Alignment Discussion - Game of Thrones style


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ned doesn't obey laws blindly. He lacks insight, but this is a human failing rather than being shackled to principle. He assumes that others hold values similar to him (a pretty common LG belief) which is what ultimately screws him over - he believed Janos Slynt was on his side, and assumed that Slynt's honor was as solid as his own. Had Slynt kept his word then Ned would have been placed in temporary control and Cersei arrested. Aside from that he generally knows who his enemies are.

It is, granted, a small point. But until this point in both the books and TV show it could go either way. In the throne room, when Ned orders the Gold Cloaks to arrest Cersei it looks like he's won.


Stannis, I believe, is somewhat more firmly enchanted by Milesandre than is made clear. The madness of his obsession is related to her and possibly magic. But then, as a practical matter, maybe he only so trusts her again because of the failure at the Battle of the Blackwater? Hard to tell with Stannis because we never get a POV chapter. But my unending love of Davos aside, I just really enjoy Stannis, the only adult left at the table.

As for Ned, Ned's problem wasn't a low sense motive. It was that he never considered the consequences of his actions, just whether they met his absurdly high bar for honor.


I agree Ned Stark is the poster child for lawful stupid. The one I disagree with is Davos Seaworth. He is one of the very small number of Characters who is lawful good. He used to be neutral good in his smuggling days but he went lawful after Stanis took his fingers. Cersie is the poster child for chaotic stupid.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Hm...dunno. I'd kinda argue for LG for Jon, mainly due to his constant attempts to follow in his father's Lawful Stupid tendencies. His occasional breaks with the Lawful alignment came at great personal suffering for him, and as I've always been in the "intention=alignment" camp, I still think he holds towards LG.

As for Littlefinger, I'd go for CE, mainly because his purpose is to create as much wreckage as possible so he can climb to the top. He doesn't want to create order...he just wants to put himself on top of all the bodies. In my opinion, that's not really order.

I'll also go with the whole NG designation for Daenerys, because she does have a respect for doing certain things by the book, and tries very hard to get things to go in an orderly fashion. However, because she believes strongly in personal freedom and eliminating unjust institutions if necessary for "the greater good" (in her mind) I'd say NG makes sense.

As for everybody else, without tedious explanation...

Spoiler:
The LG's: Eddard Stark, Jon Snow, Barristan Selmy, Loras Tyrell (to some degree), Brienne of Tarth, Catelyn Tully, Rob Stark, Davos Seaworth, Joer Mormont, Samwell Tarly, Thoros of Myr
The NG's: Daenerys Targarean, Tyrion Lannister, Tommen "Baratheon", Margaery Tyrell (perhaps), Beric Dondarrion, Gendry, Bran Stark
The CG's: I'm not one-hundred percent certain there are any. Maybe Strong Belwas and Arianne Martell. Oh, and Brynden Tully. Edmure Tully might also qualify.
The LN's: Stannis Baratehon, Jorah Mormont, Maester Pycelle, Kevan Lannister, Doran Martell, and Maybe Melissandre (hard to say), Jaime Lannister
The N's: Possibly Varys and Mance Rayder, and maybe Sansa Stark
The CN's: Arya Stark, Oberyn Martell, Robert Baratheon, "Alayne", Ollena Redwyne/Tyrell
The LE's: Tywin Lannister, Roose Bolton, Janos Slynt
The NE's: Walder Frey, Khal Drogo, The Night's King (?), Bronn
The CE's: Petyr Baelish, Joffrey Baratheon, Ramsay Snow, Cersei Lannister, Sandor Clegane, Gregor Clegane, the entirety of the Bloody Mummers, Selyse Florent/Baratheon (?)


I am generally in agreement with most of these but I think I am more cynical about Daenerys.

To be fair I have not read the books, but I see her as more N or CN.

I think she is doing what is needed to restore herself to the throne. If that means coming off as the savior to slaves and the breaker of bonds then so be it. I think the story has done a very good job of portraying her as someone learning from the mistakes that she and others have made, making her a powerfully pragmatic character.

While I think she does good deeds, whether or not the intent is pure, she definitely cares first about becoming queen.

