Game of Thrones Character's D&D Alignment?

[II2]

Simple Question/Game for you all. Pick some Game of Thrones characters and try to plot their alignment. It's trickier than you'd think in a lot of cases, if you take into the redemptive arcs and moral unevenness of various entities.

Lets try not to get into spoilers. I've only seen the shows, so we'll go with events thus broadcast (SE3 EP9). Feel free to share WHY you think a character is within a certain aligment so far as it can be explained within the context of the HBO broadcast's current run.

Expanded Definitions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29/

Also, for the purposes of this, for those of you familiar with the various editions interpretations of alignment, I'm mainly going off Monte Cook's 3E definitions, perticularly in regard to "True Neutral" or Neutral Neutral". I prefer the idea of it being just a morally and psychologically unremarkable everyman, as opposed to the mind of balance obsessed monks and wild animals

SO, ON THEN:

Eddard Stark Lawful Good (duh)
Arya Stark Chaotic Good
Rob Stark Lawful Good
Brann Stark Neutral Good
Theon Greyjoy Chaotic Good ---> Chaotic Evil

Lord Varys Master of Whispers True Neutral
Lord Balish Master of Coin Neutral Evil

Jaime Lannister Chaotic Evil / Chaotic Neutral
Cersei Lannister Neutral Evil
Twyin Lannister Lawful Evil
Tyrion Lannister Chaotic Neutral / Chaotic Good?

Denarys Targarian Chaotic Good ???

Gendri Lawful Neutral?

Jaquen Hegal Lawful Evil?

Hodor Hodor!

I suppose what I find interesting in applying the D&D alignment to Game of Thrones is that it's a largely post-magical story, where the majority of bad things are people doing things to other people. Some of these bad things are done by characters we like and root for, others not so much. Regardless, there's a lot of angles to most of the situations and most groups have good and bad folk fighting other good and bad folk. Are the wildlings BAD for wanting to survive and fight to do so? Jorah Mormont, after settling on a side? Jon Snow? Grey Worm? King Robert? Almost everyone is a killer and most of them have arguably legit reasons to do so, on and off, either out of self defense or loyalty to a cause.

Anyway, that's what struck me as mildly interesting and perhaps worth sharing as a thought exercise.

EDIT: Realize I made some spelling mistakes, that said, having only watched the show and not checking to verify, I think I did alright from the memory of subtitles. Though I meant no disrespect, you have my apologies for any nails on chalkboard spelling mistakes. Happy people took an interest, though

 

[Legion]

Spoiler: I copied your list and altered them to what I believe they are (assuming I disagreed). Spoilers, enough that you should probably have read them all:

Eddard Stark Lawful Good

Arya Stark Chaotic Neutral - She may be more good than bad, but she is willing to kill for revenge and personal gain. She isn't doing things because she considers them to be "right", she does them because she has a thirst for revenge.

Rob Stark Neutral Good - I wouldn't say he is lawful. He basically rebelled against the Crown and titled himself a King. That is not lawful, because he didn't do it legitimately. He also broke a promise to the Frey's, as well as refusing to accept Stannis as the King, despite him being the true heir.

Brann Stark Neutral Good

Theon Greyjoy Chaotic Neutral - He was never "good". He resented the Starks, was cruel to Osha, and a misogynist. He may have been on the goods side, but he wasn't in his heart.

Jon Snow Lawful Good - He follows in Ned Starks footsteps considerably more than the other children. He hates deception, has honour, and tries to be fair, but firm. He also makes the mistake of trying to do what he considers to be the right thing, even though it is not the wisest decision.

Lord Varys Master of Whispers True Neutral

Lord Baelish Master of Coin Chaotic Evil

Jaime Lannister Chaotic Neutral - He came across as evil, but he was more just ignorant, selfish and misguided. When we discover why he killed Aerys, it shows that when it comes down to it, he isn't a bad person, even though he isn't nice.

Cersei Lannister Neutral Evil

Twyin Lannister True Neutral - Tywin isn't evil, he is just arrogant and prideful. He doesn't gain pleasure in doing bad things, he does them because he considers them to be necessary for the preservation of the realm. He is certainly not nice, but he isn't "unnecessarily" cruel. Or rather, he isn't cruel for the sake of it. The reason I say he isn't Lawful is because he is willing to scheme, as is evident by betraying Aerys, and creating the plan to kill Robb Stark by breaking the rules guaranteeing a guests safety.

Tyrion Lannister Chaotic Good - He is selfish, but when it comes down to it, he is good. He helps Bran after his fall, he feels sympathy for Sansa, and is willing to try and help her, despite it conflicting with the interests of his family.

Joffrey Baratheon Chaotic Evil - This goes without saying really. He is pretty much the definition of it.

Denarys Targarian Chaotic Good

Gendri Lawful Neutral

Jaquen Hegal Unknown but I'd say True Neutral, considering he serves the group Ayra ends up joining, and they never kill for no reason.

Hodor Hodor!

 

[saintdane05]

George RR Martin: Neutral Evil
He kills all your friends, then proceeds to wait long periods before striking again.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Spoiler: I copied your list and altered them to what I believe they are (assuming I disagreed). Spoilers, enough that you should probably have read them all:

Eddard Stark Lawful Good

Arya Stark Chaotic Neutral - She may be more good than bad, but she is willing to kill for revenge and personal gain. She isn't doing things because she considers them to be "right", she does them because she has a thirst for revenge.

Rob Stark Neutral Good - I wouldn't say he is lawful. He basically rebelled against the Crown and titled himself a King. That is not lawful, because he didn't do it legitimately. He also broke a promise to the Frey's, as well as refusing to accept Stannis as the King, despite him being the true heir.

