaotic Evil. Oh, and Jon Snow, who is Lawful Knows Nothing.
 
2012-05-03 02:19:53 PM  
How is Tyrion neutral?
 
2012-05-03 02:21:57 PM  

Quiefenburger: Varys' and Littlefinger's true agendas have yet to be revealed


Varys' agenda is to make sure Varys survives. Littlefinger is pretty much entirely motivated by bitterness over not getting to have Catelyn.
 
2012-05-03 02:22:24 PM  
Either the author doesn't understand the alignments, didn't real the books too closely, or both. Littlefinger would be Chaotic Neutral/Evil - nothing is sacred, survive and prosper by any means. Especially by creating chaos and profiting by it.

Now Stannis, he gets his own alignment: Lawful. No good, no evil, no morality, just plain Lawful. Hell, he'd probably berate the Inevitables for not following some obscure rule...
 
2012-05-03 02:23:24 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Everyone would be Neutral Evil except Stannis, who's Lawful Neutral, Tyrion, who's just Neutral, and Joffrey, who's Chaotic Evil. Oh, and Jon Snow, who is Lawful Knows Nothing.


Well done.

Minor spoiler: I think the non-book fans will get to meet her on Sunday.
 
2012-05-03 02:23:33 PM  

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 dunno, are we talking in the books here? Both or their genereal plans and goals seem fairly clear by the end of the last book I thought.
 
2012-05-03 02:24:02 PM  

knightofargh: It's GoT, mostly Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil with an occasional sprinkling of Chaotic Evil for flavor.


Bah. I give you the baddest ass of all Westeros

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Barristan_Selmy

Lawful Good along with Brienne of Tarth
 
2012-05-03 02:24:15 PM  
Cersei is pretty much textbook Lawful Evil. She works within the rules and the systems of control and only looks out for herself.

Tyrion is a tough one.to call - Lawful Neutral would be my best guess (highly disciplined mind, has a great deal of personal integrity (though he'd deny it). He's loyal to the Lannisters (which skews towards evil) but is frequently conflcted with his family.which makes him neutral.
 
2012-05-03 02:24:58 PM  
This may be the nerdiest link I've seen on Fark in months...so, I clicked the motherfer right away.

There is now Robert Baratheon was Chaotic Neutral, I would swing him in the Lawful Neutral with slight LE tendencies. One can be a hedonist and still hold high regard for law and honor. Joffrey, Lawful Evil, he comprehends power, uses it to his advantage, but still an evil little shiat. The only truly "Chaotic" character was Drogo, pretty much the personification of Chaotic Neutral with good tendencies.
 
2012-05-03 02:26:51 PM  
Man.. i just finished book 3 and its farking BRUTAL... EVERYONE dies..... every page is like WTF!!!! BTW.... you can't spoil shiat the books have been out for 20 years... read them.. 100X better than the show...
 
2012-05-03 02:27:47 PM  
And Joffrey is a pretty fair example of chaotic stupid
 
2012-05-03 02:28:04 PM  

Abner Doon: I dunno, are we talking in the books here? Both or their genereal plans and goals seem fairly clear by the end of the last book I thought.


Littlefinger's isn't necessarily. And although we got insight into Varys's immediate scheme with Griff and Co., it's not clear whether that is his endgame or just a means to an end - much less his motive for any of it truly is.
 
2012-05-03 02:29:13 PM  

clovis69: knightofargh: It's GoT, mostly Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil with an occasional sprinkling of Chaotic Evil for flavor.

Bah. I give you the baddest ass of all Westeros

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Barristan_Selmy

Lawful Good along with Brienne of Tarth


Hence my usage of the modifier "mostly". DNRTFA since i09. I despise Gawker.

GRRM is still Pedantic Hungry. I'm still amazed that he's reskinned the War of the Roses and managed to sell it as "fantasy".
 
2012-05-03 02:30:02 PM  

knightofargh: clovis69: knightofargh: It's GoT, mostly Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil with an occasional sprinkling of Chaotic Evil for flavor.

Bah. I give you the baddest ass of all Westeros

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Barristan_Selmy

Lawful Good along with Brienne of Tarth

Hence my usage of the modifier "mostly". DNRTFA since i09. I despise Gawker.

GRRM is still Pedantic Hungry. I'm still amazed that he's reskinned the War of the Roses and managed to sell it as "fantasy".


Most people probably aren't aware of that the War of the Roses is.
 
2012-05-03 02:30:45 PM  

Ennuipoet: This may be the nerdiest link I've seen on Fark in months...so, I clicked the motherfer right away.

There is now Robert Baratheon was Chaotic Neutral, I would swing him in the Lawful Neutral with slight LE tendencies. One can be a hedonist and still hold high regard for law and honor. Joffrey, Lawful Evil, he comprehends power, uses it to his advantage, but still an evil little shiat. The only truly "Chaotic" character was Drogo, pretty much the personification of Chaotic Neutral with good tendencies.


Drogo was absolutely CN, no "tendencies" about anything.
 
2012-05-03 02:31:07 PM  

knightofargh: GRRM is still Pedantic Hungry. I'm still amazed that he's reskinned the War of the Roses and managed to sell it as "fantasy".


War of the Roses had dragons, zombies, and wizards? Holy shiat, I need to bone up on my English history! :p
 
2012-05-03 02:32:42 PM  

knightofargh: GRRM is still Pedantic Hungry. I'm still amazed that he's reskinned the War of the Roses and managed to sell it as "fantasy".


I, for one, remember the chapter of my history book when Henry Tudor's dragonriders laid waste to the Richard III's red sorceresses just in time to defend England and Wales from the ice zombie invasion from north of Hadrian's Wall.
 
2012-05-03 02:33:06 PM  

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.

And some of the aristocracy in the era would resemble zombies due to inbreeding. It's only incest if your sister is ugly, if she's hot it's wincest.
 
2012-05-03 02:35:27 PM  

kronicfeld: I, for one, remember the chapter of my history book when Henry Tudor's dragonriders laid waste to the Richard III's red sorceresses just in time to defend England and Wales from the ice zombie invasion from north of Hadrian's Wall.


I'd totally play that! When does GW release the overpriced miniatures with new Bolton Pink paint and a codex for each army?
 
2012-05-03 02:35:44 PM  

kronicfeld: Abner Doon: I dunno, are we talking in the books here? Both or their genereal plans and goals seem fairly clear by the end of the last book I thought.

Littlefinger's isn't necessarily. And although we got insight into Varys's immediate scheme with Griff and Co., it's not clear whether that is his endgame or just a means to an end - much less his motive for any of it truly is.


Spoilery - I'm thinking that Varys's plan has something to do with R'Hollor and The Others. He saw Things That Should Not Be Seen when he was first cut - he's the type of character who would investigate more, he could have learned something about the big confrontation coming, and he's using the Targaryens (sp) in that conflict. Now, who's side he's on (aside his own) remains to be seen.
 
2012-05-03 02:37:49 PM  

Abner Doon: 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 dunno, are we talking in the books here? Both or their genereal plans and goals seem fairly clear by the end of the last book I thought.


Ya, I've read through the books. I see both as being self centered and bent on ushering their own agenda into a position of supreme power. I can't say either one is good or evil...I'm not sure GRRM has fully let on one way or another.
 
2012-05-03 02:37:55 PM  

kronicfeld: knightofargh: GRRM is still Pedantic Hungry. I'm still amazed that he's reskinned the War of the Roses and managed to sell it as "fantasy".

I, for one, remember the chapter of my history book when Henry Tudor's dragonriders laid waste to the Richard III's red sorceresses just in time to defend England and Wales from the ice zombie invasion from north of Hadrian's Wall.


farking Scots!
 
2012-05-03 02:38:33 PM  
Littlefinger seems more Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral. He works within the system a bit too much to not be called Lawful.

With the current info given out on Varys, Neutral Good is an alright claim. He doesn't really screw anyone over yet and is actively helpful to pretty much everyone.
 
2012-05-03 02:38:33 PM  
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)
 
2012-05-03 02:39:29 PM  

Xaxor: Tyrion is True Neutral? Varys is Neutral Good? LOL WUT.


I think the author hasn't read the books and has only seen the mini series. So must be basing this only on 1.5 books rather than all 5.

/Finish the God Damn Series Already! Get back to witting GRRM!
 
2012-05-03 02:43:32 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.