This obviously may change as the story continues, and I may be simply corrupted in my beliefs after watching so many other characters fall from grace or redeem themselves.

It is becoming a theme for the rug to be pulled out from under us.

My two cents.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Valrydus wrote:

I am generally in agreement with most of these but I think I am more cynical about Daenerys.

To be fair I have not read the books, but I see her as more N or CN.

I think she is doing what is needed to restore herself to the throne. If that means coming off as the savior to slaves and the breaker of bonds then so be it. I think the story has done a very good job of portraying her as someone learning from the mistakes that she and others have made, making her a powerfully pragmatic character.

Oh, she's certainly pragmatic. But her motivations for freeing slaves and other such things are, in fact, exactly as they appear...that she believes that's the right thing to do. That she's a good person.

The books make this somewhat clearer via her internal monologue, but even in the show...what benefit could she have expected to receive from saving the lamb-women from Khal Drogo's men? Or a number of other cats of kindness she's shown.

Valrydus wrote:
While I think she does good deeds, whether or not the intent is pure, she definitely cares first about becoming queen.

Her acts in the most recent episode seem to directly contradict this...as does her general attitude in several earlier bits.

She most certainly wants to be Queen...but ambition isn't evil in and of itself.

Valrydus wrote:
This obviously may change as the story continues, and I may be simply corrupted in my beliefs after watching so many other characters fall from grace or redeem themselves.

That's certainly a thing that happens, but yeah, I think you're getting a bit overly cynical.

Valrydus wrote:

It is becoming a theme for the rug to be pulled out from under us.

My two cents.

Not precisely. One of the things I love about ASoIaF (and thus also the TV Series) is that it ignores most literary conventions like this. It follows a perspective of "What would really happen if...?"

People don't have plot armor because of this...and don't have to fit into neat little boxes of any sort, not even "everyone not being what they seem" which is just a box of another sort.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Valrydus wrote:

I am generally in agreement with most of these but I think I am more cynical about Daenerys.

To be fair I have not read the books, but I see her as more N or CN.

I think she is doing what is needed to restore herself to the throne. If that means coming off as the savior to slaves and the breaker of bonds then so be it. I think the story has done a very good job of portraying her as someone learning from the mistakes that she and others have made, making her a powerfully pragmatic character.

Having read the books (and seen the last episode), a thousand times no.

She genuinely hates slavery, cruelty, slavery, oppression, and slavery. After being sold to genghis kahn, walking into a bon fire, watching her brother killed, almost dying crossing a desert, being betrayed by warlocks, ALL to get a throne ... she has a chance to take an army home and doesn't because her people need her where she is.


For Chaotic good you've got Robert Baratheon (or close enough to good for this setting) Eric Dondarion (the lightning lord) Lem and company (pre erm... change in management for their band)

Tyrion gets pretty close at times. He's definitely disdainful of social order, standing, and ethics, and will turn down personal gain if it crosses his moral even horizon. He seemed to be actively trying to make the kingdoms work... but he doesn't have much real impetuous towards helping people. I'd say CN, but that makes him look pretty good compared to a LOT of evil around him.


meatrace wrote:
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 the alignment system can handle it, as long as you realize its a moving blob, not a static point.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
For Chaotic good you've got Robert Baratheon (or close enough to good for this setting)

Maybe when he was younger and fighting the war. By the time we meet him he's solidly CN.

And I'd argue that Tyrion is indeed Good. He definitely tries to help people when he can, including in an impulsive way (his advice to Jon Snow and his making a saddle design for Bran come to mind).


fair enough guys.

I don't think that ambition is evil just that it can be symptomatic.

I actually have not seen the most recent episode (exam week).

I will reconsider but I do think that being against slavery and what not is not necessarily CG behavior. I guess I am harsh when it comes to her (not to discount any of the problems she has faced or overcome) and I just do not know exactly why.

I guess its opposite effect that Tyrion has on me, going from guy i thought was funny to guy I think must live in order for any good world outcome.

I like the way she has matured and after I watch this most recent episode I hope I can give her another shot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Man, lots of good discussion since I last hopped on the boards.

You guys have convinced me, I am willing to concede that Tyrion is Chaotic. I think he is best described as Chaotic Good with neutral tendencies.