Brann Stark Neutral Good

Theon Greyjoy Chaotic Neutral - He was never "good". He resented the Starks, was cruel to Osha, and a misogynist. He may have been on the goods side, but he wasn't in his heart.

Jon Snow Lawful Good - He follows in Ned Starks footsteps considerably more than the other children. He hates deception, has honour, and tries to be fair, but firm. He also makes the mistake of trying to do what he considers to be the right thing, even though it is not the wisest decision.

Lord Varys Master of Whispers True Neutral

Lord Baelish Master of Coin Chaotic Evil

Jaime Lannister Chaotic Neutral - He came across as evil, but he was more just ignorant, selfish and misguided. When we discover why he killed Aerys, it shows that when it comes down to it, he isn't a bad person, even though he isn't nice.

Cersei Lannister Neutral Evil

Twyin Lannister True Neutral - Tywin isn't evil, he is just arrogant and prideful. He doesn't gain pleasure in doing bad things, he does them because he considers them to be necessary for the preservation of the realm. He is certainly not nice, but he isn't "unnecessarily" cruel. Or rather, he isn't cruel for the sake of it. The reason I say he isn't Lawful is because he is willing to scheme, as is evident by betraying Aerys, and creating the plan to kill Robb Stark by breaking the rules guaranteeing a guests safety.

Tyrion Lannister Chaotic Good - He is selfish, but when it comes down to it, he is good. He helps Bran after his fall, he feels sympathy for Sansa, and is willing to try and help her, despite it conflicting with the interests of his family.

Joffrey Baratheon Chaotic Evil - This goes without saying really. He is pretty much the definition of it.

Denarys Targarian Chaotic Good

Gendri Lawful Neutral

Jaquen Hegal Unknown but I'd say True Neutral, considering he serves the group Ayra ends up joining, and they never kill for no reason.

Hodor Hodor!

I'd agree with a great many of these, although I'd trend more of them towards True Neutral (not the "everything must be in balance" interpretation of it, but the "highly self motivated" one). Particularly the likes of Cersei and Littlefinger, who are not "evil" in any real traditional sense (maybe mildly Neutral Evil). Let alone "Chaotic Evil", which implies they cause harm just for the joy of causing harm.

The only "Chaotic Evil" personalities in the story (at least amongst major characters that leap immediately to mind) would be Gregor Clegane, Ramsay Bolton, and (arguably) Vargo Hoat. Book Joffrey is Neutral Evil. Admittedly, Show Joffrey trends more towards Chaotic Evil. Which is annoying, but whatever.

 

[The Funslinger]

I think a problem with this is that it's hard to lump characters like that that are so far from arch-types into arch-types, even if there are many options.

That said, I don't think it'd be conflicted that both Joffrey and unnamed torturer of Theon (to those who haven't read the books and don't know his identity) are pretty fucken Chaotic Evil.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Tyrion - to me is true good He has a moral compass and a sense of morality that makes good no question. However he rejects the rules as he can but is intelligent enough to respect and try to work within them to suit him, thus negating for me any lawful or chaotic designations.

This is a pretty good indicator of just how far from the source material the show has gone with Tyrion.

Book Tyrion is closer to Neutral Evil than "Good" anything, although I'd likely put him as true Neutral.

That said, I don't think it'd be conflicted that both Joffrey and unnamed torturer of Theon (to those who haven't read the books and don't know his identity) are pretty fucken Chaotic Evil.

Book Joffrey is more neutral evil than anything.

Borrowing from TV Tropes (the other alignment site is down atm)...

Type 2 characters, in contrast, are immoral and deliberately evil. Egotistical, selfish, malevolent and sadistic, they recognize the difference between right and wrong (at least superficially) and willfully and gleefully choose wrong- this does not make them Chaotic Evil, and they are generally better at hiding their behaviour under a facade of normalcy, even enjoying such a ruse and putting their interests ahead of their desires. For them, Evil Is Cool and feels good, and is the best, surest and probably the most fulfilling path to money and power, though they are much more likely than the other types to do things just For the Evulz. Some are made of Jerk Justifications and try to justify their actions with insincere What Is Evil? or Above Good and Evil arguments; many others are Card Carrying Villains who revel being the bad guy and will boast about all the horibble things they have done or plan to do.

That more or less describes Joffrey to a T.

Show Joffrey is moderately more sadistic and murderous than his book counterpart, which blurs the lines a bit.

 

[Legion]

I'd agree with a great many of these, although I'd trend more of them towards True Neutral (not the "everything must be in balance" interpretation of it, but the "highly self motivated" one). Particularly the likes of Cersei and Littlefinger, who are not "evil" in any real traditional sense (maybe mildly Neutral Evil). Let alone "Chaotic Evil", which implies they cause harm just for the joy of causing harm.

The only "Chaotic Evil" personalities in the story (at least amongst major characters that leap immediately to mind) would be Gregor Clegane, Ramsay Bolton, and (arguably) Vargo Hoat. Book Joffrey is Neutral Evil. Admittedly, Show Joffrey trends more towards Chaotic Evil. Which is annoying, but whatever.

To be honest, with Littlefinger I did originally change him from evil to neutral, but I found it hard to explain why exactly I didn't see him as evil.

Cersei isn't evil in the sense that Joffrey is, but she is willing to do bad things, purely out of pleasure, which may not be truly evil (although I have never played D+D so I don't know how rigid these alignments are), but I'd feel comfortable saying that on the "Good Versus Bad" alignment, she'd come under bad in my opinion.

