Game of Thrones style Alignment

[YRM]

So I've started off a new campaign, as stated below... and it's homebrew in the Game of Thrones style of writing.

I'm almost not paying attention to alignment at all.

Most every character is capable of generating sympathy for their point of view, or also being brutal in pursuit of their own goals.

"Monsters" can still be random but in many cases, tribes of creatures can be hired out by one house or the other to move against a rival.

The players have already been twisted into a few plots and witnessed something that might or might not have been an assassination.

(random troll encounter resulted in the trolls eating a lord while the PCs ran for their lives... but was it just a random encounter... it's a lot harder to raise dead if there's no corpse)

So far, it's going well... the PCs aren't really a group of heroes at all, but rather a group of characters who've banded together for a king's contest, and got roped into a bigger plot.

They could find themselves later supporting any of the four houses I'm running as the potential sides in a future conflict, and no house is pure good or pure evil.

There's the potential for PCs to die... and a lot of freedom in that, I don't have a winner in this race. I don't care what happens or who wins.

There'll be enough hooks to keep things moving.

Surprisingly, this is the first time that I've tried running anything like this in 18years... where, every motivation is gray scale and there's this much high level intrigue.

Typically I've had a clear cut enemy target behind everything, driving the plot, even if the PCs didn't realize it at first.

[spectrevk]

I've been a fan of Game of Thrones for years, but I've never understood why people consider the characters to be morally equivalent to one another. The characters have depth, and events cause them to change over time, but that's still well within a standard alignment system, IMO.

Ned Stark is, was, and always will be a "good" person in comparison to, say, Cersei Lannister, or even King Robert. Robert was, at best, Chaotic Neutral, or in more common parlance, "a selfish jerk".

[YRM]

Yeah, you're right.

And you could say Tyrion Lannister is sort of Chaotic Good while Littlefinger is more leaning towards Chaotic Evil.

But if you read this newspaper article:

A member of the king's court had another member of the king's court thrown into the black cells for betraying confidences and loyalties. That same member of the king's court took steps to protect Sansa Stark, betrothed of Joffrey. This member of the court is well known for their intelligence, diplomacy, and craftiness, though not respected universally. Physically weak, tormented by nobility where they grew up, they've risen to power through taking advantage of circumstance and a strong sense of using their wealth to get ahead.

Is that Littlefinger helping to have Ned Stark thrown into the cells?

Or is that Tyrion having Pycell thrown into the cells?

[spectrevk]

I like Tyrion as much as the next person, but I think his "goodness" is somewhat exaggerated by many, especially if we're talking about his behavior early on. He's sympathetic because his sister/father treat him so badly (and are much worse than he ever was), but he's still a Lannister.

Actions themselves are not necessarily good or evil; motivation plays a part as well. Littlefinger betrayed Ned Stark for a number of reasons, all of them selfish. Much of what Tyrion does during his time as the Hand is geared towards mitigating the damage that his nephew and sister are doing to the kingdom as a whole. Until he is forced to flee, Tyrion's politicking is mostly about preserving what passes for order and civilization in Westeros, because he knows that his sister and nephew are f+*&ing bonkers, and his father/brother are too disinterested to notice. Most of Tyrion's "chaotic" actions relate to his entertainment during his off-time, but it is worth noting that when Alayaya is tortured to "punish" him, he goes out of his way to make sure that she is compensated, an act which is, in my opinion, quite Lawful. Depending on how charitably you view his actions (one could argue that he fought in defense of an evil regime when he defended King's Landing; one could also argue that he defended innocent people from what surely would have been a massacre by the enemy troops), he could be considered Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral, IMO.

Ned Stark is probably the best high-profile example of Lawful Good that I've seen in years. Of particular note is his insistence on performing his own executions, rather than passing the responsibility to an underling.

Arya is kind of a puzzle, but she's also a small child, and likely does not have a fully-formed alignment yet. Her vindictiveness does not preclude her from being considered Chaotic Good, IMO, as the targets of her ire are all firmly in the "evil" category.

Sansa has been "redeemed" to some extent by the TV series, which portrays her in a much more sympathetic light. Her actions in the first book are still incredibly selfish/cowardly, and she betrays her own family on multiple occasions, which would push me towards labeling her Neural Evil if she were not also a child.

Joffrey is textbook Chaotic Evil.

