As a friend of mine and I were watching a recent episode of Game of Thrones, we got into a discussion on for all of the praise GoT gets, for as dark and gritty as it is, almost all of its characters fall squarely into one of the nine alignments.
Lets take a look on where several characters fall on the mythical alignment chart shall we.
Ned Stark - LG
Tywin Lannister - LE
Daenerys Targaryen - CG
Robert Baratheon - CN
Cercei Lannister - NE
Jon Snow - NG
Joffrey - CE
Littlefinger - NE
Arya Stark - N
The Hound - CN
The Mountain - CE
Stannis Baratheon - LN
Davos Seaworth - NG
Khal Drogo - CN
Lord Bolton - LE
Ramsey Snow - CE
Walder Frey - NE
Brienne - LG
Those are all pretty straightforward, some of the character are less so however
Tyrion Lannister - Tyrion is either NG or N with good tendencies, really I would say that tv show Tyrion is the former whilst book Tyrion is the latter, although either way he teeters on the line between these two.
Varys - Varys is an interesting one, he keeps you guessing for a long time, but knowing what I know from the books about his motives (which I wont spoil here), I would say overall he is N with good tendencies.
Jamie F'in Lannister - This is the hardest one of all, here is a man who slays his king, screws his own sister, and the first thing you really see him do in the series is push an innocent little boy off a tower. He is snarky and kind of an ass. Then he has something of a redemption path where he saves Brienne from several horrors, sends her off to find and protect Sansa, and the way he handles the siege of Riverrun (and the other small keep that I cant remember right now) all point to someone who is not a bad person. Jamie is by far the most complex character in the series, I think he is either N or CN.
Thoughts?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hodor...
...is NG, he's a big giant with an even bigger heart. ;)
HODOR SMASH!! HODOR SMASH CHAINS AND NECKS!!!
Seriously though, If ten people picked alignments for the same list of characters, you'd get ten completely different lists. This is because... anyone?.. There are so many ways to play one alignment, and we see what we want to see.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd argue Daenerys as Neutral Good (doesn't seem to care about her own personal freedom all that much, focused too much on responsibility), and might be inclined to argue a Chaotic Alignment for Tyrion (or argue more strongly that he's Good)...but other than that, those look spot on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Khal Drogo gets to be CE in my opinion based on his history of rape/murder/pillage. Sure, he wouldn't see himself as evil, but then that's true of a majority of the evil characters on this list.
Now, how about a tough one: Jorah Mormont. CN or N for not caring about morality much, or some shade of E for his history of slaving and betrayal? Or is he just weak and easily led?
Interesting that some of you find Tyrion chaotic, personally I just don't see it, he seems almost the epitome of neutrality (on the law-chaos axis) to me, where he examines just about everything from a logical standpoint, then applying his own personal morality to it.
Jamie was definitely never lawful, especially not LN. If he was LN he never would have killed Aerys. He took an oath to protect the king, and never have any children, among other things. Though he probably is working towards NG nowadays.
|
|
Khal Drogo gets to be CE in my opinion based on his history of rape/murder/pillage. Sure, he wouldn't see himself as evil, but then that's true of a majority of the evil characters on this list.
Are all Barbarian raiders thus Evil? I'd tend to argue not. They certainly perform Evil acts when raiding, but are often very nice to their own people and those their people are friendlywith, averaging out as some kind of Neutral. A disinclination to care about strangers is a very possible Neutral attitude after all (though, in fairness, sometimes an Evil one as well).
The Dothraki in particular are a bit more vicious about it than many barbaric tribes in the real world (especially among themselves...not a lot of loyalty there once their leader dies), and might easily be argued as an Evil culture...but Khal Drogo doesn't seem to personally indulge in such things and even supports his wife in stopping them when it comes to it (basically to indulge her whims, but still)...that seems to argue that his marriage was at least pulling his alignment away from Evil.
So either the slightly lighter side of CE or the darker end of CN. Either seems possible.
Now, how about a tough one: Jorah Mormont. CN or N for not caring about morality much, or some shade of E for his history of slaving and betrayal? Or is he just weak and easily led?