I agree with Joffrey being more Chaotic Evil in the show than the book. In the book he is less petulant, and more calculating, whereas in the show he seems to be sadistic without any real goal or motivation (as seen with the "beating scene" and the "crossbow scene").

Although I think the show hasn't done a very good job at representing the characters how they were in the books overall. Some of them they have done a better job, such as Tywin Lannister, who I feel has been portrayed as a lot more intelligent and sympathetic in the show. Others such as Tyrion and Jon Snow on the other hand come across as both less intelligent and more childish respectively. Tyrion is because they have made his dialogue significantly less subtle for the TV audience, and Jon Snow as he seems a bit more whiny.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

To be honest, with Littlefinger I did originally change him from evil to neutral, but I found it hard to explain why exactly I didn't see him as evil.

Cersei isn't evil in the sense that Joffrey is, but she is willing to do bad things, purely out of pleasure, which may not be truly evil (although I have never played D+D so I don't know how rigid these alignments are), but I'd feel comfortable saying that on the "Good Versus Bad" alignment, she'd come under bad in my opinion.

Ya know, in retrospect, I think you're correct. Cersei is Neutral Evil. I'd forgotten some of her finer moments. Littlefinger I'm still a bit ambivalent about. He's horribly callous, but I'm not sure that qualifies him as evil...although the extremity of his selfishness might be seen as evidence of evil.

I agree with Joffrey being more Chaotic Evil in the show than the book. In the book he is less petulant, and more calculating, whereas in the show he seems to be sadistic without any real goal or motivation (as seen with the "beating scene" and the "crossbow scene").

He's actually significantly MORE calculating in the show (the murder of Robert's bastards is swapped from Cersei to him, for example), but also engages in significantly greater acts of murderous sadism "just for the hell of it", along with being significantly less controllable.

Although I think the show hasn't done a very good job at representing the characters how they were in the books overall. Some of them they have done a better job, such as Tywin Lannister, who I feel has been portrayed as a lot more intelligent and sympathetic in the show. Others such as Tyrion and Jon Snow on the other hand come across as both less intelligent and more childish respectively. Tyrion is because they have made his dialogue significantly less subtle for the TV audience, and Jon Snow as he seems a bit more whiny.

Tywin I think has been an almost bang-on translation from page to screen. Tyrion and Snow I tend to agree with you, although my irritation with Tyrion has been the ongoing white-washing of his character from selfish, bitter and cunning to noble-hearted and pure as the driven snow.

Tywin actually gets a pretty sympathetic angle in the books, most particularly through his brother. (no real show spoilers, so I'll leave it unspoilered)

Tywin seems a hard man to you, but he's no harder than he's had to be. Our own father was gentle and amiable, but so weak his bannermen mocked him in their cups. Some saw fit to defy him openly. Other lords borrowed his gold and never troubled to repay it. At court they japed of toothless lions. Even his own mistress stole from him. A woman scarcely one step above a whore, and she helped herself to my mother's jewels! It fell to Tywin to restore House Lannister to its proper place. Just as it fell to him to rule this realm, when he was no more than twenty. He bore that heavy burden for twenty years and all it earned him was a mad king's envy. Instead of the honor he deserved, he was made to suffer slights beyond count, yet he gave the Seven Kingdoms peace, plenty and justice. He is a just man.[4]

Fair enough, like I said only half way through the first book. That said ,I must say the tv series goes through great lengths to make him a misunderstood hero. Whether that's true to the books I cannot say, but it seem deliberate in terms of the show.

Dinklage's portrayal of Tyrion was so good and so popular I think there was a deliberate push to shape him into a protagonist/common rooting interest. He's Martin's favorite character as well, and gets a pretty pro-Tyrion angle even in the books, despite frequently indulging in less than ethical behavior.

It's just a shame, to me, because I find the more morally grey Tyrion to be a more interesting character.

 

[Lord Garnaat]

Good assessments on everyone, I'd say. The only ones I would disagree with are Daenerys (she seems like a true Lawful Good to me, or at least a Neutral Good) and Arya (who starts out fairly Chaotic Good but begins to slip more and more into Chaotic Neutral as time goes on). Tywin, Cersei, and Littlefinger are all firmly evil, and don't let anyone convince you otherwise. Also, I agree with your stance on Jaime - when we first see him in the series he's pretty darn evil, but after the 3 book/season he starts to redeem himself and rise up towards good.

For the sake of finality, I'll add my own take on a few other characters:

Davos Seasworth: Lawful Good

Stannis Baratheon: Lawful Neutral (with a few Lawful Good moments)

Melisandre: Tough one. She doesn't seem "evil" in any particular way, especially her motives (save the whole world from never-ending darkness), but she's certainly not good either. I'd say True Neutral, but if anyone thinks otherwise then please share why.

Renly Baratheon: Chaotic Neutral

Walder Frey: Neutral Evil

Roose Bolton: Lawful Evil

Ramsey Bolton/Snow: Chaotic Evil

Mance Rayder, Ygritte, Tormund, pretty much every non-evil wildling: Chaotic Neutral

Hot Pie: Hot Pie

Brienne of Tarth: Lawful Good

Samwell Tarly: Neutral Good

Ser Barristan the Bold: Lawful Good

Daario Noharis: Chaotic Neutral

 

[loc978]

...I would disagree with the takes I've seen on Jaqen H'ghar so far. He's True Neutral, as in the classic AD&D druidic balance-of-nature obsessed religious True Neutral.

Spoiler

...as are all high-ranking servants of the many-faced God.