Regrading Stannis, Stannis is the complete epitome of all that Lawful Neutral is, they should put his picture in the alignment section of the PHB next to LN. As was mentioned earlier, the only non Lawful Neutral thing hes done in the series is sleep with Melisandre, and he went and confessed to his wife about it shortly after. As for him being power hungry, here's the thing, if Renly had been the older brother, Stannis would have been the first person to call his banners to Renlys cause, and would have fought for him to take the throne to the bitter end. But since Stannis was older, the throne was his by law, so he saw his brother as an usurper, and had no problem with his death, because that's what the law demanded. But hes definitely not good, he isn't concerned with mercy or compassion (things that having a G in your alignment require). Stannis is all about duty, without regard to morality.

Roose Bolton is definitely Lawful Evil. He is cold and calculating, and while he will flay a man, it is never done without a purpose, everything serves a purpose with him. Ramsey on the other hand does it for the sheer joy his twisted mind gets from it. Hence lawful vs chaotic. It is the main source of tension between Roose and Ramsey, Roose doesn't understand his sons wanton nature with regards to destruction, hence his disappointment and disapproval when he found out what Ramsey had done to Theon, who could have been a valuable asset. Flaying someone is neither inherently lawful nor inherently chaotic, its just plain evil. The period of time in the books that Roose is in charge of Harrenhal is a great reference to his Lawful Evil alignment.

Regarding Walder Frey, Neutral Evil would disregard Guest Right as easily as Chaotic Evil, only Lawful Evil would give that tradition any pause (and only if it was their own personal abode). Frey isn't prone to wanton, purposeless destruction, which is what Chaotic Evil is. He didn't do it because he struck a whim to betray his king, he did it because his is an extremely vain man, and he perceived Robb breaking his marriage contract as the biggest slap in the face imaginable, so he plotted and got even.

Likewise Littlefinger is also Neutral Evil because he never makes a move that wont benefit him in some way, he may be utterly selfish (the hallmark of NE), but he isn't foolish. He doesn't play the Game of Thrones just to cause chaos, merely to elevate his own status. Just because someone isn't about order doesn't mean they are about chaos.

There are only 3 true major examples of Chaotic Evil in the series, Joffrey, Ramsey, and The Mountain, and they all engage in senseless destruction just to get their jollies, taking pleasure in seeing others suffer.

And while Jon may have a lawful bent, he is definitely not the Lawful Good that Ned, Barristan, and Brienne are. He is Neutral Good with lawful tendencies. Likewise, Davos is also probably the same, Neutral Good with lawful tendencies (gained since he entered Stannis's service).

As a side note, I really miss 2E style alignment tendencies, I wish they were still a thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's another good one....Melisandre, is she Neutral or Neutral Evil?

Based on her actions in the show so far it might seem Neutral Evil, but as things go along, and especially after you read her few POV chapters in the later books, I really lean more towards Neutral. I don't think shes inherently evil, but she has no problem getting her hands dirty when the situation calls for it. At worst I'd say she's Neutral with evil tendencies.


Personally I regard Melisandre as more a plot device than a character. She is a way of introducing the dangerous power of the Red God to Stannis and Westeros. Her actions are almost always part of an unfolding plotline and theme rather than being expressed as personal choices.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Larkos wrote:
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.

She is definitely neutral evil. Just because he can disagree doesn't mean he has any power. For an equivalent situation, look at Tywin Lannister and Joffery. Joffery has the political power to execute Tywin if he wants. Joffery could order him to do anything but he never does. Tywin is really in control even if he doesn't have the position of king. That's the point of Tywin and a big part of why I love him as a villain.

Melisandre is no different. As a woman, a foreigner, and a common-born without any position, she has no real political power. But she almost always gets what she wants because she controls Stannis by playing on his faults and his desires.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

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.

I got the impression that the religious change had happened before Robert's death. I think the burning idols scene happened after Stannis got Ned's letter but there's more behind the scenes. We see nothing of him in book/season one but having all that support for burning the traditional gods doesn't happen overnight. Hells, it may not even be the first time it happened. Probably the first with Stannis there though.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
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.