Neutral. He wasn't exactly a traitor, more of a spy. There's a distinct difference between going to someone and ingratiating yourself in order to spy on them and betraying them after joining them legitimately...indeed, his only real act of treachery is saving Daenerys's life, and that's hard to ague as Evil.
And selling poachers was a kinder fate than killing them in some ways (which he would've had the right to do). It was probably an Evil act anyway, and certainly a Chaotic one...but not enough to make him Evil in and of itself (especially given his clear regret for it on a moral as well as practical level).
Mhmmmm... I think ASoIaF tends to make a good case for characters whose alignment is tweaked over time to match their evolving personalities. I'd say the underlying LNC axis tends to remain while the GNE is the one that wavers a bit. Then it all gets even more complicated when you realize half the characters have been hiding their true motivations and pretending to be someone they're not, and you have to throw your assessment away and start all over again :)
|
|
Interesting that some of you find Tyrion chaotic, personally I just don't see it, he seems almost the epitome of neutrality (on the law-chaos axis) to me, where he examines just about everything from a logical standpoint, then applying his own personal morality to it.
That could equally be a good description of Chaos, when you think on it. And then there's his personal lifestyle, which is pretty freewheeling...and might be shading our reactions to him.
Jamie was definitely never lawful, especially not LN. If he was LN he never would have killed Aerys. He took an oath to protect the king, and never have any children, among other things. Though he probably is working towards NG nowadays.
Agreed, more or less.
Man, figuring out Littlefinger on the Chaos-Law spectrum is impossible. He uses chaos to create control. And neutral doesn't quite express that.
Littlefinger is pure self-interest and ambition personified. He doesn't care about either chaos or control in and of itself, just gaining power for himself. That's textbook NE.
I think Joffrey's NE for similar reasons, he was chaotic, but believed strongly in his authority and the law behind it.
No, he didn't. He believed in his own right to rule. His own godhood, basically....not unlike pop-culture portrayals of Caligula in many ways. Just because someone relies on the law doesn't make them Lawful. Joffrey's CE all the way.
I lean towards Lawful Good for Stannis. He'd done bad, but in the GoT context he's largely been fair and good, if a tad harsh, but he comes to the rescue in a number of situations.
I disagree. The fact that the people around him are worse doesn't make his use of black magic to assassinate those who oppose him, willingness to sacrifice children, or over-adherence to the law (cutting Davos's fingers off comes to mind...hasn't he ever heard of a pardon?) all scream LN when combined with the numerous better-uintentioned acts you cite.
Among people who are familiar with GoT, he's actually my go-to example of how LN looks.
Oh yeah and Tywin, but how can you really hate Tywin?
If you've read the books? Easily.
Are all Barbarian raiders thus Evil? I'd tend to argue not. They certainly perform Evil acts when raiding, but are often very nice to their own people and those their people are friendlywith, averaging out as some kind of Neutral. A disinclination to care about strangers is a very possible Neutral attitude after all (though, in fairness, sometimes an Evil one as well).
The Dothraki in particular are a bit more vicious about it than many barbaric tribes in the real world (especially among themselves...not a lot of loyalty there once their leader dies), and might easily be argued as an Evil culture...but Khal Drogo doesn't seem to personally indulge in such things and even supports his wife in stopping them when it comes to it (basically to indulge her whims, but still)...that seems to argue that his marriage was at least pulling his alignment away from Evil.
So either the slightly lighter side of CE or the darker end of CN. Either seems possible.
I'd see the majority of such raiders as Evil in a d&d sense, yes. And let's be clear; Drogo rapes Daenerys in the book at least. She enjoys it eventually and comes to love him, but that more or less proves her a creepy male fantasy ... He's still leading his people when they slaughter the Lamb-men and only spares a couple from the worst of it. CE, surely.
Neutral. He wasn't exactly a traitor, more of a spy. There's a distinct difference between going to someone and ingratiating yourself in order to spy on them and betraying them after joining them legitimately...indeed, his only real act of treachery is saving Daenerys's life, and that's hard to ague as Evil.
And selling poachers was a kinder fate than killing them in some ways (which he would've had the right to do). It was probably an Evil act anyway, and certainly a Chaotic one...but not enough to make him Evil in and of itself (especially given his clear regret for it on a moral as well as practical level).