Cersei is Neutral Evil for much of the series, until the pressures of rule/paranoia push her into Chaotic territory. Her twin, Jaime, likewise starts out NE and though I still haven't forgiven him to the extent most fans have, I will grant that by the time he grants Oathkeeper to Brienne, he is at least Neutral.

Despite his reneging on the marriage contract, Robb is still LG, IMO. The contract was made under duress, and everything he did was in service to his quest to avenge his father. Jon Snow's decision to remain on the Wall and do his duty is likewise evidence of him inheriting his father's alignment (though between you and me, I suspect Ned never really fathered a bastard, and Jon is really his nephew via Lyanna)

I could go on, but you get the idea. There are all, of course, merely opinion. I think Westeros is mostly unique for the large number of Neutral- and Evil-aligned leadership.

[redcelt32]

I don't think assigning traditional alignments to characters works well. It is more about committment, merciful, naive, and predictability than good, neutral, and evil.

If you have read the books, you know that the only characters that survive so far, are those that play both sides of the fence, are cunning, ruthless, and opportunistic. The farther from this "ideal" model you are, the more likely you are to die. Those that have committments and ideals they have to stand for are manipulated by those limitations to their downfall. Those that are naive, trusting, and merciful, are betrayed by those limitations to their downfall.

So good, neutral, and evil could be assigned, but the characters are not defined in these terms by the author. That is why there are few completely "good guys" and completely "bad guys" and those that exist die off fairly quickly.

It is almost like those that exemplify the best traits of a good ruler machiavellian style do the best. Which means many times Tyrion is not being good so much as he is not wasting a resource or unnecessarily making an enemy. Thats a very different thing than being motivated by high morality.

[beej67]

From what I've seen, the two alignments in Game of Thrones are:

Selfish (Lanister)

and

Stupid (Stark)

[spectrevk]

beej67 wrote:

From what I've seen, the two alignments in Game of Thrones are:

Selfish (Lanister)

and

Stupid (Stark)

Are you a TV series person, or a book person? Ned is more naive than stupid, but Catelyn, Robb, and Sansa all make some incredibly dumb decisions. Arya is one of the "smartest" characters in the series (especially considering her age) and Jon Snow is one of the few "men of arms" in the series with a working brain (Stannis, Robb, Robert, etc. all seem to let themselves be led by advisors and seductresses). Bran hasn't really gotten to make many decisions yet, but he's also reasonably clever.

You also forgot the Martell alignment of "frothing rage" (e.g. Oberyn and the Sand Snakes)

[spectrevk]

redcelt32 wrote:

I don't think assigning traditional alignments to characters works well. It is more about committment, merciful, naive, and predictability than good, neutral, and evil.

If you have read the books, you know that the only characters that survive so far, are those that play both sides of the fence, are cunning, ruthless, and opportunistic. The farther from this "ideal" model you are, the more likely you are to die. Those that have committments and ideals they have to stand for are manipulated by those limitations to their downfall. Those that are naive, trusting, and merciful, are betrayed by those limitations to their downfall.

So good, neutral, and evil could be assigned, but the characters are not defined in these terms by the author. That is why there are few completely "good guys" and completely "bad guys" and those that exist die off fairly quickly.

It is almost like those that exemplify the best traits of a good ruler machiavellian style do the best. Which means many times Tyrion is not being good so much as he is not wasting a resource or unnecessarily making an enemy. Thats a very different thing than being motivated by high morality.

Danerys, Arya Stark, and Jon Snow all strike me as living characters who, while extremely determined and clever, never really cross the line outside of "good" territory. Lawful Good Paladins put entire villages of Chaotic Evil humanoids to the sword, so I don't think anything Dany has done pushes her out of Neutral Good territory.

Certainly, good characters die in the series, but they still exist (as do flat-out evil characters). And just because you understand *why* Cersei is...well, the way she is, doesn't absolve her of guilt for her actions. Robert was a terrible husband, but he's not responsible for her being a sociopath.

[Doug's Workshop]

This is where the d20 Modern alignment system shines, as it tends to reflect how one chooses to make moral choices.

Sure, Ned may be strongly aligned to "House Stark" but that falls behind "comrade-in-arms," thus his unhappy decision to join Robert at King's Landing, despite distaste of politics.