Even in Westeros, people get trials before their local lord and are publicly executed. What happened to Renly was an assassination because it was simpler than doing the honorable thing and facing Renly in battle. Even abducting him in the night and judging and executing him in Stannis' camp would have been more honorable.

But no, he gave up on his principles of honor and justice and meekly went along with Melisandre's plan. I cannot see him as honorable in the slightest when he constantly gives up on his principles for personal gain.

Also murdering your brother is a huge dick move even more so in Westeros. Westeros may be a crappy place to live but it has two constant morals that even bastards are expected to abide by: guest right and family. He killed his brother for personal gain. That's plain evil.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
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.

My point was that he didn't follow it correctly. I don't even mean by the spirit of the law. It was entirely within his legal right to spare Davos. He would have been following the spirit of the law if he had. He chose not to.

I could accept the argument, though, that he was LN in the past and, due to Melisandre's influence, he is falling to LE over the course of the books/show. Really most of the things I hate about him happen after her arrival.


Stannis is fighting tooth and nail for a throne he doesn't even want simply because he's the legal heir. It makes Ed Starks lawful tendancies likely to come out in the wash.


If we're calling Ned Stark Lawful Stupid, then I'd like to nominate Viserys Targaryen as Chaotic Stupid. Yes, he's far more Evil than Good, but what really defines him is his willingness to do anything to regain the throne, but having no idea what he should be doing, to do so.


I agree with most, but Walder Frey. If you read the books, and also the movie he is a utterly selfish, bitter evil man. He screws every tradition and absolutly without honor.
What I would ask you to remember is that he is VERY CLEVER.
The mountain is about the perfect object lesson of Choatic evil, but he is open so. Walder Frey is the same, the hidden way.
And I also think the hound is better than many people think. He has some honor, and not only when it is useful to him, and he trys often to be good. (Rescuing of Sansa) He is just surrounded by extremly evil and powerful people and he trys to find his way here, but he respects few.
And he is honest!
And I think Roose Bolton is anything but lawful. Maybe he seems on TV but o boy in the books he is even worse than his bastard son. The bastard is CE because he is that way, his father ENJOYS and CHOOSES to be CE.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To everyone claiming Ned Stark is lawful stupid, he's married to Catelyn Stark. That'd encourage me to find death anywhere I could as well.

I think I have to side with Roose being LE as well, he's evil to the core, without a doubt, but he demonstrates organization, and a willingness to work with an authority that I wouldn't expect from someone of chaotic alignment.

As to Stannis, I agree that he's LN. The killing of his brother through dark magic assassination wasn't a nice thing to do, but it spared a lot of people their lives and brought them to Stannis's camp, which was the proper (read lawful) camp. Renly was the one who was attempting to over step his bounds, else wise Stannis never would have done anything against him.

Melisandre, I think I'd put in the N category. She does some bad things, but she does them because she believes they're best for the people of the world, and I don't think she enjoys doing evil things just for evil's sake, she just does it because it is what the world needs to survive.


[Helikon]And I think Roose Bolton is anything but lawful. Maybe he seems on TV but o boy in the books he is even worse than his bastard son. The bastard is CE because he is that way, his father ENJOYS and CHOOSES to be CE.

He's a medieval health nut (leechings, hippocras)

One of the lines from the books is basically ' I'm fine with my bastard son killing the soon to be born baby and taking over the house. I'll be dead before he comes of age and boy kings are always bad for the realm'


I don't think Ned is all that lawful stupid. Cersei got really, really lucky with the boar. What else was he supposed to do, capture a mother and her three children knowing that Robert would have them beheaded?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Melisandre is Neutral.

DWD:
Her POV chapter does a pretty good job of showing that she's merely a well-meaning-if-misguided cleric of a mysterious deity who is all over the map. All of her acts, evil (shadow assassins) and good (defending the wall), are predicated on putting in power the guy she thinks is her deity's hero reborn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't really see Melisandre as evil, because she's not doing anything for evil ends. She kills Renly, but that's as an alternative to getting thousands of soldiers killed in a futile siege. She burns a bunch of religious icons, but she's a cleric. That's what they do. I'd go for straight N.