Maybe I should reread but I thought he'd been sent to spy on Daenerys. Still Neutral does make sense for Jorah.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Re Stannis, he does what the law says no matter who it hurts, even when that's himself or an ally, or the greater good that's hurt. The very definition of LN.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd see the majority of such raiders as Evil in a d&d sense, yes.
I'm not sure I agree in general...though as noted I probably would about the Dothraki.
And let's be clear; Drogo rapes Daenerys in the book at least. She enjoys it eventually and comes to love him, but that more or less proves her a creepy male fantasy ...
First, you're actually thinking of the show. In the book he doesn't do anything to her except undress her and run his hands over her until she asks him to and...uh, demonstrates. It's clearly a seduction, not a rape. Reread it if you don't believe me.
Even in the show (where rape is a more appropriate term) there's a language barrier there, and they just got married, and she doesn't fight back...in combination it's highly debatable if he knowingly raped her.
He's still leading his people when they slaughter the Lamb-men and only spares a couple from the worst of it.
This is indisputably true.
CE, surely.
Eh. Like I said, I can see the argument, not sure I completely agree. He's certainly not a good guy...but Evil may be stretching it a little bit.
Maybe I should reread but I thought he'd been sent to spy on Daenerys. Still Neutral does make sense for Jorah.
He was, which was sorta my point. Switching sides from a CN person who's a bad ruler to a NG one who looks like she's gonna be a great one may technically be treachery...but it's not the kind that makes you Evil.
|
|
Sure you can hate Tywin easily, but I mean how many villains, in any medium, are much better than Tywin. Clearly evil, super compelling.
I find Tywin Lannister utterly contemptible, though competent in his area. But my standards are a bit...off, I admit.
I think the alignment system sucks and ASOIF is great evidence of it. Social context often determines morality. The time you existed in determines what is considered acceptable and less acceptable behavior.
I agree that the Alignment system is overly simplified. I do not agree that morality is purely cultural or subjective. Some things are wrong in an time, in any place, and if the cultural milieu of the time endorses them then it, too, is wrong.
There are many grey areas in a world where if you act like Ned Stark, you end up like Ned Stark.
To be clear: IMO Ned Stark's fatal flaw was naivete, not his morality per se. One could have standards like his and succeed in the same milieu if one were a better judge of character and understood the degree to which others did not share those standards.
Now, seeing the world in black and white is definitely a form of naivete, so I'm not exactly disagreeing, just clarifying. And making it clear that having standards where you consider certain behavior categorically unacceptable isn't necessarily a weakness in and of itself.
Oh and I still disagree on Stannis. I don't think you can apply a conventional standard here. I don't want to get into book specifics, but the truth is he is generally just, a bit power hungry, but the Lawful subsumes what good there is. I just don't think that makes him a neutral. Another issue with alignment generally.
Being willing to cold-bloodedly murder children in the pursuit of your ambitions is not the sign of a Good guy.
|
|
I'd argue that the Tyrells are mostly Good and Neutral of various sorts (I'd argue Loras as Neutral and Margaery as NG...if ambitious, based on the shows more complete portrayals. Lord only knows about the Queen of Thorns).
Beric Dondarrion probably started out LG...but both bits of that seem to be slowly wearing away to some degree (though the Good part certainly isn't gone yet).
Sir Barristan is a paragon of LG as mentioned.
Lysa's probably CN verging on CE as her madness (and Littlefinger) bounce her southwards, alignment-wise.
|
|
@Deadmanwalking
I think we are mostly in agreement save on Stannis. I believe Westeros is a very dangerous world for the powerful (and s@@!ty for the non-powerful). I don't disagree that it was Ned Stark's naivete was his downfall. But I do think it's very difficult to keep to principle and be a leader in a world so filled with betrayal. This is why I kind of admire Stannis. I think in a world of s~*+ty leaders, he's probably the one most likely to care about the world. Also a lot of his actions related to sacrifices and the like were impacted by Milesandre and it is hard to say to what extent he is truly accountable for those choices. Stannis is a tough, mean man. But aside from the obviously good characters, I think he's one of the few people of principle in the Martin universe.