I would call Petyr Baelish Chaotic Neutral... self-aware and proud of the fact, as well.

Tyrion... starts off Chaotic Good. He schemes, he gets some people killed, and he plays the game of thrones with a flavor of "row row fight da powah" while trying his best to avoid hurting innocents...

Spoiler

...until he loses... and learns that some people he thought of as innocent were far from it... and he gets angrier, more vengeful, more manipulative... and murderous. In the books he has progressed to Chaotic Neutral. He may find his way back to Chaotic Good considering his probable new boss... but that remains to be seen.

 

[Artemis923]

Eddard Stark Lawful Good (duh)
Arya Stark Chaotic Good
Rob Stark Lawful Good
Brann Stark Neutral Good
Theon Greyjoy Chaotic Good ---> Chaotic Evil

Lord Varys Master of Whispers True Neutral
Lord Balish Master of Coin Neutral Evil

Jaime Lannister Chaotic Evil / Chaotic Neutral
Cersei Lannister Neutral Evil
Twyin Lannister Lawful Evil
Tyrion Lannister Chaotic Neutral / Chaotic Good?

Denarys Targarian Chaotic Good ???

Gendri Lawful Neutral?

Jaquen Hegal Lawful Evil?

Hodor Hodor!

By the Seven, please at least spell their names right. I mean, I know 8/10 people who "like" A Song of Ice and Fire just watch the show, but let's at least pretend you are invested enough to know the characters.

Now, let's get to it.

Eddard Stark-So, rebelling against your king is lawful, is it? Mad or no, Aerys II Targaryen was the rightful king of Westeros. Eddard Stark also cut through several characters that ARE truly lawful good-namely, Ser Gerald Hightower, Ser Arthur Dayne, and Ser Oswell Whent. These men were lawful good to the core. Eddard Stark cut them down for his sister, a very chaotic act indeed. Furthermore, he has secrets that I will not spoil. Lawful good characters are honest, in all things.

Eddard Stark is NEUTRAL good, with lawful tendencies.

Arya Stark is VERY Chaotic, but I would say she is neutral, not good. She has good tendencies, but let's get real: Arya is out to survive. A good character doesn't abandon a man dying of fever without laying him to rest. A good character doesn't use an assassin to further her own agenda, then manipulate that same assassin to get more out of the bargain.

Bran hasn't done much in terms of actions himself; he's a lot of imagery and foreshadowing on GRRM's part. Just because he's a stark doesn't mean he gets to call himself "good". Bran is neutral; we'll see how this whole Blood Raven thing pans out to see if he's really good or evil.

Theon Greyjoy is neutral good. At heart, he wants to be a good person. He saves Bran from the wildlings, and follows Robb into battle without question. Theon's downfall is the shitty hand life has dealt him. To be raised by your family's enemy's is a hard thing; to go home and be shunned and outcast is even worse. Theon did what he thought was right for both his families. In the end, he is remorseful and wishes things would have been different. "My real father died at King's Landing."

Lord Varys is chaotic good. He is a servant of the Realm, first and foremost. He does not betray, he keeps the political peace as best he can. However, he is not lawful at all. Secretly, he is preparing for the return of the Targaryens, although this could be considered the lawful thing to do, since Dany is the rightful heir.

Lord Baelish is neutral evil. Every move he makes is for his own personal gain. He desires power and status above all things, and is very adept at intrigue. It is later revealed that several plots and schemes were ones he set into motion.

Jaime Lannister is chaotic neutral. He is not a good man, and his crime will outlive him. However, he's not evil either. There is no base cruelty in him, and he has more honor than most men. The transformation he goes through after losing his sword hand is one of the best in ASoIaF.

Cersei Lannister is all neutral evil. She operates only expand her own power, and dominate those around her. She constantly manipulates these people to get her way, whether through sex, intimidation, or threats. After the way Robert Baratheon treated her, she will never be anything more.

Tywin Lannister is neutral. His goal is to see the name of Lannister endure, and become the most powerful house in the Seven Kingdoms. He does this through both good and evil acts, and both in and outside of the law.

Tyrion Lannister is chaotic neutral, with good tendencies. On one hand, he is a good man that genuinely cares for others. On the other, he is scheming, manipulating, and ruthless. He also works in and outside of the law. He is Tywin Lannister made small; the difference is, he likes whores and unsavory characters like Bronn and the Clansmen.

DAENERYS TARGARYEN {There's the correct way to spell it.} is neutral good. Her goal is to reclaim the throne that is rightfully hers; a very lawful thing indeed. However, she does several chaotic things along the way, and although she is good at heart, not all she has done has been good either. She knows how to manipulate and exploit others to get what she needs. The difference between her and Cersei is that Cersei thinks about herself above all others; Dany worries constantly about her "children".

Gendry Baratheon has absolutely no importance to the story whatsoever. If you were expecting him to pull a "Return of the King" shtick, you're wasting your time. Therefore, his alignment is a pointless discussion.

JAQEN H'GHAR. {Correct spelling.} Jaqen is true neutral. Being a Faceless Man of Braavos, he is neither good, nor evil, lawful, nor chaotic. The House of Black and White is above such things.

I think that about covers these. I've been reading A Song of Ice and Fire since 2000, so I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on these characters and their motivations. They aren't characters to me; they are my friends.

 

[Angelous Wang]

Eddard Stark - Lawful Good - Follows the rules and oath's to a fault. Almost completely selfless.

Arya Stark - Chaotic Neutral - Follows no rules, will kill (or have people killed) on impulse. Mostly Selfish behaviour and goals, but will still save and help others.