Stannis: solidly LN.
Craster: NE, maybe CE. But very E.
Asha: N with CG tendencies.
Balon: NE
Victarion: N, a bit E
Euron: CE


I don't think Ned was "Lawful Stupid." He was outplayed, but that doesn't make him stupid. He was out of his element. The intrigues of court were not his strength.

The Exchange

um i might be remembering wrong but did not stannis and the red witch commit human sacrifice and kill people for questioning their religion? that is evil with a capitol E folks.


Oh, the Ironborn. Their culture is very similar, in many ways, to that of the Dothraki, and both cultures fall somewhere south of Neutral on the Good-Evil axis. Balon and his brothers are easily evil, except maybe Aeron, who's just a cleric of an evil god. I love Victarion, but he might not be smart enough to be evil.

Geez, does anybody even want to take a stab at Theon? He's probably Neutral Evil for the whole self-serving aspect, but there's a decent case to be made for Neutral.

Spoiler:
He was raised well and did good things with the Starks, though he was resentful. All of his ill-fated "leadership decisions" were subsequently influenced by the inherently evil Ironborn culture and influence from clearly CE Ramsay Bolton. His actions in DWD show that he's working for something like redemption as well.


Andrew R wrote:
um i might be remembering wrong but did not stannis and the red witch commit human sacrifice and kill people for questioning their religion? that is evil with a capitol E folks.

I really do not think this happened, but if you're right, you're right.


Someone else said it in this thread but if anything Jamie is LN, he lives by his OWN personal code, not carrying much for others, though.

As far as the red woman? yeah, I have a hard time throwing anything but an evil alignment on human sacrifice...


Okay, she did express the intent to kill the children of kings at some point, but I really don't think she actually has. That's why Stannis sent Edric Storm away and Jon sent Sam away with Mance's son. At least, I think those things happened.

So maybe Neutral Evil, but I'm still feeling more generous than that.


Andrew R wrote:
um i might be remembering wrong but did not stannis and the red witch commit human sacrifice and kill people for questioning their religion? that is evil with a capitol E folks.

Yes, but she may have a much greater good in mind. Look, as a general principle I think hurtful acts on the basis of personal faith are probably evil. However, in a world of ice zombies where she has clearly demonstrated that such sacrifices equal power to save lives, I think we need to give her the benefit of the doubt pending some clearer idea of her motivations.

GoT demonstrates the absurdity of the alignment system. People can be morally ambiguous. Does the balance of the acts matter? Is a single evil act sufficient? Does atonement always work? Are practical people living in a world where letting your guard down means death suffering by necessity evil. The world is so much grey. I am imagine this sort of exercise would drive GRRM crazy.

The Exchange

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
um i might be remembering wrong but did not stannis and the red witch commit human sacrifice and kill people for questioning their religion? that is evil with a capitol E folks.

Yes, but she may have a much greater good in mind. Look, as a general principle I think hurtful acts on the basis of personal faith are probably evil. However, in a world of ice zombies where she has clearly demonstrated that such sacrifices equal power to save lives, I think we need to give her the benefit of the doubt pending some clearer idea of her motivations.

GoT demonstrates the absurdity of the alignment system. People can be morally ambiguous. Does the balance of the acts matter? Is a single evil act sufficient? Does atonement always work? Are practical people living in a world where letting your guard down means death suffering by necessity evil. The world is so much grey. I am imagine this sort of exercise would drive GRRM crazy.

If your god gives you power for human sacrifice you are evil and so is the god. Even if you hope for "greater good"

Liberty's Edge

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Yes, but she may have a much greater good in mind. Look, as a general principle I think hurtful acts on the basis of personal faith are probably evil. However, in a world of ice zombies where she has clearly demonstrated that such sacrifices equal power to save lives, I think we need to give her the benefit of the doubt pending some clearer idea of her motivations.

Melisandre is also the motive force behind burning people alive for simply following faiths other than her own. She doesn't seem to gain power from this in any mystical sense, she's just a fanatic. The fact that her God opposes the White Walkers doesn't inherently make any of that an less Evil, it just makes her a potential 'lesser Evil'.