I actually agree with this post almost entirely. I actually really like Stannis, absolutely think he's a man of principle, think he'd make a pretty good king, and understand entirely Davos's loyalty to him.
At the same time...Melisandre isn't in charge, he is, and he doesn't have any true need or obligation to obey her. He goes with her plans because they seem necessary, yes (or at least highly useful)...but that doesn't make them notably less Evil.
I like Stannis...but that doesn't make him Good.
I don't think Tywin Lannister is evil...
I agree on most posts, but I think Jamie Lannister is lawful, with tendencies to good at the end.
I really like GM because in his books no one is an onedimensional character. Each and everyone has flaws, does things that are written very harshly, give us an idea about a person, just to pull out the rug in unexpected moments. Also we encounter people in times of war, wich brings out the best, and the worst out of people!
The major problem is we encounter him first as the kingslayer and later as the man who throws out a boy out of a window to kill him.
Sounds very unlawful and evil. But later on we get the chance to examine him much better. Something not to forget he has a very dominant father.
As a child, he is the only one who looks at the imp and sees him as a human person. He protects him and tries to help him.
Later he joins the Kingsgard, not for personal gain, but to follow true knights who impress him very much.
He follows the Kings commands, even knowing that they are questionable, because he sees other, better man follow him.
In the end he notices that the king wants to commit mass murder and kills the king and the master alchemyst to prevent this gruesome deed, while knowing that everyone will despise him and he breaks his vows.
So far he has done quite a few deeds I would call unlawful and evil.
Now he falls from grace. Everyone despises him calls him the kingslayer.
Still he serves his king, wich he despises and who mocks and slanders him, quite faithfully.
Apart from having an affair with his sister. And fathering three children. Something not unknown as a "royal" habit. Does this make him an chaotic or evil person. My opinion is no. He does it out of love and makes him an interesting character.
Then he tries to commit murder when Bran finds out his secret. Again an act of love, for the one person he cares. Does he like what he does. No!
Does this make him an utterly evil person. My opinion again no.
Now for the rest of the books. He is taken prisoner and tries to escape.
In the movie kills one of his captors. Evil act? Chaotic act?
Now during his time with Brienne he starts as cynic but she does give him something he felt lost. An ideal of chivalry. A beacon.
He remembers his dreams as a boy and returns to the path of chivalry!
He stands up to his sister, his father and tries to bring back the Kingsguard to their former glory in the sense that they shall again be a shining beacon of Knighthood.
|
|
I don't think Tywin Lannister is evil...
He abuses both his sons emotionally extensively and has his daughter effectively raped.
He sends Gregor Clegane, a man of known proclivities, to murder an innocent woman and her two small children. And vast numbers of other people over the course of years, actually.
As a young man, he extinguished an entire family line (women, children, and other assorted innocents included) for rebelling against him. To send a message. The Rains of Castamere, remember?
And that's all just from the TV show. If you get into the stuff he did in the books...it gets a lot uglier real quick.
Tywin Lannister is a monster.
He is an utterly selfish amoral man, and is on one level with the mountain as the most evil person. Just that the mountain seems to have some sort of migraine that bolster his already extensive brutality.
|
Ned Stark - LG
Tywin Lannister - LE
Daenerys Targaryen - CG
Robert Baratheon - CN
Cercei Lannister - NE
Jon Snow - NG
Joffrey - CE
Littlefinger - NE
Arya Stark - N
The Hound - CN
The Mountain - CE
Stannis Baratheon - LN
Davos Seaworth - NG
Khal Drogo - CN
Lord Bolton - LE
Ramsey Snow - CE
Walder Frey - NE
Brienne - LG
umh .. let's see..
Ned Stark - LG
Tywin Lannister - LE
Daenerys Targaryen - CG
Robert Baratheon - CN
Cercei Lannister - NE
Jon Snow - NG
Joffrey - CE
Littlefinger - NE
Arya Stark - CN (Arya feels clearily chaotic to me. fiercely opposed to social conventions and her expected place in the world)
The Hound - CN
The Mountain - CE
Stannis Baratheon - LN
Davos Seaworth - NG
Khal Drogo - CN
Lord Bolton - LE
Ramsey Snow - CE
Walder Frey - NE
Brienne - LG
Tyrion - CG Tyrion too is Chaotic. he's a smart chaotic. But nonetheless he is not a fan of social conventions and fill the role that is expected of you. he does it sometimes because it suits his plans, but is definitely chaotic at heart.