Rob Stark - Lawful Neutral - Follows rules and oath's(99% of the time anyway), started off more selfless but became far more selfish towards the end.

Brann Stark - Lawful Neutral - Follows rules and oath's (as far as we have seen), has somewhat selfish goals (he should be reclaiming and taking care of Winterfell, not off bird spotting) but will still save and help others.

Sansa Stark - Lawful Neutral - has always followed laws and oaths, mostly Selfish behaviour and goals, but will still save and help others.

Catelyn Stark - True Neutral - Breaks oaths and rules for selfish goals often, but trys to be honourable and selfless most of the time.

Jon Snow - Lawful Neutral > Lawful Good - has always followed laws and oaths, to being with he was very self centred. However his experiences outside the wall have pushed him to selflessness, he just wants to save the all living from the White Walkers now.

Samwell Tarly - Lawful Neutral - Follows the rules to an extent, but will break on occasion, Mostly Selfish behaviour and goals, but will still save and help others.

Brienne of Tarth - Lawful Good - Follows the rules and oath's. Selfless.

Jaquen H'GHar - Lawful Good - Follows the rules of his order, selfless towards his order. - The Order of Faceless Men itself however is arguably Chaotic Evil.

Theon Greyjoy - Neutral Evil - Follows the rules to an extent, but will break on occasion, completely selfish goals.

Balon Greyjoy. - Chaotic Evil - Follows no rules, will kill (or have people killed) on impulse. completely selfish goals.

Asha Greyjoy - Lawful Neutral - Follows the rules to an extent, but will break on occasion, Mostly Selfish behaviour and goals, but will still save and help others.

Tywin Lannister - Neutral Evil - Follows the rules to an extent, but will break on occasion, completely selfish goals.

Jaime Lannister - True Neutral - Follows his own somewhat twisted sense of honour (being the Mad Kings bodyguard messed him up), can be completely selfless (he King-Slayed the Mad King to prevent him burning down the whole of King's landing) but is also capable of being completely selfish (pushing Bran out the window). In a way he flops back and forth from both extremes.

Cersei Lannister - Chaotic Evil - Follows no rules, will kill (or have people killed) on impulse. completely selfish goals.

Tyrion Lannister - True Neutral - Follows the rules to an extent, but will break on occasion, Mostly Selfish behaviour and goals, but will still save and help others.

Joffrey Baratheon - Chaotic Evil - Follows no rules, will kill (or have people killed) on impulse. completely selfish goals.

Robert Baratheon - Lawful Neutral - has always followed laws and oaths (apart from that whole Rebellion thing...), mostly Selfish behaviour and goals, but will still save and help others.

Renly Baratheon - Lawful Good - he's a puppet, but follows the rules and oath's. And is mostly selfless. And a complete wimp.

Stannis Baratheon - Lawful Neutral - has always followed laws and oaths, mostly Selfish behaviour and goals, but will still save and help others.

Davos Seasworth - Lawful Good - Follows the rules and oath's (after smuggler career). Selfless towards Stannis and his cause.

Melisandre - Neutral Good - Follows the rules to an extent, but will break on occasion, Selfless towards her religion and to the extent it helps her religion Stannis. (Also wants to stop the White walkers, as they are enemies of her religion).

Varys - Chaotic Good - Follows no rules. Selfless goals (his goal is mass-peace for the 7 kingdoms .. well as far as we have been told).

Balish - Chaotic Evil - Follows no rules. completely selfish goals.

Denarys Targayen - True Neutral - Follows her own set of rules, but still mass murder technically, mostly Selfish behaviour and goals, but will still save and help others.

Jorah Mormont - Lawful Good - Follows the rules and oath's (after slave incident). Selfless towards Denarys and her cause (with a bit of a selfish lusting after her reasoning).

Ser Barristan - Lawful Good - Follows the rules and oath's. Selfless towards Denarys and her cause.

Mance Rayder - Chaotic Good - Follows no rules, will kill (or have people killed) on impulse. Selfless goals (save the wildings from the White Walkers).

Ygritte - Chaotic Neutral - Follows no rules, will kill (or have people killed) on impulse. Mostly Selfish behaviour and goals, but will still save and help others.

Walder Frey - Neutral Evil - Follows the rules to an extent, but will break on occasion, Selfish behaviour and goals.

Roose Bolton - Neutral Evil - Follows the rules to an extent, but will break on occasion, Selfish behaviour and goals.

Ramsey Bolton/Snow - Chaotic Evil - Follows no rules. completely selfish goals.

White Walkers - Lawful Good- completely loyal and selfless to their god, the god of death and ice. KILL ALL HUMANS, Kill them with ICE!.

 

[DEAD34345]

I think it's pretty hard to define with most characters, which is a large part of what I like about Game of Thrones. A couple are pretty clear though, I don't know how anyone could put Baelish anywhere other than chaotic evil for example. His "chaos is a ladder" speech is practically the definition of that alignment. A neutral evil character has no particular scruples for how they further their goals, and will use any means necessary, but Baelish specifically shows a strong preference towards chaos.

Ned's alignment seems to have changed from the past. Rebelling against Aegon Targaryen would indicate he's neutral good, but in the actual series he firmly puts the law and his "honor" above any good he could have done, making him lawful neutral (or lawful good, with an extremely strong weighting on the lawful side?).

As for most of the other characters... I'm not sure, they may not fit at all. The differences in their motivations mostly come down to what specific kind of good they're trying to do. Does trying to support your family above all others make you good or evil? Is a good person only good if they're willing to sacrifice their loved ones for the cause of good, or does being willing to sacrifice loved ones to further a goal make you evil?