Similarly, Cersei is aligned to "House Lannister," and thus sees no problem in doing stuff to others who stand in the way of House Lannister gaining power. In her mind, what's good for Lannisters is what's good for the country.

Note that I chose two characters at random, and won't debate whether or not these are accurate; I'm just showing how a different alignment system can be used to good effect, especially to help a GM understand how an NPC would act in a given situation.

[spectrevk]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

This is where the d20 Modern alignment system shines, as it tends to reflect how one chooses to make moral choices.

Sure, Ned may be strongly aligned to "House Stark" but that falls behind "comrade-in-arms," thus his unhappy decision to join Robert at King's Landing, despite distaste of politics.

The decision to lend aid to an old friend despite that aid requiring you to do something you don't enjoy is easily within the purview of Lawful Good, also.

Quote:

Similarly, Cersei is aligned to "House Lannister," and thus sees no problem in doing stuff to others who stand in the way of House Lannister gaining power. In her mind, what's good for Lannisters is what's good for the country.

Cersei couldn't care less about the good of the country, and even her own family comes second to herself and her child (and honestly, I think her care for Joffrey was really just about her getting to act as regent while he was in power. She's just a wet bag of ambition and cruelty.

I did enjoy the D20M "allegiance" system though, and it made a lot of sense of a more modern sense of moral ambiguity.

[ikki3520]

Daenerys Targaryen is a bit of a enigma as far as alignments come. LN mayhap?

[Liz Courts]

Moved thread.

[spectrevk]

ikki3520 wrote:

Daenerys Targaryen is a bit of a enigma as far as alignments come. LN mayhap?

She has a great deal of compassion for oppressed people, and has only shown real malice towards people who either victimized her, or someone else who was weaker than they were. She is willing to break her word to an evil person, and has brought down a tyrannical city-state, but is also working to build an army to reclaim her kingdom. I would say she's Neutral Good.

Jaqen H'gar, who has no particular fondness for human life/dignity but is not cruel, and is bound by his word even if it would cost him his own life is a good example of Lawful Neutral (albeit somewhat extreme on the Lawful end).

[YRM]

You can definitely put alignments on the characters in the show but, it just plays out a lot more gray-scale than most D&D campaigns or books.

Burlew pokes at this with Order of the Stick with how PCs or Paladins have been known to kill things that are colored evil or fail a Detect Evil spell.

Even when I've played PCs with some reasonable depth, there've been situations where we kicked in the door and started the fight so that the enemies wouldn't get their typical jump on us.

If we go in and start trying to figure out if we should talk to them or kill them, a lot of times it just gives away a surprise round or grants one in a tough fight.

But in the Game of Thrones world... you can be a reasonable, relatively good natured, family man (Kevan Lannister), and live a pretty good life in peacetime under the rule of Tywin, who is fairly brutal. Lawful Evil if you consider his orders to Gregor Clegaine on various points.

Living under Casterly Rock likely isn't bad unless you think you can disrespect Tywin and get away with it. Tywin didn't commit genocides or torture people for fun or whatnot... he's just completely brutal.

Whereas... living under, say, a brutal historical dictator on earth tends to be a lot less viable.

I'm not arguing against Alignment.

I'm suggesting that Alignment matters a lot less in GoT.

The "good" characters have done some questionable things. The "bad" characters tend to be multi-faceted.

They even take pains to provide some insight as to why Joffrey is such an evil prick.

He's been neglected by his father and spoiled horribly by his mother for his whole life, and, he's the product of incest, likely a little nuts. He's definitely a sociopath/psychopath where he lacks any empathy for other human beings.

But he's even been taught that anyone who isn't a Lannister is an enemy.

Empathy is at least partially a learned skill. Emotional maturity is learned.

He's one of the few characters in the show that is solidly in the "evil" camp, and the only character on the show besides his mother to seem to like him at all is Pycelle. (who is senile)

But even in those cases, the villian isn't totally one dimensional.

[DarkLightHitomi]

spectrevk wrote:

... somewhat extreme on the Lawful end).

Lawful is the extreme, if you don't go extreme towards one end of an axis then you are neutral on that axis.

[rainzax]

lawful could be an orderly vertical hierarchy of allegiances.

chaotic could be a shifting horizontal pool of allegiances.

good could be a position of "self" within the hierarchy/pool.

evil could be a position of "self" above the hierarchy/pool.