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
GoT demonstrates the absurdity of the alignment system. People can be morally ambiguous. Does the balance of the acts matter? Is a single evil act sufficient? Does atonement always work?

All excellent questions...none of which inherently invalidate alignment as such. Alignment is simplistic, but still a useful tool in looking at morality if you want it to be.

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Are practical people living in a world where letting your guard down means death suffering by necessity evil.

Why would they be? You can be very Good indeed and still suspicious and effective. Look at Tyrion or Daenerys.

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
The world is so much grey. I am imagine this sort of exercise would drive GRRM crazy.

Why? They're simple boxes, sure, but that doesn't make the discussion less amusing or useful. He once wrote a short fiction bit involving Jaime Lannister dueling Cthulhu, and the entire Wild Cards universe was originally based on an RPG he played. I believe he also recently joked that the next book would be written from Hodor's perspective, using only the word 'Hodor'. Seems to me like he'd be fine with it.


Andrew R wrote:
If your god gives you power for human sacrifice you are evil and so is the god. Even if you hope for "greater good"

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. ;)

Liberty's Edge

Gambit wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
If your god gives you power for human sacrifice you are evil and so is the god. Even if you hope for "greater good"
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. ;)

Note: I don't agree with the statement on sacrifice at all (I can pretty easily see a Neutral God accepting sacrifice...and even a Good one accepting willing ones). Which is why I pointed out other areas Melisandre demonstrates her Evil in.

She does also seem to look at sacrifice as a first option rather than a last, and seeing killing as your first solution to problems is seldom Good.


We don't even know if the Red God is real or not...her powers (from a Pathfinder perspective) could be from arcane study, not divine. And even if he is real, we don't see a consistent trend amongst all the worshippers. Thoros doesn't seem to do anything morally dubious, and apparently worships the same god.

I generally think alignment in Game of Thrones (and real life) isn't that easy to pigeonhole, and strikes me a bit as an exercise in futility.


MMCJawa wrote:

We don't even know if the Red God is real or not...her powers (from a Pathfinder perspective) could be from arcane study, not divine. And even if he is real, we don't see a consistent trend amongst all the worshippers. Thoros doesn't seem to do anything morally dubious, and apparently worships the same god.

I generally think alignment in Game of Thrones (and real life) isn't that easy to pigeonhole, and strikes me a bit as an exercise in futility.

Well Thoros seems to imply that the Red God has some kind of power. He doesn't seem to have a reason to be pretending though he still could be pretending as well.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I don't agree with the statement on sacrifice at all (I can pretty easily see a Neutral God accepting sacrifice...and even a Good one accepting willing ones). Which is why I pointed out other areas Melisandre demonstrates her Evil in.

I cannot accept the idea of a Good god(dess) accepting human sacrifices. Especially since none of the other gods accept them. In fact, the only other supernatural force that does accept human sacrifice is the Whitewalkers.

Liberty's Edge

Larkos wrote:
Well Thoros seems to imply that the Red God has some kind of power. He doesn't seem to have a reason to be pretending though he still could be pretending as well.

I always just pegged the Red God as amoral (ie: Neutral) not caring how you advance his goals as long as you do.

Larkos wrote:
I cannot accept the idea of a Good god(dess) accepting human sacrifices. Especially since none of the other gods accept them. In fact, the only other supernatural force that does accept human sacrifice is the Whitewalkers.

I specified willing sacrifice...a somewhat different thing than what Melisandre is doing. I can't see a Good God accepting that either.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
I always just pegged the Red God as amoral (ie: Neutral) not caring how you advance his goals as long as you do.

This was always my assumption as well. Hence why his two main followers in the series, both of which demonstrate actual mystical power, can be on somewhat opposite ends of the spectrum. Thoros leaning towards good and Melisandre leaning towards evil.

I also agree that a good aligned deity wouldn't accept (unwilling) human sacrifice, and a cleric who did so would quickly find himself bereft of his divine powers.


Just because you don't care much about your means on achieving your end, doesn't mean the end isn't a factor. To some extent the appropriateness of means had to be measured against consequences and goals. We know nothing of the goals the Red God seeks (if its even a real thing), until we do we can't really assess an alignment. Of course such means are brutal at times, but there are ends worth certain great sacrifices. We can't even assume neutral, evil,or good at this point.