 

[Rariow]

Been meaning to do this for a while in my own free time, so might as well do this on the forums.

Eddard Stark - During the events of the books/show he's definitely Lawful Good. His actions are pretty much the definition of Lawful Good. I'd argue he used to be Neutral or even Chaotic Good. In the 3rd edition handbook (which I happen to have on hand) Chaotic Good is described as a "rebel", and Ned and Robert's rebellion was one of the main things to start this ordeal. I'd say Robb's like a young Ned - is Chaotic Good at the moment, would be Lawful if given time to evolve into it.

Arya Stark - Tricky to define. Definitely starts off as Chaotic Good, but I'd argue is moving towards Chaotic Neutral as the story goes on. Even considering only what's happened in the show, she has used an assasssin, Jaqen, to eliminate kill a couple men and then help conquer a fortress, which, from the amount of bloodshed involved, is a pretty Evil action, even if the Starks are *TECHNICALLY* the good guys. Very little doubt as to whether she's Chaotic, though.

Bran Stark - Bleh. Is there a "bland" alignment? GRRM seems to be setting him up to actually do things, but we've not seen him respond to anything yet - it's always either simply doing what others tell him to do or being carried around -, and as such, it's pretty much impossible to define him. I guess the closest thing is True Neutral, but even that's horribly inaccurate, because even True Neutral involves a modicum of doing stuff, namely trying very hard to STAY True Neutral, which Bran doesn't do. He seems like a good kid from what we can pick up from his PoV chapters, but not enough to be a good character, and he seems like he doesn't really care about the rules - breaking promises to Catelyn, doing stuff more 'cause he's afraid than because of honour -, but not enough to be Chaotic.

Sansa Stark - Why have we been skipping her out? She's a pretty interesting character to think about, I'd say. Very hard to define, but I'd give her Lawful Neutral. She's not a bad person at heart - all of her bad deeds have been through having been deceived/simple naivety - but she doesn't stand up against evil either. She's not really in the position to do so, true, but she doesn't seem to want to do it apart from because she personally's getting hurt. If I remember right, a Neutral character won't be bothered unless their friends or family get hurt. That's pretty much true. She's Lawful more by neccesity than instinct, too, just being so to survive life in Joffrey's court. She did seem to lean towards this even before the whole kaboozle went down, though.

Theon Greyjoy - Neutral Good. Very, very stupid, but neutral good. His idea of what good and evil is completely upside down, and his attempts to do good things always lead to evil, but at the core of it is that he tries to be good, and that's what makes him a good-aligned character. For most of Book 2, he sees himself as a sort of hero - he's trying to give the men of the Iron Islands what he sees as their rightful lands and customs.

Lord Varys - I'll skip this one, as my explanation would require spoilers for those who haven't read the books.

Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish - Chaotic Evil. He is the archetypal guy looking out only for himself. Not a malicious evil a la Joffrey, but willing to shove people out of the way of his ambitions. Sees the law as something to be exploited and dodged around to give himself an advantage.

Tywin Lannister - Lawful Neutral. He's not evil in the sense that he isn't out for personal gain. Even if he takes some horrible, horrible actions, his only objective is to make his family be in a better position. He could live out his own life in richness and leave his sons to take care of the rest, but he instead makes every possible move to put his family up even further. And, whatever you say, he does follow "A Lannister always pays his debts" to the letter.

Cersei Lannister - Neutral Evil, bordering on Neutral. Her actions are always for her own best, but, at least in the PoV chapters we get for her, her thoughts rarely stray from what's best for her family. She won't pass up killing a man for personal gain, but she'd also do it for her sons. I frankly don't know whether that's Evil or not.

Jaime Lannister - Chaotic Neutral. His general attitude towards most things is "bah, don't really care", apart from very specific cases (usually involving his family or the fate of so many people even he's phased). He doesn't really have any ambition, or any motivation. He's done bad things, for bad reasons, but he's not remorseless about it. He's also done good things, for good reasons, but he's regretted them. His Chaotic nature stems more from him always having had been above the law than not really having respect from it.

Tyrion Lannister - The hardest character to define in the entire thing for me, and that's precisely why he's my favourite. I'd say Chaotic, definitely, but on the Good v Evil scale I frankly don't know. He's not Evil, definitely. He's not Good, since he can be pretty selfish at times, but he's not Neutral either, since he actively avoids doing Evil. Even with him being one of the longest-running PoV characters, it's very hard to see whether his good actions genuinely come from the heart or are his way of brilliant political manipulation. I don't know whether it can be both. The closest I can pinpoint it I guess is precisely the line between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral.

Daenerys Targaryen - Neutral Good. One of the easiest to pinpoint - will do good through whatever means possible. I'm probably in the minority in that I never liked her in either the books or what I've watched in the series, precisely because of that. Compared to how complex the other character's motivations are, hers is very straightforward and bland.

Jaqen H'Ghar - True Neutral. It's not shown up in the show yet, but the Faceless Men's whole shtick is that they're True Neutral.

I'd like to add some more of my own, much as I did with Sansa above.

Stannis Baratheon: Lawful Neutral. His whole thing is that the law most come first. He never went to war because of ambition or wanting to do good, just because it's what he must. He's a man of rules, rules, rules. He does have a good side to him (He believes doing what he must IS good, and he treats people like Davos quite kindly) and an evil side to him (He forcibly converts Dragonstone's religion to that of R'hllor not because he believes it, but because he needs the power), but they're balanced enough to come out at Neutral overall.