And some of the aristocracy in the era would resemble zombies due to inbreeding. It's only incest if your sister is ugly, if she's hot it's wincest.


The Habsburgs weren't English, and they had nothing to do with the War of the Roses.
 
2012-05-03 02:43:50 PM  
Tyrion was not true neutral he's one of the most 'good' characters in the whole series.

I'm glad they didn't include Jamie Lannister in the list. because they'd either be flat our wrong or spoil it for people who haven't read the books.

Spoliers...

I told my wife, "yeah Jamie is kind of a dick at first but you'll end up liking him." She flat out refused to believe that he turns out to not be such an asshole until she finally caught up with the books.
 
2012-05-03 02:44:18 PM  

deathbunny32: Littlefinger seems more Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral. He works within the system a bit too much to not be called Lawful.

With the current info given out on Varys, Neutral Good is an alright claim. He doesn't really screw anyone over yet and is actively helpful to pretty much everyone.


Littlfinger works "within" the system because he doesn't have the strength to ignore it.

Varys? Neutral neutral. He helps people who have power, or who can help him. That isn't good, that is self serving.
 
2012-05-03 02:44:24 PM  
It's already been said earlier in this thread, but alignment does not work that way.

I regret clicking the link.
 
2012-05-03 02:45:32 PM  

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.
 
2012-05-03 02:46:07 PM  
There are a lot of lists like this. What boxer would they be, what presidential candidate would the be, etc. I haven't seen one suggesting what Halloween Costume a character would probably wear.

Now obviously Ned Stark would go as the Headless Horseman because of his love of horse riding. Tyrion could go as a secret service agent and spend all night asking where whores go. Cersei could go as Sinead O'Conner. Jamie could be the killer from The Fugitive movie. Jon Snow could go as Hamlet. Catelyn Stark could be something boring, like a zombie.

What other lists could we make up?
 
2012-05-03 02:48:31 PM  
Littlefinger is Chaotic Neutral.

He only works within the law because he has to. He's not loyal to anyone but himself. The fact that he runs a brothel should be proof enough that he is not "Lawful".

He fits many of the characteristics listed in the Boobies, and for the ones he doesn't, its simply because his survival instict, or his traumatic love past cause confliction there.
 
2012-05-03 02:49:09 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.


No, Catelyn did it. Stupid Tully.
 
2012-05-03 02:49:16 PM  
io9 sucks.
 
2012-05-03 02:50:10 PM  

Ennuipoet: There is now Robert Baratheon was Chaotic Neutral, I would swing him in the Lawful Neutral with slight LE tendencies. One can be a hedonist and still hold high regard for law and honor. Joffrey, Lawful Evil, he comprehends power, uses it to his advantage, but still an evil little shiat. The only truly "Chaotic" character was Drogo, pretty much the personification of Chaotic Neutral with good tendencies.


A Chaotic Evil individual understands power just fine. The primary difference between a LE king and a CE King is that the LE ruler is dependent on laws, traditions and alliances to rule. A CE character relies purely on intimidation and fear. He rules because he has the strength (in this case the Lannister power and reputation) to subjugate his subjects. Which is a fairly accurate summation of Joffrey's conduct as king.
 
2012-05-03 02:50:48 PM  

SpoilerAlert: What other lists could we make up?


What farker would they be?
 
2012-05-03 02:52:59 PM  

justtray: Littlefinger is Chaotic Neutral.

He only works within the law because he has to. He's not loyal to anyone but himself. The fact that he runs a brothel should be proof enough that he is not "Lawful".


I don't think prostitution is illegal in Westeros, is it?
 
2012-05-03 02:54:45 PM  

Solon Isonomia: 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.

No, Catelyn did it. Stupid Tully.


No, Bran did it. Stupid peeping-Stark.
 
2012-05-03 02:57:28 PM  

deathbunny32: Littlefinger seems more Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral. He works within the system a bit too much to not be called Lawful.


True, but the whole betrayal of Ned Stark would be troubling to a Lawful person.
 
2012-05-03 02:58:59 PM  
Beric Dondarrion: Lawful Badass
 
2012-05-03 02:59:00 PM  
I'm almost to the end of book 5 so there's not much you can spoil for me. I have a question and I can't remember if they said why in the books.

Why is he Joffrey Lannister and not Joffrey Baratheon? Shouldn't he have taken his Father's name.

(Other than the fact he's actually [REDACTED]. A fact Cersei will deny vehemently to the public.)
 
2012-05-03 03:00:09 PM  
What if we stopped linking to io9?
 
2012-05-03 03:02:15 PM  

Alfonso the Great: Solon Isonomia: 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.

No, Catelyn did it. Stupid Tully.

No, Bran did it. Stupid peeping-Stark.


Cat's advice to go to King's Landing preceded the Bran incident. Again, stupid farking Tully.
 
2012-05-03 03:04:14 PM  

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...
 
2012-05-03 03:05:59 PM  

EdVenture: Why is he Joffrey Lannister and not Joffrey Baratheon? Shouldn't he have taken his Father's name.


His name is Joffrey Baratheon. If he's called Lannister, it's by someone impugning him.
 
2012-05-03 03:07:10 PM  

FightDirector: Hodor = meowsaysthedog


I'd swap that for Patchface.

Also:

Jon Snow = Jon Snow
 
2012-05-03 03:07:57 PM  

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...


Dude, if anyone is Hodor it's Bevets. That whole repeating the same thing over and over bit...
 
2012-05-03 03:08:37 PM  

meanmutton: Drogo was absolutely CN, no "tendencies" about anything.


His affection for Danerys, his displays of genuine compassion for her and his restraint of his natural impulses to kill, maim and rape showed subtle but discernible drift on my DM's alignment graph. Not enough for me to penalize him any XP's but definitely there.
 
2012-05-03 03:09:04 PM  

FightDirector: Hodor = meowsaysthedog Hodor


FTFY
 
2012-05-03 03:12:04 PM  

Alfonso the Great: No, Bran did it. Stupid peeping-Stark.


As I've asserted before, as a parent I'd have tossed the whiny farker out a window myself. Jaime is blameless.

FightDirector: Cersei = Grable's Daughter


She's not nearly manipulative enough. The rest is spot on.
 
2012-05-03 03:12:18 PM  

Solon Isonomia: 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...

Dude, if anyone is Hodor it's Bevets. That whole repeating the same thing over and over bit...


Viserys Targaryen
 
2012-05-03 03:13:02 PM  

Snapper Carr: A Chaotic Evil individual understands power just fine. The primary difference between a LE king and a CE King is that the LE ruler is dependent on laws, traditions and alliances to rule. A CE character relies purely on intimidation and fear. He rules because he has the strength (in this case the Lannister power and reputation) to subjugate his subjects. Which is a fairly accurate summation of Joffrey's conduct as king.


Hmm, I suppose you're right. The only thing keeping him in check is fear. I tend to think of CE as a full on despotic warlord, without council or laws to prop him, maintaining his power through complete and utter violence. Joffrey has the trappings of Law but doesn't give a damn for them.
 
2012-05-03 03:13:12 PM  

Ennuipoet: meanmutton: Drogo was absolutely CN, no "tendencies" about anything.

His affection for Danerys, his displays of genuine compassion for her and his restraint of his natural impulses to kill, maim and rape showed subtle but discernible drift on my DM's alignment graph. Not enough for me to penalize him any XP's but definitely there.


Yer doin' it wrong: Drogo drifted when he let Dany take control when they conceived Rhogo because he didn't follow his desire to do things HIS way. I bet he got extra XP for RPing the shiat out of that scene.
 
2012-05-03 03:14:06 PM  
img109.imageshack.us
 
2012-05-03 03:14:22 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: that was written by someone that doesn't really understand the alignments of D&D (any version)


On top of that,

"In the classic version of Dungeons & Dragons, characters were given alignments based upon a nine-grid matrix that featured such traits as "good," "chaotic," "neutral," and a bunch more."

this was written by someone who thinks 2 (Evil, Lawful) is a bunch.
 
2012-05-03 03:15:34 PM  

Snapper Carr: Solon Isonomia: 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...

Dude, if anyone is Hodor it's Bevets. That whole repeating the same thing over and over bit...

Viserys Targaryen


No, Viserys is all of the professional trolls on the Politics tab put together into some sick sort of Voltron.
 