Varys - LN or maybe even LG. he is clearily a different kind of LG than the iconic paladin. But he is still someone who tightly fits into his intended position and follows the "rules". It's just that the intended position he holds is kinda shady.but there is nothing in his mind but the maintenance of peace, order and the greater good.
Jamie Lannister - LG wannabe... I guess he's N as someone that would like to be LG at heart but has been tarnished by some serious chaotic and evil actions. As a matter of fact I think in a real pathfinder game Jamie Lannister alignment fluctuated a lot.
As a young squire of Ser Barristan he was probably LG.
as the secret lover of his sister he probably started to shift towards NG and when his obsession for his sister pushed him to do some serious evil he probably lost the G.
The kingslaying I don't think shifted his alignment.
He was thorn between the loyalty to his king and the loyalty to his family. Also .. the king was burning innocent people alive.
And he seems seriously troubled with being the kingslayer.
A truly chaotic person wouldn't mind that much ... Jaime clearily has some lawful-aligned feelings that gets hurt by that.
At this time of the show I think Jaime is slowly trying to climb teh LG ladder again.
|
The dothraki are basically orcs, they have a culture based on rape and kill and steal whatever you can. Yeah another vote for CE for most of them
Tyrion i call CN because his own freedom and pleasures come first for the most part. he doesn't seem to interested in hurting people nor saving the innocent but law exists to be exploited and twisted for his own aims
And Walder Frey is pure CE.
He breaks the most holy tradition, doesn´t care if his wive is killed, is egocentric to the extreme.
Same for Lord Bolton. I mean sorry someone who loves to flay people as sport... and where is he lawful?
|
|
I'd put Jaime as probably edging towards NG these days. He would have been TN or LN, but he's working to be a better person.No.
I haven't been watching the show, but I have read the books and I argue with my friends about this a lot. Reasons why Jaime Lannister is Chaotic Evil:
Jaime is a white cloak, and part of being a white cloak is protect the king and don't marry/have sex/have children.
So Jaime killed the last Targaryan to sit on the Iron throne, for good reason, but he still did it. (Chaotic action)
Then he has sex(Chaotic)... with his sister(Chaotic Evil?)... who is married to the new king, thereby not protecting the king(Chaotic).He schemes with Cerci to kill Jon Arryn, the Hand before Eddard Stark, who was going to reveal to Robert Baratheon that his kids were not his, thus stopping someone trying to protect the king (Chaotic Evil).
Jaime pushes Bran off the tower when he sees to much(Evil).
Jaime later makes a promise to return Catelyn Stark's daughters to her in return for his freedom, and his follow through is giving some equipment to someone else who is oathbound to find the Stark sisters(Chaotic).
When Jaime takes over the siege of Riverrun he threatens to kill the baby of [Catelyn's brother], I forget his name(Evil).
Now for the arguments toward Lawful Good:
He starts feeling bad about the things he has done(Good).He stops having sex with his sister(Lawful Good?)
He helps Brienne when he could have left her to die(Good).
All told, Jaime Lannister is at best Chaotic Neutral, at worst Chaotic Evil.
I d not agree on some of your reasoning.
First of all, I don't think Kingsguards are celibate at all.They renounce to their titles, and possibly marriage too.
But they do not renounce to have sex.
Killing the mad king, I don't know if is a chaotic action, well .. it is on a vacuum, but obeying your father orders is also a lawful action, especially considered that he was supposed to kill his own father if he had to obey the mad king.
He had two lawful loyalties one opposed to the other. he choose family, and quite frankly, killing his own father to protect a king that was burning innocents alive would have at the very least shifted him towards LE. If not NE considering that his king was clearily crazy and not ruling through reason anymore.
Having sex with your sister is not in any way an evil action. a strongly chaotic one, sure, but not evil.
Pushing kids down a tower to cover up that you have sex with your sister.... that's more like it.