Joffrey Baratheon: Lawful Good. Joffrey is by far the most mentally balanced, good hearted character in all of Westeros. I root for him, for I believe that he wants to do what's best, does what's best, and never, ever thinks of his own benefit. He treats his enemies kindly, would never go down to a conniving, evil trick to do anything, and deserves to be the King of Westeros forever. He's also generous to the people that do good to him, and would never hold his power over someone who has less of it than he does.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

A couple are pretty clear though, I don't know how anyone could put Baelish anywhere other than chaotic evil for example. His "chaos is a ladder" speech is practically the definition of that alignment. A neutral evil character has no particular scruples for how they further their goals, and will use any means necessary, but Baelish specifically shows a strong preference towards chaos.

I disagree.

They will do whatever they want whenever they want to do it, which, seeing as they are evil, usually entails lots and lots of death and destruction. These characters are usually the most aggressive of the Evil alignments, more often than not being possessed of an impulsively violent nature and a total disregard for people, laws, or even the world around them. In short, Chaotic Evil represents the destruction of not only life and goodness, but also the order upon which they depend.

Littlefinger is a self-centered opportunist. He never displays any particular relish at the suffering of others, and appears to be entirely motivated by "pro Littlefinger" concerns. This could be interpreted as Neutral Evil, True Neutral, or Chaotic Neutral depending on how you read the harm he allows in order to achieve his goals.

A True Neutral character or organization can be introduced as a Wild Card, neither aligned with the Hero nor the Big Bad. On the other hand, they may well be on one side or the other, at least nominally. Perhaps they care little for the conflict and have their own goals, which are neither particularly good or evil. A True Neutral scientist may work for the good guys because it furthers their research, but they may also work for the bad guys for the same reason. They could also be on whichever side their friends are, just because of that. True Neutral characters can seem somewhat selfish, but they can also seem rather happy-go-lucky in comparison to more responsible characters.

I think that fairly accurately describes Littlefinger. None of his goals are to deliberately inflict suffering and pain, or to beggar the realm. He's simply interested in consolidating power for himself.

Littlefinger is also not the Joker. He's not an "agent of Chaos", interested in causing Chaos for the sake of causing Chaos. He's interested in taking full advantage of the opportunities that Chaos creates. I'm also fairly certain that speech was show-only, although I might be failing to remember it from the books. The show seems very interested in making Littlefinger into a vamping, mustache twirling Snidely Whiplash character for some reason, and the delivery of that speech was one of the worst examples of it to date. But even show Littlefinger is just being nakedly opportunistic. He's not sowing Chaos just because he likes watching the kingdom burn down.

At least, not that we've been given to understand so far. Who knows, maybe Martin does an 11th hour reveal and Petyr Baelish is exactly that.

Actually I change my mind, Littlefinger is CHAOTIC NEUTRAL.

Type 1 can be vaguely described as a true hedonist ? they are interested in fulfilling their desires, and in pursuing their own interests. They have little to no respect for law and order, at best accepting it as a necessary evil that furthers these ends, at worst to the point they are prepared to commit acts that are immoral or outright criminal, avoiding a Neutral or Chaotic Evil alignment due to simply not being ruthless or malevolent enough. They are not evil because their desires are not especially evil (or they have too much of a conscience), but neither are they altruistic enough to be considered good, and they may hold both either in disdain or with indifference, feeling that to each their own, though most know better than to hang out with especially wicked types. At best, they are kind to friends, family or strangers if only because they find such behaviour personally satisfying; at worst, they are Jerkasses who don't give a damn about anyone but themselves, and are indifferent or blind to the rights of others.

 

[Casper Andersen]

Stannis is like the archetype for Lawful Neutral

 

[DEAD34345]

Spoiler: Spoilered to reduce length

A couple are pretty clear though, I don't know how anyone could put Baelish anywhere other than chaotic evil for example. His "chaos is a ladder" speech is practically the definition of that alignment. A neutral evil character has no particular scruples for how they further their goals, and will use any means necessary, but Baelish specifically shows a strong preference towards chaos.

I disagree.

They will do whatever they want whenever they want to do it, which, seeing as they are evil, usually entails lots and lots of death and destruction. These characters are usually the most aggressive of the Evil alignments, more often than not being possessed of an impulsively violent nature and a total disregard for people, laws, or even the world around them. In short, Chaotic Evil represents the destruction of not only life and goodness, but also the order upon which they depend.

Littlefinger is a self-centered opportunist. He never displays any particular relish at the suffering of others, and appears to be entirely motivated by "pro Littlefinger" concerns. This could be interpreted as Neutral Evil, True Neutral, or Chaotic Neutral depending on how you read the harm he allows in order to achieve his goals.

A True Neutral character or organization can be introduced as a Wild Card, neither aligned with the Hero nor the Big Bad. On the other hand, they may well be on one side or the other, at least nominally. Perhaps they care little for the conflict and have their own goals, which are neither particularly good or evil. A True Neutral scientist may work for the good guys because it furthers their research, but they may also work for the bad guys for the same reason. They could also be on whichever side their friends are, just because of that. True Neutral characters can seem somewhat selfish, but they can also seem rather happy-go-lucky in comparison to more responsible characters.

I think that fairly accurately describes Littlefinger. None of his goals are to deliberately inflict suffering and pain, or to beggar the realm. He's simply interested in consolidating power for himself.