2012-05-03 03:15:58 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-05-03 03:16:45 PM  
Melisandre:True Neutral
Tyrion: Chaotic Good
Mance: True neutral
Tywin: Lawful Good
 
2012-05-03 03:17:03 PM  
I find it hard to the "regarding lawfulness" label hard to someone who is king, whereas they are the one that make the laws. Wouldn't all kings be considered "lawful", regardless of the good-----evil scale of their edicts?
 
2012-05-03 03:18:16 PM  

jeanwearinfool: I find it hard to the "regarding lawfulness" label hard to someone who is king, whereas they are the one that make the laws. Wouldn't all kings be considered "lawful", regardless of the good-----evil scale of their edicts?


Wow, NyQuil, booze, and colds really do mess up a mans mind. I meant to say "I find it hard to assign the "regarding lawfulness" label to someone".
 
2012-05-03 03:18:18 PM  

Solon Isonomia: 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...

Dude, if anyone is Hodor it's Bevets. That whole repeating the same thing over and over bit...


Ah, see...I was going with "generates a desire to repeatedly and alternatively punch in the face and the dick" as my primary metric for "who should be Joffery".

And just because somebody took the screen name from a GoT cast member doesn't automatically make them the best farker for the role.
 
2012-05-03 03:18:20 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.

And some of the aristocracy in the era would resemble zombies due to inbreeding. It's only incest if your sister is ugly, if she's hot it's wincest.



Sure, reskinned in the same way that Kim Kardashian is a reskinned Oprah Winfrey I guess. I mean... they're both women... and uhhhhh.... Yeah, your assertion was more than a stretch. Just because they all use swords and have royalty doesn't mean one is necessarily based off of the other. You wouldn't say Firefly is a "reskinned" version of Apollo 13, would you?

So can you provide some specific examples to support your claim?
 
2012-05-03 03:20:27 PM  

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.


You're confusing Lawful Good with Lawful Nice. Paladins are lawful good and they can be some serious a-holes. Nothing like strict rigidity to some god's moral code to excuse the trampling of rights or even lives.
 
2012-05-03 03:22:26 PM  

mongbiohazard: 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.

You're confusing Lawful Good with Lawful Nice. Paladins are lawful good and they can be some serious a-holes. Nothing like strict rigidity to some god's moral code to excuse the trampling of rights or even lives.


For example, Tywin Lannister is lawful good. He's served by evil, horrendous men and he himself is a giant farking tool, but he himself is a good man, and serves the law and the realm first.
 
2012-05-03 03:22:31 PM  

mongbiohazard: So can you provide some specific examples to support your claim?


GRapeRapeM pointed out during an interview that the political maneuverings were primarily based on the maneuvering between the various powers involved in the War of the Roses?

And no, I don't have a citation. I've heard it several times from several people, and there are some parallels between WotR and GoT; especially in the first book. House Stark, IIRC, is equivalent to House York and the Lannisters are essentially a stand-in for the Lancasters. As the series has gone on he's moved away from this into his own little (perpetually unfinished) world.
 
2012-05-03 03:22:54 PM  
Then they would be boring caricatures of people caught in an illogical fantasy world, oh wait this is The Game of Thrones they are boring caricatures of people caught in an illogical fantasy world, never mind carry on.
 
2012-05-03 03:25:40 PM  

Sybarite: Chaotic neutral characters like to indulge in everything. This is the insurgent, the con-man, gambler, and high roller; the uncommitted freebooter seeking nothing more than self-gratification...According to chaotic neutrals, laws and rules infringe on personal freedom and were meant to be broken. . . Jack Sparrow is probably the best example of a truly chaotic neutral character in popular culture.


Short-sighted individuals probably qualify as CN by default, but CN's scope is bigger than that. Libertarians, anarchists and survivalists can all fall into CN. What they have in common is that they don't value the rule of law (chaotic) nor do they view society through any moralistic lens (neutral). It's entirely possible to have some hard-partying irresponsible "scoundrel" that's more than happy to work within the system, even very active in politics. The only relevant correlation here is that commoners (i.e., those with little political influence) with a preference for vices tend to clash with "lawful" societies that try to regulate their behavior. But that's narrowing the concept down to modern American "liberal" and "conservative" wedge issues. What about some noble that likes to pass all sorts of moralistic decrees to which royalty are explicitly exempt? LN, arguably even LE, but fits the stereotypical CN criteria.

Solon Isonomia: Either the author doesn't understand the alignments, didn't real the books too closely, or both.


Maybe the author based everything entirely on watching the show? That would result in a lot of missing/modified context.

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Everyone would be Neutral Evil except Stannis, who's Lawful Neutral, Tyrion, who's just Neutral, and Joffrey, who's Chaotic Evil. Oh, and Jon Snow, who is Lawful Knows Nothing.


One problem in using strict alignments is that GRRM likes to portray characters from different viewpoints. That makes them complex or inconsistent, depending on how you interpret it.
 
2012-05-03 03:28:20 PM  

mongbiohazard: So can you provide some specific examples to support your claim?


Apart from directly from Mr. Rape Rape Martin himself? cite

Don't have a direct link handy, but it's there in several quotes from the author himself.
 
2012-05-03 03:29:26 PM  

PonceAlyosha: Tywin Lannister is lawful good. He's served by evil, horrendous men and he himself is a giant farking tool, but he himself is a good man, and serves the law and the realm first.


I'm pretty sure Tyrion's first wife might disagree with you on that whole "he himself is a good man" thing.
 
2012-05-03 03:34:08 PM  

FightDirector: Solon Isonomia: 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...

Dude, if anyone is Hodor it's Bevets. That whole repeating the same thing over and over bit...

Ah, see...I was going with "generates a desire to repeatedly and alternatively punch in the face and the dick" as my primary metric for "who should be Joffery".

And just because somebody took the screen name from a GoT cast member doesn't automatically make them the best farker for the role.


Okay, yeah, that's a good metric for Joffrey, that prick.
 
2012-05-03 03:35:29 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: PonceAlyosha: Tywin Lannister is lawful good. He's served by evil, horrendous men and he himself is a giant farking tool, but he himself is a good man, and serves the law and the realm first.

I'm pretty sure Tyrion's first wife might disagree with you on that whole "he himself is a good man" thing.


Well, if education is important to good-aligned characters then that's just example of Tywin teaching Tyrion where whores go.
 
2012-05-03 03:36:02 PM  

Ennuipoet: I tend to think of CE as a full on despotic warlord, without council or laws to prop him, maintaining his power through complete and utter violence.


That's a common interpretation, but I think it blurs the line between CE and NE. I think the main symptoms of CE are a lack of empathy combined with no regard for consistency. So, it could also be a spoiled King who delegates everything to a bureaucracy whenever he's not exploiting his power for self-indulgence. The people might view their society as something entirely different, but only because the "chaotic" side completely isolates the CE ruler from anything going on.

The difference is that the "lazy" CE ruler typically loses power, since no effort is made to retain it. Without the willingness to back power with violence, most CE characters aren't inclined to control land in the first place. It's not in their nature; after all, the very concept of controlled territory is a legal construct. Most CE characters with any sort of ambition for power would have more in common with a territorial apex predator. Any action would be provoked through jealousy or perception of threat, not out of any interest in what goes on within said territory.
 
2012-05-03 03:39:01 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: PonceAlyosha: Tywin Lannister is lawful good. He's served by evil, horrendous men and he himself is a giant farking tool, but he himself is a good man, and serves the law and the realm first.

I'm pretty sure Tyrion's first wife might disagree with you on that whole "he himself is a good man" thing.


Yeah, that's horrendously dickish, but that a person can be personally objectionable and still end up being the

dragonchild: That's a common interpretation, but I think it blurs the line between CE and NE. I think the main symptoms of CE are a lack of empathy combined with no regard for consistency. So, it could also be a spoiled King who delegates everything to a bureaucracy whenever he's not exploiting his power for self-indulgence. The people might view their society as something entirely different, but only because the "chaotic" side completely isolates the CE ruler from anything going on.

The difference is that the "lazy" CE ruler typically loses power, since no effort is made to retain it. Without the willingness to back power with violence, most CE characters aren't inclined to control land in the first place. It's not in their nature; after all, the very concept of controlled territory is a legal construct. Most CE characters with any sort of ambition for power would have more in common with a territorial apex predator. Any action would be provoked through jealousy or perception of threat, not out of any interest in what goes on within said territory.


That describes Joffrey perfectly.
 
2012-05-03 03:40:11 PM  
Mostly agreed.