Threatening someone doesn't affect your alignment in any way ... you are judged by your actions not by your words. Otherwise batman would be chaotic evil.
I stand my case that Jaimie is a former LG who shifted towards CE but never completed that shift... and he is slowly trying to return LG someway.
Jamie was neutralish.
He took the job on the kingsguard so he could keep near his sister- So it was all about what he wanted.
He killed the targarian king because said king was ordering his pyromancers to burn the entire city and all of its residents to ash with the dragonfire napalm he had stashed under the city in various places. This is a fairly chaotic act, but would be understandable for anyone up to an including a paladin. It could be anything from Good, to neutral, or even "even evil has standards, and 100,000 innocent people is way over the line even for me". Doing the right thing and getting dumped on for it soured him to the idea of doing the right thing.
Flash forward through a few decades of that scorn, and he casually tosses an 8 year old kid out of a window to kill him and it didn't even bother him. Pretty much dog kicking chaotic evil right there.
Now he is starting to get better, but he's a long, LOOOONG way from it. He saved brienne, and seems to be making plans to honor his oaths and put the country back together again. He kept his word in the siege, and hasn't been killing anyone lately that didn't deserve it, but attempted murder on an 8 year old kid... thats a deep, deep hole to climb out of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Deadmanwalking
I think we are mostly in agreement save on Stannis. I believe Westeros is a very dangerous world for the powerful (and s@@!ty for the non-powerful). I don't disagree that it was Ned Stark's naivete was his downfall. But I do think it's very difficult to keep to principle and be a leader in a world so filled with betrayal. This is why I kind of admire Stannis. I think in a world of s~*+ty leaders, he's probably the one most likely to care about the world. Also a lot of his actions related to sacrifices and the like were impacted by Milesandre and it is hard to say to what extent he is truly accountable for those choices. Stannis is a tough, mean man. But aside from the obviously good characters, I think he's one of the few people of principle in the Martin universe.
I actually agree with this post almost entirely. I actually really like Stannis, absolutely think he's a man of principle, think he'd make a pretty good king, and understand entirely Davos's loyalty to him.
At the same time...Melisandre isn't in charge, he is, and he doesn't have any true need or obligation to obey her. He goes with her plans because they seem necessary, yes (or at least highly useful)...but that doesn't make them notably less Evil.
I like Stannis...but that doesn't make him Good.
Melisandre is definitely in charge. When was the last time he went against her? Freeing Robert's bastard? He comes to regret that in the end. Otherwise he does exactly what she says. Assassinating Renly? Her idea. Black magic against the other kings? Her idea. Adultery with Melisandre? Her idea.
Yes he's nice to his daughter. The scene where he defends her from his insane wife is the only time I ever felt sympathetic to him. But being really nice to your friends and otherwise being an a!+@!!% doesn't make you good.
As for Davos? Chopping off his hand is a perfectly demonstration of why he is not a good person. Stannis would argue that the law says that the price of smuggling is to have your fingers chopped off. What he is conveniently forgetting is the fact the the SoI&F universe is not a republican system where no man is above the law. It is an authoritarian system where people can be above it. As the feudal lord of the area (Storm's End which he was given control of while Robert was fighting), he could definitely pardoned him. Even if he somehow couldn't, he definitely could have just jailed him until he convinced Robert to pardon him. But he doesn't. Instead, he maims the man directly responsible for saving his life and the lives of all his men.
In fact, he may not even really be all that Lawful. Davos' punishment isn't the only example. He took a vow to be faithful to his wife. Another woman promises him power in exchange for sex? He does it. Same woman demands he burn the idols of the government sponsored religion of his country and outlaw its practice? He does it. Murder of his brother with black magic gives him a tactical advantage? He's totally fine with it. (BTW killing on the battlefield and sending a black magic monster to murder someone in the middle of the night are two vastly different things.)
Bottom line is that Stannis is power-hungry hypocrite who will abandon his "principles" for power.
He is also weak and easily-controlled. He would not make a good king because he has yet to really lead anyone in the story. Every time he has successfully lead anyone has been offscreen/page. For all we know, more competent subordinates were responsible for his victories.
He is responsible for allowing the evil things Melisandre does. Inaction is not an appropriate reaction to evil.