Littlefinger is also not the Joker. He's not an "agent of Chaos", interested in causing Chaos for the sake of causing Chaos. He's interested in taking full advantage of the opportunities that Chaos creates. I'm also fairly certain that speech was show-only, although I might be failing to remember it from the books. The show seems very interested in making Littlefinger into a vamping, mustache twirling Snidely Whiplash character for some reason, and the delivery of that speech was one of the worst examples of it to date. But even show Littlefinger is just being nakedly opportunistic. He's not sowing Chaos just because he likes watching the kingdom burn down.

At least, not that we've been given to understand so far. Who knows, maybe Martin does an 11th hour reveal and Petyr Baelish is exactly that.

Actually I change my mind, Littlefinger is CHAOTIC NEUTRAL.

Type 1 can be vaguely described as a true hedonist ? they are interested in fulfilling their desires, and in pursuing their own interests. They have little to no respect for law and order, at best accepting it as a necessary evil that furthers these ends, at worst to the point they are prepared to commit acts that are immoral or outright criminal, avoiding a Neutral or Chaotic Evil alignment due to simply not being ruthless or malevolent enough. They are not evil because their desires are not especially evil (or they have too much of a conscience), but neither are they altruistic enough to be considered good, and they may hold both either in disdain or with indifference, feeling that to each their own, though most know better than to hang out with especially wicked types. At best, they are kind to friends, family or strangers if only because they find such behaviour personally satisfying; at worst, they are Jerkasses who don't give a damn about anyone but themselves, and are indifferent or blind to the rights of others.

Unless you define "evil" as sadism and nothing else, then varying degrees of selfishness are the only kind of evil there is... As long as we're talking about humans and not unknowable monsters, anyway. Even Joffrey's more stereo-typically sadistic and evil actions come down to selfishness, really. He derives happiness from the suffering of others, but the important part is that he cares only for his own happiness and no-one else's. He'd have a "good" alignment if he rejected that urge and decided that the well-being and happiness of the people he could hurt were worth more than the happiness he'd gain from hurting them.

Also, it practically says that Petyr Baelish would not fit as chaotic neutral in the very quote you've used. "[...] avoiding a Neutral or Chaotic Evil alignment due to simply not being ruthless or malevolent enough." ... "They are not evil because their desires are not especially evil (or they have too much of a conscience)". You don't get any more ruthless than Petyr Baelish, he cares for himself and *nothing* else, and he has no conscience. A chaotic neutral person might selfishly steal from someone else for personal gain, but they probably wouldn't brutally murder a man for pocket change. Petyr Baelish would burn down 1000 orphanages and all the orphans within if he thought it'd serve his goals overall, and he wouldn't even hesitate. He cares for himself and nothing else factors into his decisions at all. That makes him evil in my opinion, about as evil as you can possibly be.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Also, it practically says that Petyr Baelish would not fit as chaotic neutral in the very quote you've used. "[...] avoiding a Neutral or Chaotic Evil alignment due to simply not being ruthless or malevolent enough." ... "They are not evil because their desires are not especially evil (or they have too much of a conscience)". You don't get any more ruthless than Petyr Baelish, he cares for himself and *nothing* else, and he has no conscience. A chaotic neutral person might selfishly steal from someone else for personal gain, but they probably wouldn't brutally murder a man for pocket change. Petyr Baelish would burn down 1000 orphanages and all the orphans within if he thought it'd serve his goals overall, and he wouldn't even hesitate. He cares for himself and nothing else factors into his decisions at all. That makes him evil in my opinion, about as evil as you can possibly be.

I've always felt the neutral range was there to provide for the selfish or self-motivated characters. We need to keep in mind the D&D alignment scale was meant to provide a morality axis for a world where you have demons and drow stomping around. "Cartoonish Evil" does apply, to some degree.

Spoiler: Mild Book Spoilers

I find it hard to unconditionally confirm that Baelish cares for absolutely NOTHING but his own gratification. The man does not get POV chapters, and we seem him primarily first as a scheming antagonist (Ned, Tyrion) and later as a moderately creepy father figure (Sansa). As to his actual motivations, we are left to guess. He certainly doesn't appear to deliberately choose "maximize harm" paths to his goals, he's just opportunistic. Whereas, say, Gregor Clegane will actively seek to brutalize for sport. The pain and suffering IS his goal.

So I ask...if Baelish is slotted as Chaotic Evil, where do you put Clegane? Or Ramsay Bolton? Scratch the latter if you've not read the books.

If we're talking show only, I can see a stronger argument made for Littlefinger being evil. I'd put him as Neutral Evil, though.

Type 1 characters are amoral and commit evil for self-serving, but not necessarily malicious purposes. They tend to be in it for money and power but (generally) eschew motives like revenge or sadism, viewing them as barbaric or simply unprofessional, if they regard them at all; that does not mean they'll always, or ever, stop their bosses, partners or lackeys from indulging in such behavior, though, and they are usually prepared to Kick the Dog or perform Cold-Blooded Torture as a means to an end. Perhaps they are a Punch Clock Villain, or maybe they believe there is Better Living Through Evil, or perhaps they are Blessed with Suck and their talents happen to lend themselves to evil (like, say, a talent for professional hits. Essentially, this is anyone who would be a True Neutral if not for the lack of conscience or empathy, or their practice of putting either aside to further their own ends. A type 1 will either not understand the difference between right and wrong, or understand but choose wrong anyway, perhaps justifying it with Necessarily Evil, or perhaps simply not viewing the whole Good and Evil thing to be of any special importance in the first place. On the other end of the scale, this can ramp up to Scary Dogmatic Aliens or Eldritch Abominations and anyone else operating on Blue and Orange Morality or Above Good and Evil, but who are just culpable enough to still qualify as evil.