I'd call Tyrion Neutral Good, however. He does seem to help those where he can, and doesn't really harm others, except in particular instances of rage. He does, arguably, drift to at least Neutral over the course of the books.

Jaime is a classic example of alignment drift. He's probably CE to start, but drifts away from that after certain events later in the series.

I think that Baelish is CE. He doesn't really seem to care about order, or agreements, or anything but himself. It's pretty textbook CE. The difference between him and Joff (who I'd also argue is CE) is that Baelish is *smart* and *effective*, while Joff is a pouting child with too much power.

Tywin LG? I'd argue with that. Probably LN.

dragonchild: Libertarians, anarchists and survivalists can all fall into CN. What they have in common is that they don't value the rule of law (chaotic) nor do they view society through any moralistic lens (neutral).


I think there's a slight difference here. I think the libertarian view is that, in general, government should not be legislating morality. There's a huge difference between that and being entirely amoral themselves, or even believing that society should be amoral (where it's closer, IMHO, to say that the belief is that government is not the entirety of "society," and government's place should not be to dictate morality.)

mongbiohazard:
You're confusing Lawful Good with Lawful Nice. Paladins are lawful good and they can be some serious a-holes. Nothing like strict rigidity to some god's moral code to excuse the trampling of rights or even lives.


That's a poor player of a paladin, IMHO, and should probably suffer alignment drift to LN with all of the appropriate consequences.
 
2012-05-03 03:43:41 PM  
Hi guys, what is this Game of Thorns thingy y'all are talking about. It sounds kinds dumb.
 
2012-05-03 03:43:54 PM  
The author is clearly limiting this to what we know so far in the HBO series and not the books.

Varys and Littlefinger are separated only by the fact that Varys said he'd like to help Ned but couldn't whereas Littlefinger outright betrayed him.

And without being too Spoilierish, what we know from Dance with Dragons is that Varys is still holding his alliances with the Targeryeans .


Overall it seems silly to argue over the article. People can read the same book and read different things out of it. Go to the asoiaf forums and you can see that very clearly. The same with The Walking Dead tv show.

Two people can see the same thing and have different valid opinions. That's the point of narratives.
 
2012-05-03 03:46:23 PM  

PonceAlyosha:
Tywin: Lawful Good


notsureifserious.jpg

I would describe what he did to Castamere as going above and beyond what was required in dealing with a rebellion - not the acts of a good person. Similarly, what he did - and does- to Tyrion over his story is almost enough to put him in the evil area. He is a -terrible- person.
 
2012-05-03 03:47:38 PM  
Someone put them in one of those 3x3 charts. I'm not going through another TL;DR io9 list
 
2012-05-03 03:48:44 PM  

kyoryu: I think there's a slight difference here. I think the libertarian view is that, in general, government should not be legislating morality.


My intention isn't to strictly define libertarianism in alignment terms. That would make this conversation political and I'm having too much fun to go there. That said, I've yet to see a decisive consensus even among libertarians as to what the word means, so I'm using some of the wiggle room provided there. Some libertarians fall into the scope of CN if they're the sort that believe government should be "as small as possible", with only the vaguest notions of whatever "small enough" could be. Those with more specific definitions might not, and more power to them.
 
2012-05-03 03:50:05 PM  

kyoryu: That's a poor player of a paladin, IMHO, and should probably suffer alignment drift to LN with all of the appropriate consequences.


History disagrees with you on that one.
 
2012-05-03 03:50:06 PM  

JokerMattly: PonceAlyosha:
Tywin: Lawful Good

notsureifserious.jpg

I would describe what he did to Castamere as going above and beyond what was required in dealing with a rebellion - not the acts of a good person. Similarly, what he did - and does- to Tyrion over his story is almost enough to put him in the evil area. He is a -terrible- person.


I really believe he's the only person on that continent that upholds any form of a social contract. I do believe he is a nefarious bastard though.
 
2012-05-03 03:51:02 PM  
I know a guy in RL who is TOTALLY lawful evil, so I have to disagree with their placement of littlefinger. He is really lawful evil, not neutral. He uses the rules and laws of the land to his advantage, to manipulate people and situations to his own end. To me, that is really the definition of lawful evil. When you want to picture lawful evil, think of your average congresscritter. They are using the laws and systems in place for solely their own advancement, nothing else.
 
2012-05-03 03:52:17 PM  

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?
 
2012-05-03 03:52:28 PM  
Sansa: Neutral bone-numbing stupid.
 
2012-05-03 03:52:49 PM  

Tarl3k: I know a guy in RL who is TOTALLY lawful evil, so I have to disagree with their placement of littlefinger. He is really lawful evil, not neutral. He uses the rules and laws of the land to his advantage, to manipulate people and situations to his own end. To me, that is really the definition of lawful evil. When you want to picture lawful evil, think of your average congresscritter. They are using the laws and systems in place for solely their own advancement, nothing else.


Exactly. They use the laws not because they believe in them, but because that's the easiest, safest way for them to get what they want.
 
2012-05-03 03:52:57 PM  

PonceAlyosha: I really believe he's the only person on that continent that upholds any form of a social contract.


I'm just having a hard time understanding how having your son's wife gangraped (and forcing your son to participate unknowingly) is upholding the social contract.
 
2012-05-03 03:58:51 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Tarl3k: I know a guy in RL who is TOTALLY lawful evil, so I have to disagree with their placement of littlefinger. He is really lawful evil, not neutral. He uses the rules and laws of the land to his advantage, to manipulate people and situations to his own end. To me, that is really the definition of lawful evil. When you want to picture lawful evil, think of your average congresscritter. They are using the laws and systems in place for solely their own advancement, nothing else.

Exactly. They use the laws not because they believe in them, but because that's the easiest, safest way for them to get what they want.


Just because you write the laws does not make you lawful. If you are not beholden to stare decisis and your past precidents you are chaotic.
 
2012-05-03 04:02:08 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Everyone would be Neutral Evil except Stannis, who's Lawful Neutral, Tyrion, who's just Neutral, and Joffrey, who's Chaotic Evil. Oh, and Jon Snow, who is Lawful Knows Nothing.


What you did there, I see it, wildling.
 
2012-05-03 04:03:28 PM  

redmond24: Two people can see the same thing and have different valid opinions. That's the point of narratives.


It depends. Sure, sometimes the author is deliberately vague, or unintentionally inconsistent. For example, one common trick is to tell the story through an "unreliable narrator" wherein the story is left incomplete (on purpose) because it's filtered through a biased POV. So yeah, sometimes things are left to interpretation. But in other cases, the author has a specific message and some people are just flat-out bad at reading comprehension.

Without specifically referring to GRRM's work (I'm disagreeing with your general point and want to keep this simple), my point is, differing valid opinions can only co-exist as a result of A) the specific intention of a well-crafted narrative, or B) a bad (inconsistent) one.

A public Internet forum can't agree? Well, duh. That's not proof of anything. "Everyone's entitled to an opinion" is a transparent attempt to elevate morons to the same level as people who actually think. In reality, opinions are weighted whether you like it or not. Every country's entitled to print their own currency but you don't see many investors treating Zimbabwe's cash like one.
 
2012-05-03 04:04:16 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: kyoryu: That's a poor player of a paladin, IMHO, and should probably suffer alignment drift to LN with all of the appropriate consequences.

History disagrees with you on that one.


Really? I don't remember the historical paladins with magical healing abilities and the ability to magically smite evil and ride magic horses.

Man, they sure passed over the cool stuff in my history classes.

PonceAlyosha:
I really believe he's the only person on that continent that upholds any form of a social contract. I do believe he is a nefarious bastard though.


Holding up a social contract (emphasis on 'contract') is more of a Lawful tendency than a Good one.
 
2012-05-03 04:04:31 PM  

Icetech3: Man.. i just finished book 3 and its farking BRUTAL... EVERYONE dies..... every page is like WTF!!!! BTW.... you can't spoil shiat the books have been out for 20 years... read them.. 100X better than the show...


The thing I've noticed about the books..so far...it that those who have any sense of decency are not vanquished by battle, but only by deception and treachery.
 
2012-05-03 04:05:48 PM  

Egoy3k: Tyrion was not true neutral he's one of the most 'good' characters in the whole series.

I'm glad they didn't include Jamie Lannister in the list. because they'd either be flat our wrong or spoil it for people who haven't read the books.

Spoliers...