As for caring about the world? Maybe. He is the only one to take the Night's Watch seriously. Though I take that as a sign of everyone else being morons more than him be extraordinarily concerned with the world of the world. He stands to lose just as much from the Whitewalkers killing everyone as anyone else does. Not to mention, the credibility and gratitude he stands to gain from being the one to stop them is probably his best shot at achieving his goal of the iron throne.
LN? maybe. TN? I could buy it. Le or NE? My preferred range. LG? Not even by ASoI&F standards.
|
|
Melisandre is definitely in charge. When was the last time he went against her? Freeing Robert's bastard? He comes to regret that in the end. Otherwise he does exactly what she says. Assassinating Renly? Her idea. Black magic against the other kings? Her idea. Adultery with Melisandre? Her idea.
Oh, absolutely (and I'd say Melisandre is NE)...but she can't do them unless he agrees, and he doesn't agree because she makes him, but because she convinces him. She's not bad at manipulating him...but then she's a very skilled manipulator, and in the end the decision is his. He can, and does upon occasion, say 'No' to her.
Yes he's nice to his daughter. The scene where he defends her from his insane wife is the only time I ever felt sympathetic to him. But being really nice to your friends and otherwise being an a!&~+#@ doesn't make you good.
No, it doesn't.
As for Davos? Chopping off his hand is a perfectly demonstration of why he is not a good person. Stannis would argue that the law says that the price of smuggling is to have your fingers chopped off. What he is conveniently forgetting is the fact the the SoI&F universe is not a republican system where no man is above the law. It is an authoritarian system where people can be above it. As the feudal lord of the area (Storm's End which he was given control of while Robert was fighting), he could definitely pardoned him. Even if he somehow couldn't, he definitely could have just jailed him until he convinced Robert to pardon him. But he doesn't. Instead, he maims the man directly responsible for saving his life and the lives of all his men.
Actually, I'd argue this as a great example of why he's LN. That bit about people not being above the law? Stannis believes that and enforces it, even on those he cares about, even on himself. Many nobles, if slighted as he was slighted by Robert would've rebelled...but never Stannis. Robert was his lawful king and he obeyed him.
A LG person puts law in the service of justice, a LE person tries to twist it to his own advantage. Stannis? He follows it to the letter, no matter what. That's textbook LN.
In fact, he may not even really be all that Lawful. Davos' punishment isn't the only example. He took a vow to be faithful to his wife. Another woman promises him power in exchange for sex? He does it.
Not easily. Melisandre is really skilled at seduction and manipulation and barely managed to talk him into that one. And he clearly regrets it. One need not perfectly exemplify an alignment to have it, and this is the only lapse I can think of from LN on Stannis's part.
And he continues to feel bad about it even after his wife (who he doesn't even like much) says she was okay with it...because he fell short of his own standards.
Same woman demands he burn the idols of the government sponsored religion of his country and outlaw its practice? He does it.
Uh...he's the King at the point he does that. He changed the law. He can do that...basically whenever he likes, being King. He couldn't before becoming King...and didn't.
It goes against tradition (something Lawful people are listed as caring about) but Stannis's particular version of LN is very focused on the law itself, and his obligations, more than it is on tradition.
Murder of his brother with black magic gives him a tactical advantage? He's totally fine with it. (BTW killing on the battlefield and sending a black magic monster to murder someone in the middle of the night are two vastly different things.)
Renly was a usurper, and he the rightful King. It's strongly arguable that what he did there was a legal execution. Evil? Hell yes, considering the method. Un-lawful? Not necessarily.
Bottom line is that Stannis is power-hungry hypocrite who will abandon his "principles" for power.
Nope. Power hungry? Absolutely, but he's not remotely a hypocrite. He's a man who's made mistakes, certainly (the adultery an obvious one)...but not everyone who's gone against their own code once is a hypocrite.
He is also weak and easily-controlled. He would not make a good king because he has yet to really lead anyone in the story. Every time he has successfully lead anyone has been offscreen/page. For all we know, more competent subordinates were responsible for his victories.