Liberty's Edge

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Just because you don't care much about your means on achieving your end, doesn't mean the end isn't a factor. To some extent the appropriateness of means had to be measured against consequences and goals. We know nothing of the goals the Red God seeks (if its even a real thing), until we do we can't really assess an alignment. Of course such means are brutal at times, but there are ends worth certain great sacrifices. We can't even assume neutral, evil,or good at this point.

We can infer. Thoros is a Good person. Melisandre an Evil one. Both seemingly receive power from the Red God...this strongly implies it's fine with how they both use said power (or at least doesn't care that much about the differences). All that screams 'amoral'.

Might its goals be good things? Sure. But having good goals doesn't make a being Good. The means they are willing to utilize to achieve them are also a factor...and sacrificing children is a pretty awful means to any end.


There doesn't even need to be a red god. Magic certainly exists in the world, for all we know his priests are just doing spells and calling them prayers, casting scry and thinking its commune. Other people have been as good at predicting the future as Melisandre without being part of her religion. (The dwarf lady on the hallow hill for example)


Sorry flame, killing the people in the raid on winterfel put Theon firmly in team evil, and killing innocent children signed him on to a 5 year contract. He didn't have and doesn't have anything to balance that out: a life time of merely being a self assured entitled noble that only sleeps with willing women


Yeah, Neutral Evil's a good place for him. I was trying to see it any other way. Not that I particularly like the guy or anything.


Theon was probably TN (an ass, sure, but not evil) when he was with Robb near the start of the books/series. After he went back to the Greyjoys and did the Winterfell thing, he kind of spiraled down into NE, and now he's (maybe) working his way back towards TN again. Or at least that's how I see him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
flamethrower49 wrote:
I think Melisandre is Neutral. ** spoiler omitted **

She also has the "I'm trying to save the world here" thing going on that makes it hard to use the alignment system.


I'd say trying to save Jeyne Poole probably elevates him back to True Neutral


MMCJawa wrote:
I'd say trying to save Jeyne Poole probably elevates him back to True Neutral

He was also in the middle of trying to save himself there.

Its a step ladder and he need a few hundred feet of rope.


Alleran wrote:
Gambit wrote:
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.

I would say in his early time as a Kingsguard, he was LN with good tendencies, solidified into Neutral over time, dropped to TN when he killed Aerys (growing dissatisfaction, his beliefs breaking down, whatever - he had a personal code, but he couldn't stand by and let Aerys murder everybody), and then hung around there for a while, drifting up and down on the Good/Evil axis, until he started working towards NG (during the time period of the actual books).

Stannis is Lawful Neutral.

Jamie was most definitely not Good nor Lawful. He took the Kings Guard position so he continue sleep with his sister. He killed the king because the king meant to kill him and his sister along with the rest of the city. He tried to kill Bran to hide his secret. So I'd say CE is what Jamie was, the guy thought only of his own needs.

He could have stopped his father from ordering the murder of the Queen, princess, and Prince but realized that his children would stand to inherit the Iron Throne if he just stood by a let it happen.

Really you don't get much CE than that. It's the perfect example of what CE should be. It's not crazy evil. It's the ultimate selfishness.


Voska? Did you read the books? Because in the books, it tells a "COMPLETE" other story than what you say. And so he is screwing his sister? So what. Many of the Targerian kings did the same. Please do not bring your morality to a society that has really diffrent values.


Helikon wrote:
Voska? Did you read the books? Because in the books, it tells a "COMPLETE" other story than what you say. And so he is screwing his sister? So what. Many of the Targerian kings did the same. Please do not bring your morality to a society that has really diffrent values.

I've read the books and I don't see the problem with what he said. There was a LITTLE more emphasis in the books on the fact that The mad king was going to burn down the entire city, but given that Jamie and hiss sister were standing IN that city at the time...

I just see it as either even evil has standards, or he wasn't evil yet. (nothing i know of that he did was evil until he chucked brandon stark out the window)

51 to 100 of 113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Alignment Discussion - Game of Thrones style All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.