I told my wife, "yeah Jamie is kind of a dick at first but you'll end up liking him." She flat out refused to believe that he turns out to not be such an asshole until she finally caught up with the books.


THIS.
 
2012-05-03 04:07:10 PM  

clovis69: knightofargh: It's GoT, mostly Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil with an occasional sprinkling of Chaotic Evil for flavor.

Bah. I give you the baddest ass of all Westeros

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Barristan_Selmy

Lawful Good along with Brienne of Tarth


Very true...and in the books (from what I've read so far) she is the only character that acts like a knight in the truest sense.
 
2012-05-03 04:11:15 PM  

Frothy Panties: Very true...and in the books (from what I've read so far) she is the only character that acts like a knight in the truest sense.


Idealized knight with a sense of chivalry, yes. Historical knights were more of the fight to win and then make up how heroic and honorable of a fight it was. Davos is probably closer to the historical model, at least he obeys the rules.

Gregor Clegane is the other end of the normal spectrum.
 
2012-05-03 04:11:16 PM  

wingnut396: Sansa: Neutral bone-numbing stupid.


Neutral Evil. And amazingly stupid.

How many deaths has she seen, and ignored, just to get her way? She's shown an amazing disregard for anything but her own well-being and advancement.
 
2012-05-03 04:12:11 PM  

Xaxor: Tyrion is True Neutral? Varys is Neutral Good? LOL WUT.


It was pretty clear that the author hadn't watched the series, let alone read the books, when he brought out the "wracked by guilt over a brief extramarital affair" line, since even the TV series makes it pretty clear that Jon Snow is either the son of Eddard's sister by King Robert or one of the lost children of the Targaryen house, with the whole "bastard" deal being an attempt to protect him until he can be stuck in the Night's Watch (which voids any claim to the throne and puts him beyond the reach of politics for the most part).

And, to be fair, Tyrion goes from Chaotic Neutral to Lawful Good over the course of the series, which is how you know he's the actual protagonist in spite of what Martin seems to think. So True Neutral may be a good average there.
 
2012-05-03 04:12:11 PM  
Good lord, this is what happens when I show up late for a thread....I feel like i'm talking to myself..
 
2012-05-03 04:12:35 PM  

Frothy Panties: Icetech3: Man.. i just finished book 3 and its farking BRUTAL... EVERYONE dies..... every page is like WTF!!!! BTW.... you can't spoil shiat the books have been out for 20 years... read them.. 100X better than the show...

The thing I've noticed about the books..so far...it that those who have any sense of decency are not vanquished by battle, but only by deception and treachery.


And pretty much anyone that's described as attractive, and not disfigured, is kind of a dick.
 
2012-05-03 04:15:13 PM  

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?
 
2012-05-03 04:16:55 PM  

dragonchild: That's a common interpretation,


You know how I know we're nerds? :)
 
2012-05-03 04:17:41 PM  

kyoryu: wingnut396: Sansa: Neutral bone-numbing stupid.

Neutral Evil. And amazingly stupid.

How many deaths has she seen, and ignored, just to get her way? She's shown an amazing disregard for anything but her own well-being and advancement.


Eh. I see the Evil alignments (Good ones, too) as requiring the person to actively pursue them. Sansa doesn't go out of her way to be a biatch, she just ends up being one through happenstance coupled with horrible, horrible foresight. Compare her motivations to Cersei, who I see as a pretty sterling example of Neutral Evil in the series.

I'd call her True Neutral, albeit with a WIS score of about 5.
 
2012-05-03 04:22:25 PM  

Jim_Callahan: clear that Jon Snow is either the son of Eddard's sister by King Robert or one of the lost children of the Targaryen house


Since this is the widely held theory that is probably accurate and more or less exactly what Martin has had planned, I have this feeling Martin will change course and reveal he really is just the son of Eddard and some random gal, or more likely simply leave it entirely unanswered.
 
2012-05-03 04:26:46 PM  

kyoryu: wingnut396: Sansa: Neutral bone-numbing stupid.

Neutral Evil. And amazingly stupid.

How many deaths has she seen, and ignored, just to get her way? She's shown an amazing disregard for anything but her own well-being and advancement.


See, I have to disagree. While normally, with an intelligent player, I would tend to agree with you. But Sansa has just barely has enough of an INT score to speak and indentify colors. In all other respected, I would make her akin to highly aware animal, but still an animal. They are just following their natural urges and cannot be held accountable for not be conginzant of the social rules that bind all the other, smarter animals that look like them.
 
2012-05-03 04:38:17 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: They [LE] use the laws not because they believe in them, but because that's the easiest, safest way for them to get what they want.


No, that's NE ("by any means"). Even CE will use the law if it's the path of least resistance. The ability to see law as a means to an end is a function of intelligence, not alignment. The difference is that CE has an inherent distaste for law, and NE has no real regard for it. But both, if clever, will operate within the law for even years if they see it as a way to get what they want.

"Lawful" implies some level of devotion to law, not use of it. For example, a politically ambitious DA or a sadistic "by the book" cop. They LOVE the law, and will throw the book at anyone who questions them. They don't see the law as a means of solving problems or improving anything, but they thrive within the system. All factors being equal, the law is their preferred method. They like to have the rules on their side.

On a crude level:
CE will hit you with a blunt object when no one's looking, law be damned.
NE might hit you with a blunt object if no one's looking, but will definitely do so if it's legal. Or might exploit a loophole like self-defense.
LE will work to make it legal for anyone to hit you with a blunt object. Actually, they might make it REQUIRED that you're beaten with a blunt object.

As a result, I daresay LE is more hungry for political power than CE. Your corporate executive, career politician. . . they're more likely to be LE because they're the sort to gravitate to those positions (which only go to those who badly want them).

Ennuipoet: You know how I know we're nerds? :)


We have Fark handles?

/ I get it, I get it
 
2012-05-03 04:39:50 PM  
Get your shiatty D&D out of my Thrones
 
2012-05-03 04:46:11 PM  
Sorry, a little more detail. Take a case where some CE person in a safe town is hard up for some cash. He could just mug someone on the street, and frankly that's his natural inclination. But say there's some badly-written law that allows people to spam a "crime prevention" anonymous tip line for cash rewards. . . we're talking, like $500 a phone call, no questions asked (so, a VERY badly written law). The guy could walk around town for an hour or two, risk getting caught by the police for a wallet that might contain a few bucks. . . or spend a half an hour on the phone giving bogus tips and making serious cash.

The amateur role-player will assume the CE guy will just mug someone, because. . . he's chaotic. But that's not chaotic; that's retarded. If such a stupid rule is in place and the CE guy is NOT a moron, he'll go for the easy money. If anything, the CE guy will say something like, "I'm just showing how stupid this law is."

Don't confuse alignment with principle. Even a paladin will engage in civil disobedience if the situation calls for it.
 
2012-05-03 04:47:21 PM  

dragonchild:

"Lawful" implies some level of devotion to law, not use of it.


No, I don't that that is the case at all.

Lawful means a character has a code or set of rules they live by.

For a LG paladin, this could be the code of his God to do certain things and abide by those rules. If that same paladin lives in a location where the laws of the land are in direct violation of his mores, he does not become chaotic by following those laws.

Some would be for a LE character living in a communtiy that extolls good virtues by force of law. If their diabolical lord demands things like a sacrifce of a virgin every full moon, he will do it, no matter that murder is illegal in his community.

A conflict between two Gods is also why two LG paladin could very easily battle one another while still remaining both lawful and good.

The actual use of civil law is entirely incidental to a characters actual alignment.
 
2012-05-03 04:49:23 PM  

mongbiohazard: 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.

You're confusing Lawful Good with Lawful Nice. Paladins are lawful good and they can be some serious a-holes. Nothing like strict rigidity to some god's moral code to excuse the trampling of rights or even lives.


Yo' daaaaaaamn right!

media.comicvine.com

/Even though I personally think the Scarlet Crusade is freakin' awesome.
 
2012-05-03 04:51:38 PM  

kyoryu: wingnut396: Sansa: Neutral bone-numbing stupid.

Neutral Evil. And amazingly stupid.

How many deaths has she seen, and ignored, just to get her way? She's shown an amazing disregard for anything but her own well-being and advancement.


She's just surviving. She was, at the beginning of the story, a perfect spoiled naive princess. She believed knights were noble and good, love was like the songs and if she learned to be good and proper that life would be perfect with a gallant young man who would become king.