I'd disagree strongly with this. We've seen him lead Davos. Davos is extremely personally loyal, and it's because of who and what Stannis is and has done for him. That's leadership. And very likely what he demonstrates offscreen as well.
He is responsible for allowing the evil things Melisandre does. Inaction is not an appropriate reaction to evil.
This is true, and a major reason I'd never call him Good.
As for caring about the world? Maybe. He is the only one to take the Night's Watch seriously. Though I take that as a sign of everyone else being morons more than him be extraordinarily concerned with the world of the world. He stands to lose just as much from the Whitewalkers killing everyone as anyone else does. Not to mention, the credibility and gratitude he stands to gain from being the one to stop them is probably his best shot at achieving his goal of the iron throne.
He does seem to legitimately care, though. That's not enough to make him Good, but it's something.
LN? maybe. TN? I could buy it. Le or NE? My preferred range. LG? Not even by ASoI&F standards.
Evil? I don't think so. He's ambitious, and potentially willing to use Evil means to achieve his goals...but not unless he has no other options. That, along with all else, screams a Neutral alignment to me.
I also believe Stannis is one of the best examples of LN I could imagine.
What makes a person LG? That he always obeys the law? And always is nice?
Sorry I do not live in Lala-Land and neither is GoT.
Ned Stark is for sure a good example for LG. Everyone agrees?
He does Rebel against his lawful king! He attacks 3 memebers of the kingsguard with double the number, although he knows that they do their duty! Either he cheats his wive, or he lies to everybody about Jon Snow being his son and not his nephew! Even to his king and friend!
Many people do pretty horrible things in this books. Some do because they think they have no choice. Some do because they like it.
Some people because they feel they must do things.
LG Barristan Selmy (The Paladin)
NG Davos Seaworthy (The loyal Henchmen)
CG Tyrion Lannister (The only one who cares for the people and is forced to work outside the system)
LN Stannis Baratheon (The epitome of law)
TN Viserys although I could also see him in the LE area
CN Bronn (The sellsword)
LE Tywinn Lannister (The powermonger in plain view)
NE Littlefinger (The hidden powermonger)
CE Waldemar Frey (The worst of the worst)
The dothraki are basically orcs, they have a culture based on rape and kill and steal whatever you can. Yeah another vote for CE for most of them
Tyrion i call CN because his own freedom and pleasures come first for the most part. he doesn't seem to interested in hurting people nor saving the innocent but law exists to be exploited and twisted for his own aims
His own aims being ruling justly. Compared to many other people in power, Tyrion genuinely cares for people and tries to look out for them, he's just canny.
Before he's put in charge of the seven kingdoms, I'd argue that he's CG or CN. The way he acts in book 2 is very nearly NG.
In actuality though, alignment discussions around ASoIaF characters does a disservice to them, as unlike a lot of fantasy fiction they're all morally and ethically ambiguous at some crossroads.
I think Ned Stark is one of the best single examples of Lawful Good. He's not perfect yet he always strives to do the right thing. His personal code and family honor are very important, yet it's implied he may have misled to Jon Snow about ... something. He strongly believes he has evidence against the Lannisters but uses his position within the law to achieve his ends. Whenever anyone plays the "Lawful stupid" card I point them to him. He loses, but he loses nobly trying to do the best he can. If there was a paladin who tried half as hard, and had half the conflict that he has I would give them sincere applause.
Arguably Jon Snow is the closest to Ned's alignment in the books or show. He is willing to break his vows when his orders demand it, but clearly is in conflict about it. He always tries to do the "right" thing. Significantly he always tries to balance what is "good" with his own ethics or the Night's Watch oath. He may not always succeed but considering it and trying not to deviate from it push him towards Lawful.
Whenever anyone plays the "Lawful stupid" card I point them to him. He loses, but he loses nobly trying to do the best he can. If there was a paladin who tried half as hard, and had half the conflict that he has I would give them sincere applause.
IMO Ned is the PERFECT example OF lawful stupid. He lets his honor blind him to the realities of the world, he gives evil scoundrels the benefit of the doubt and opportunities to betray him, and since he's unwilling to get his hands the least bit dirty, he gets killed and places ALL his friends, allies, and family in mortal jeopardy.
Ned Stark is Lawful Stupid.