This is where the lack of interior monologue destroys her character. It might help you to know that she believes nothing that has come out of her mouth since the day Joffrey beheaded her father. They had a perfect opportunity to correct it but haven't shown her relationship with the Hound at all. The Hound finds her parroting what the Lannisters want to hear grimly amusing and taunts her about it when drunk, he calls her "little bird".

She's a not so bright girl who trusted the glib words of the pretty people (Jeoffrey, Cersi) at the wrong time and ends up paying a hard price for it, along with alot of others.

She is indeed bone numbingly stupid but evil? She didn't even know what it was she was so naive and innocent
 
2012-05-03 04:53:18 PM  

wingnut396: Lawful means a character has a code or set of rules they live by.


That IS devotion to law. I didn't specify civil law; I used it for convenience. However, in the case of LE (where I disagree with the notion that they merely use the law as a tool), how does this contradict my point? Actually, this weakens the conventional definition of LE even further, as LE characters certainly aren't guided by any ethical code. In absence of empathy or related concepts like honor or morality, written law is about the only thing any LE character can glom to. Contrary to expectations, it's in fact the lawful good characters that have more flexibility, as there's no guarantee law will correlate with morality or ethics. In which case we're in perfect agreement.
 
2012-05-03 04:59:12 PM  
How the fark do you make an alignment chart with the CHART?
 
2012-05-03 04:59:59 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: that was written by someone that doesn't really understand the alignments of D&D (any version). Most of those are very wrong.


Not to mention the best aspects of ASOIAF is that very few characters fall into any archetypical alignment.
 
2012-05-03 05:00:16 PM  
How the fark do you make an alignment chart without the CHART?

FTFM
 
2012-05-03 05:03:57 PM  
Sansa is not stupid or evil. She is just incredibly naive. She has learned many hard lessons from the masters and I think one day she will end up out doing them all at their own game.
 
2012-05-03 05:10:24 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: I have this feeling Martin will change course and reveal he really is just the son of Eddard and some random gal, or more likely simply leave it entirely unanswered.


QFT
 
2012-05-03 05:10:32 PM  

Digitalstrange: kyoryu: wingnut396: Sansa: Neutral bone-numbing stupid.

Neutral Evil. And amazingly stupid.

How many deaths has she seen, and ignored, just to get her way? She's shown an amazing disregard for anything but her own well-being and advancement.

She's just surviving. She was, at the beginning of the story, a perfect spoiled naive princess. She believed knights were noble and good, love was like the songs and if she learned to be good and proper that life would be perfect with a gallant young man who would become king.

This is where the lack of interior monologue destroys her character. It might help you to know that she believes nothing that has come out of her mouth since the day Joffrey beheaded her father. They had a perfect opportunity to correct it but haven't shown her relationship with the Hound at all. The Hound finds her parroting what the Lannisters want to hear grimly amusing and taunts her about it when drunk, he calls her "little bird".

She's a not so bright girl who trusted the glib words of the pretty people (Jeoffrey, Cersi) at the wrong time and ends up paying a hard price for it, along with alot of others.

She is indeed bone numbingly stupid but evil? She didn't even know what it was she was so naive and innocent


Really? She's willing to let the butcher's son die in order to help Joff save face, even though she knew that Joff had goaded the kid into a duel. She could have easily saved him by telling the truth - which would have cost Joff very little - but doing so would have jeopardized her chances to play princess.

Let's repeat that, okay? She was willing to let an innocent person die so that she could be a princess. She allowed an innocent person to die for her own gain. She was in no physical danger if she told the truth. It was only her own gain that was in danger. And it wasn't even just passive - she had to actually *lie* and state that the boy attacked Joff.

She was willing to let Arya's wolf die, even though it had done nothing but defend the butcher boy from getting beat by Joff. She only complained when it was *her* wolf that got killed.

She *knows* full well that Littlefinger killed Lysa, and allows the bard to die instead, even though she had opportunities to tell the truth with no consequences to her.

She betrays her own father to Cersei because she wants to be all happy and royal and lovey with Joff.

Almost every bad thing that happens to her is a direct result of her own actions. She consistently is willing to let others die. She is evil.

(I actually think Sansa is a brilliant character, in that she is so throroughly evil, but comes across as so innocent and such a victim.)
 
2012-05-03 05:18:37 PM  

dragonchild: wingnut396: Lawful means a character has a code or set of rules they live by.

That IS devotion to law. I didn't specify civil law; I used it for convenience. However, in the case of LE (where I disagree with the notion that they merely use the law as a tool), how does this contradict my point? Actually, this weakens the conventional definition of LE even further, as LE characters certainly aren't guided by any ethical code. In absence of empathy or related concepts like honor or morality, written law is about the only thing any LE character can glom to. Contrary to expectations, it's in fact the lawful good characters that have more flexibility, as there's no guarantee law will correlate with morality or ethics. In which case we're in perfect agreement.


In most respects I do agree with what you say. What I disgree with is the notion that evil cannot have a code of ethics or some unwritten lawful code. I believe in such an environment where evil is the norm, there would most certianly be some sort of unwritten ethics or mores that would comprise the unspoken law. We just, thankfully, lack such perspective. In the planes of hell, I imagine there would be analogs to honor or morality, but could a person not steeped in it that culture recognize it?

To futher that, even good characters often need such laws written down. That is the purpose of most holy books in the real world that claim to be distributed by a good and just god.

But in the end, yes, I don't think our POVs are very far off. I think a lot of the chatter about Joffery being able to make the civil law, therefore he is lawful, just threw me off.
 
2012-05-03 05:20:16 PM  

wingnut396:
But in the end, yes, I don't think our POVs are very far off. I think a lot of the chatter about Joffery being able to make the civil law, therefore he is lawful, just threw me off.


I actually think that Lawful should be called something like "Order", just to avoid this type of misconception.
 
2012-05-03 05:26:06 PM  

kyoryu: Digit

Really? She's willing to let the butcher's son die in order to help Joff save face,.....


Yes, she is selfish, but so are mountain lions badgers. But in all those cases and later, even in reading the books, I don't think she contemplates how her actions impact others. I don't see it as if she doesn't care, but more than she doesn't comprehend, like a toddler or an animal. I can't call people that lack capacity for higher reasoning evil.
 
2012-05-03 05:35:34 PM  
Ok guys, seriously. Stop it.
 
2012-05-03 05:36:23 PM  

Jim_Callahan: It was pretty clear that the author hadn't watched the series, let alone read the books, when he brought out the "wracked by guilt over a brief extramarital affair" line, since even the TV series makes it pretty clear that Jon Snow is either the son of Eddard's sister by King Robert or one of the lost children of the Targaryen house



Came to rage about this. Thank you for (presumably) speaking up for us book-readers.
 
2012-05-03 05:37:22 PM  

wingnut396: kyoryu: Digit

Really? She's willing to let the butcher's son die in order to help Joff save face,.....


Yes, she is selfish, but so are mountain lions badgers. But in all those cases and later, even in reading the books, I don't think she contemplates how her actions impact others. I don't see it as if she doesn't care, but more than she doesn't comprehend, like a toddler or an animal. I can't call people that lack capacity for higher reasoning evil.


She is clearly capable of understanding the results of her actions. She just doesn't care.

To my, evil doesn't require that you harm others for the sheer joy of it. It's a total lack of concern for the wellbeing of others. Which she shows.

She's not smart, but she's not an animal either. We have a word for people that have a total inability to empathize with others. That word is "psychopath." Her actions are entirely consistent with certain subtypes of psychopaths.
 
2012-05-03 05:41:10 PM  

wingnut396: What I disgree with is the notion that evil cannot have a code of ethics or some unwritten lawful code.


Unwritten, sure. "The Lottery", anyone? Tradition is a form of unwritten law, and it can be just as evil as anything on paper. Racism, social castes, etc. are all manifestations of unwritten LE "law". We agree it doesn't need to be physical legislation. I mainly disagree that LE people can be guided by any sort of personal code, which is typically motivated by factors like integrity that don't mesh very well with evil. Otherwise we need to consider whether we're being objective or subjective. A LE person can SAY they have a code, but in my experience such "codes" are thoroughly compromised with hypocrisy, denial and cognitive dissonance. From an outside observer their actions are as inconsistent as any asshole. Any LE person who says they have a code is likely to be lying (doesn't really have one they care about) -- or insane (the belief in a code is maintained only by pathological denial). Now, you can (and seem to have) made the case that there could be abstract forms of codes that defy conventional human reason, but from a human context I don't see how that's any different from what we'd call insanity. For starters, if someone LE wants to exploit a written law for personal gain but it would conflict with their "code", what happens? This isn't the sort of issue any EVIL person typically struggles with -- their behavior typically isn't morally or ethically constrained. When they do, they often arbitrarily decide they're an exception, like a staunch "pro-life" Republican getting a [legal] abortion by telling herself, "My case is different; I'm not like one of those whores." (Ignore the political and moral arguments here -- focus on the hypocrisy.) Again, either the code is bullshiat or she's batshiat crazy.
 
2012-05-03 05:41:27 PM  

kyoryu: mongbiohazard:
You're confusing Lawful Good with Lawful Nice. Paladins are lawful good and they can be some serious a-holes. Nothing like strict rigidity to some god's moral code to excuse the trampling of rights or even lives.

That's a poor player of a paladin, IMHO, and should probably suffer alignment drift to LN with all of the appropriate consequences.



If you like D&D you'll probably like the long-running web comic Order of the Stick. Soon's Paladins in that strip are a great example. Miko Miyazaki was a paladin from that strip which exemplified this aspect of Lawful Good characters when she was introduced. She is Lawful Good.... So to her a strict adherence to the law in the lawful IS good. This can mean that she can be rigid, difficult and a straight up biatch - as can all paladins. That rigid adherence to the law can even obligate her to attack or kill people that others with more flexible world views would leave in peace. They believe their laws themselves are what separates good from evil. That means that they're not always the nicest people to deal with even if they are intending to do good by following the law to its strict letter.

Again, don't confuse lawful good with lawful nice.
 
2012-05-03 05:43:49 PM  

kyoryu: She is clearly capable of understanding the results of her actions. She just doesn't care.

To my, evil doesn't require that you harm others for the sheer joy of it. It's a total lack of concern for the wellbeing of others. Which she shows.

She's not smart, but she's not an animal either. We have a word for people that have a total inability to empathize with others. That word is "psychopath." Her actions are entirely consistent with certain subtypes of psychopaths.


I guess we will have to disagree on that.

....MINOR BOOK SPOILERS.....

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?
 
2012-05-03 05:45:14 PM  

jeanwearinfool: I find it hard to the "regarding lawfulness" label hard to someone who is king, whereas they are the one that make the laws. Wouldn't all kings be considered "lawful", regardless of the good-----evil scale of their edicts?


In truth, being "lawful" in D&D is not about whether or not they follow specific laws. A "lawful" person is someone who prizes order and discipline, is loathe to go back on his word, and either shows uncanny loyalty, or expects unwavering loyalty from others.

But even a lawful person has limits, if it runs counter to their good/evil nature. A lawful person WILL break a law from time to time, or renege on a deal, if they feel they must, or if they feel betrayed. It doesn't make them any less lawful, if simply means they are not *purely* lawful.

/Grey areas, my campaign has em
 
2012-05-03 05:47:18 PM  

mongbiohazard: If you like D&D you'll probably like the long-running web comic Order of the Stick.


I always base my characters on Elan.

//not always
///but have, and its fun.
 
2012-05-03 05:49:14 PM  

mongbiohazard: kyoryu: mongbiohazard:
You're confusing Lawful Good with Lawful Nice. Paladins are lawful good and they can be some serious a-holes. Nothing like strict rigidity to some god's moral code to excuse the trampling of rights or even lives.

That's a poor player of a paladin, IMHO, and should probably suffer alignment drift to LN with all of the appropriate consequences.


If you like D&D you'll probably like the long-running web comic Order of the Stick. Soon's Paladins in that strip are a great example. Miko Miyazaki was a paladin from that strip which exemplified this aspect of Lawful Good characters when she was introduced. She is Lawful Good.... So to her a strict adherence to the law in the lawful IS good. This can mean that she can be rigid, difficult and a straight up biatch - as can all paladins. That rigid adherence to the law can even obligate her to attack or kill people that others with more flexible world views would leave in peace. They believe their laws themselves are what separates good from evil. That means that they're not always the nicest people to deal with even if they are intending to do good by following the law to its strict letter.

Again, don't confuse lawful good with lawful nice.


And Miko *lost her alignment and paladinhood* due to her overly strict adherence to the code while ignoring "doing Good" - resulting in her death.

Other paladins from the same order are shown to be extremely different in behavior, not nearly as anal-retentive in the "Lawful" aspect - and somehow manage to not lose their alignment - even though they do not necessarily adhere to the "Law" of their code quite as strictly (for instance, the paladin that befriends the MitD - who we are pretty sure is some type of evil critter).

Meanwhile, Roy, while clearly not in the "stick up the butt" version of LG, makes it into LG heaven even though he, on occasion, uses questionable tactics and hangs out with some pretty flat-out evil people.

Being a paladin is about being Lawful Good, not Super-Duper-Lawful-Always-Follows-The-Code-Even-If-It-Hurts-Others. Good *helps others*. It does not hurt others out of sheer uncaring. The hard part of Lawful Good is balancing those two aspects.

OotS actually reinforces my point.
 
2012-05-03 05:57:52 PM  

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. (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.
 
2012-05-03 06:00:48 PM  

kyoryu: And Miko *lost her alignment and paladinhood* due to her overly strict adherence to the code while ignoring "doing Good" - resulting in her death.

Other paladins from the same order are shown to be extremely different in behavior, not nearly as anal-retentive in the "Lawful" aspect - and somehow manage to not lose their alignment - even though they do not necessarily adhere to the "Law" of their code quite as strictly (for instance, the paladin that befriends the MitD - who we are pretty sure is some type of evil critter).

Meanwhile, Roy, while clearly not in the "stick up the butt" version of LG, makes it into LG heaven even though he, on occasion, uses questionable tactics and hangs out with some pretty flat-out evil people.

Being a paladin is about being Lawful Good, not Super-Duper-Lawful-Always-Follows-The-Code-Even-If-It-Hurts-Others. Good *helps others*. It does not hurt others out of sheer uncaring. The hard part of Lawful Good is balancing those two aspects.

OotS actually reinforces my point.



On Miko.... Absolutely not. That's not why she is a fallen paladin. She's a fallen paladin because she stopped following the law and started jumping to conclusions, which led her astray so far that she cut down her own leader based on shiatty logic and no evidence. Were she to have followed the law she would have arrested him or at least actually required actual evidence before murdering the old man. But for most of the series until then she was certainly lawful good and her strict insistence on following the letter of the law made her a real biatch. The other paladins of Soon's order are also seen as difficult to deal with as well, though to varying degrees...

As far as Roy... Yes. Hence the varying degrees. There is some wiggle room within lawful good. Not every character HAS to be a massive stick in the mud whose rigid adherence to the law is always causing problems. It's not like a binary on/off switch... there are various degrees, within which is where the different characters - and most people - live. Just as there is some wiggle room within ALL alignments. Alignments are just a general frame of reference, but characters themselves and their motivations can be more complex than that, and may have actions which may occasionally skirt another alignment here and there. That's just "life".

It still doesn't mean that a Lawful Good character always has to be "nice".
 
2012-05-03 06:12:44 PM  

mongbiohazard: As far as Roy... Yes. Hence the varying degrees. There is some wiggle room within lawful good. Not every character HAS to be a massive stick in the mud whose rigid adherence to the law is always causing problems. It's not like a binary on/off switch... there are various degrees, within which is where the different characters - and most people - live. Just as there is some wiggle room within ALL alignments. Alignments are just a general frame of reference, but characters themselves and their motivations can be more complex than that, and may have actions which may occasionally skirt another alignment here and there. That's just "life".

It still doesn't mean that a Lawful Good character always has to be "nice".


So, in your opinion, a strictly LG character would choose to sacrifice a nation than his own morals?

Stark chose to follow his own moral code over the laws of the land, the benefit of the people, and the death bed wishes of his friend.

On one side of the equation he held Civil War and on the other he held Pulling the Sitck Out of His Ass and decided that it just wasn't worth it to prevent another war.
 
2012-05-03 06:13:36 PM  
See also the cataclysm in Dragonlance Chronicles, where Lawful Righteous gets out of hand.
 
2012-05-03 06:13:47 PM  

kyoryu: Meanwhile, Roy, while clearly not in the "stick up the butt" version of LG, makes it into LG heaven even though he, on occasion, uses questionable tactics and hangs out with some pretty flat-out evil people


I dunno,

I've never seen a detect evil spell actually land on Belkar, and as for V, we are not sure of the elf's gender much less alignement. As for Hailey, I can't seem to find my books (or wallet now that I look) to determine.

Moderately or occasionally evil maybe, but I would hesitate on flat out.
 
2012-05-03 06:15:51 PM  

kronicfeld: Stark never questions King Baratheon whether it be a request to kill his daughter's pet wolf

Mega fail, particularly the example cited. Robert appeased Cersei by ordering Lady killed, which Ned argued with, and Ned ultimately volunteered to do the deed rather than leave it to the headsman.

Other examples? Ned challenging Robert's order to have the Targaryens executed. And then there's the little matter of Jon Snow, if the theories hold up.


Poor word choice, but still I think the alignment fits. Regarding Lady, he killed the wolf even though he disagreed with it because the king ordered it. Regarding the Targaryens he went against the king because he saw assassinating them as murder; something that not only violated his moral code but also the proper, legal course of justice. Both instances are in keeping with Lawful Good behavior, I think.

Regarding Jon Snow, if the theories about him being Ned's nephew are true, then he never really did anything unlawful regarding his upbringing. If Jon is in fact Ned's bastard, he again did nothing strictly unlawful or non-good given that illegitimacy isn't really a concept in the North and that he barely even knew Catelyn at the time.
 
2012-05-03 06:22:04 PM  

Solon Isonomia: Either the author doesn't understand the alignments, didn't real the books too closely, or both. Littlefinger would be Chaotic Neutral/Evil - nothing is sacred, survive and prosper by any means. Especially by creating chaos and profiting by it.

Now Stannis, he gets his own alignment: Lawful. No good, no evil, no morality, just plain Lawful. Hell, he'd probably berate the Inevitables for not following some obscure rule...


Littlefinger uses the law to futher his own purposes. He is meticulous to abide by the law in his public actions. That's the very definition of a Lawful Evil individual. I could see Neutral Evil perhaps, but Chaotic Evil doesn't fit his personality at all. Someone like The Mountain and his crew or maybe Khal Drogo, as a more sympathetic version of the concept, would be closer to Chaotic Evil.

As to Stannis, he could fit either Lawful Neutral or a particularly strict interpretation of Lawful Good. He sums up his view of the world perfectly "Good deeds don't wash out bad ones, nor bad the good." He is meticulously just, in the true sense of that word, to everyone he meets regardless of relationship, history, or sentiment.
 
2012-05-03 06:25:47 PM  

wingnut396: kyoryu: Meanwhile, Roy, while clearly not in the "stick up the butt" version of LG, makes it into LG heaven even though he, on occasion, uses questionable tactics and hangs out with some pretty flat-out evil people

I dunno,

I've never seen a detect evil spell actually land on Belkar, and as for V, we are not sure of the elf's gender much less alignement. As for Hailey, I can't seem to find my books (or wallet now that I look) to determine.

Moderately or occasionally evil maybe, but I would hesitate on flat out.


Belkar is EVIL!!! The angel in charge to assigning Roy to heaven says this with no room for debate. V is questionable, after all that has happened to him/her.

/GoT and OoTS in the same thread makes me a happy nerd.
//Gonna be real sad with Belkar dies
///Go Shoeless God of War
 
2012-05-03 06:27:59 PM  

wingnut396:
I've never seen a detect evil spell actually land on Belkar, and as for V, we are not sure of the elf's gender much less alignement. As for Hailey, I can't seem to find my books (or wallet now that I look) to determine.

Moderately or occasionally evil maybe, but I would hesitate on flat out.


I was speaking of Belkar - and the author of the comic has stated that he is flat-out evil. Haley is usually described as mostly Chaotic-Neutral (or as she puts it - "Chaotic Good - ish"). V is certianly up for debate.

mongbiohazard: It still doesn't mean that a Lawful Good character always has to be "nice".


Nope. They can be jerks all day long. They do have to be *Good* though. Being a jerk != being evil. Stomping on the rights of others and killing them, however, does == being evil.

"Jerk" LG characters can be fun to play. Especially if you don't use the common "stick up butt" LG trope. The "embittered, cynical do-gooder" is much more fun.

Heron: Poor word choice, but still I think the alignment fits. Regarding Lady, he killed the wolf even though he disagreed with it because the king ordered it.


Which was partly based on the false testimony of two people that the direwolves (Nymeria, specifically) were dangerous. The whole "let's kill Lady instead" never made sense to me from a plot perspective. It was pretty clearly a thematic decision, to show Sansa losing her "Stark-ness" through her actions that day.
 
2012-05-03 06:29:49 PM  

Doogles4221: wingnut396: kyoryu: Meanwhile, Roy, while clearly not in the "stick up the butt" version of LG, makes it into LG heaven even though he, on occasion, uses questionable tactics and hangs out with some pretty flat-out evil people

I dunno,

I've never seen a detect evil spell actually land on Belkar, and as for V, we are not sure of the elf's gender much less alignement. As for Hailey, I can't seem to find my books (or wallet now that I look) to determine.

Moderately or occasionally evil maybe, but I would hesitate on flat out.

Belkar is EVIL!!! The angel in charge to assigning Roy to heaven says this with no room for debate. V is questionable, after all that has happened to him/her.

/GoT and OoTS in the same thread makes me a happy nerd.
//Gonna be real sad with Belkar dies
///Go Shoeless God of War


And I found the thread on Belkar being Evil.

Word of God, as it were.
 
2012-05-03 06:32:16 PM  

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 Targaryen's 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.
 
2012-05-03 06:32:47 PM  

Warrener: So, in your opinion, a strictly LG character would choose to sacrifice a nation than his own morals?

Stark chose to follow his own moral code over the laws of the land, the benefit of the people, and the death bed wishes of his friend.

On one side of the equation he held Civil War and on the other he held Pulling the Sitck Out of His Ass and decided that it just wasn't worth it to prevent another war.



As for your first question..... some would, some wouldn't. it depends on the character and how extreme they are in their lawful devotion. But it certainly is not unthinkable that an extreme lawful good character could do such a thing. it all depends on the character... for other LG characters such a thing would be unthinkable. Remember that the alignment designations are just a general framework for the character and their motivations... it is not in and of itself the be all and end all of a characters' motivation.

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. Also a lawful good character can possibly rationalize a decision like that away as the consequences being "the will of the gods" and out of their hands... they just believe their duty is to do what is "right" and adhere to laws or their gods rules or something and what actually results is not necessary within their control or even the most important part of the decision. As noted not ALL lawful good characters may take things to such an extreme, but some certainly can.
 
2012-05-03 06:34:44 PM  

kyoryu: I was speaking of Belkar - and the author of the comic has stated that he is flat-out evil.


Doogles4221: Belkar is EVIL!!! The angel in charge to assigning Roy to heaven says this with no room for debate


Oh, there you guys go with these citiations of irrefutable sources. Can't we just accept he was born a short and talented killing machine without stooping to calling names?
 
2012-05-03 06:39:45 PM  

kyoryu: Heron: Poor word choice, but still I think the alignment fits. Regarding Lady, he killed the wolf even though he disagreed with it because the king ordered it.

Which was partly based on the false testimony of two people that the direwolves (Nymeria, specifically) were dangerous. The whole "let's kill Lady instead" never made sense to me from a plot perspective. It was pretty clearly a thematic decision, to show Sansa losing her "Stark-ness" through her actions that day.



I agree with the injustice (and plotiness) of it, which is why I think Ned was so conflicted about it still at the end of the book. He obviously saw that it was unjust, but once Robert made it a royal command, particularly considering the Lannister's obvious desire for blood, the stakes involved in letting her free grew significantly. Also, given his later thoughts on the matter, there seems to have been a "well, it's just a dog" aspect to his decision that night.
 
2012-05-03 06:43:11 PM  

Warrener: Stark chose to follow his own moral code over the laws of the land, the benefit of the people, and the death bed wishes of his friend.


Denying Joffery's claim was entirely in keeping with the laws of Westeros. That whole plot line was an example of him choosing law over what he would have desired, just as his warning to Cersei was an example of him expressing goodness (allowing her to escape possible execution) while also upholding the law (keeping a product of incest with no claim off the throne).
 
2012-05-03 06:43:39 PM  

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.
 
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 174 of 174 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report