Game of Thrones Character's D&D Alignment?

[gim73]

There are certain characters the show makes less noble than they actually are. One of them is Jon Snow.

I swear, HBO is going out of their way to make Jon and Sam look like morons. The book arc for Jon was all about him being too good for the Nights watch, and he has to learn to be a brother. The show pretty much misses most of that, in favor of him being the guy who gets his scouting team caught and kills half-hand. Jon is very noble, and he protects Sam from a lot of bullying. And people see Sam kill the white walker, and give him the nick-name 'sam the slayer'.

As far as lawful good goes... it does NOT tolerate outright evil in your rulers. There is a point where you stop listening to a purely evil king. When he wants to burn his citizens and orders you to kill your father, that was Jaimes breaking point.

Theon Greyjoy is most definitely NOT any sort of good. He was certainly raised by good people, but he DEFIED the orders of his bloodthirsty family and chose to sack the home he grew up in. Oh, and there are no good people in the iron islands. The virtues of those islands are rape and murder. King Robert should have killed the whole lot of them.

On that note, the Targaryens are pretty much all evil and neutral at very best. Daenerys sometimes appears to have a glint of good in her, but that's just empathy because she was essentially a slave sold by her 'family', and ridden like a beast, so she is angered by rape and slavery. If I played a Paladin who went to a merchant to buy a horse, handed over the gold and then murdered the merchant because he gelded my horse, I would not be lawful good. If I started sacking towns on the way to my goal, just because my soldiers needed experience, I would not be any type of good. Chaotic Neutral. The best Targaryen that has been seen is Maester Aegon, and I'd put him at true neutral. As far as the original Targaryens, none of them were any good either. They had the last three dragons in the world and used them to sack a stable continent with a rich history going back 8000 years. Imagine if the US was destroyed and an Aircraft Carrier group used it's superior firepower to conquer a couple of third world countries. That is basically what they did.

 

[DEAD34345]

Spoiler

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.

I can see the argument you're making, but I think with the "chaos is a ladder" speech he definitely shifts into being chaotic, at least in the series if that isn't in the books (I've read the first few, but don't remember if that appears in them or not). Baelish basically says that power is everything, and the climb to power is all that matters. It doesn't even seem like he has an actual end-game for that power, it's just a philosophy of his in which the pursuit of strength and power doesn't just serve a goal (as it would for a neutral evil character), it *is* the goal. In his words, "...some are given a chance to climb, they cling to the realm or the gods or love. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.".

Gregor Clegane and Ramsay Bolton I'd say were neutral evil, given what I know. They're both self serving and extremely sadistic, but don't prefer either chaos or the law. They do what brings them their twisted happiness, and don't care about how horrific their actions are. I don't think think they have any larger philosophy than that, though it's possible they might.

In my mind the neutral alignment is for most people. People who will generally do good, as long as it comes at no great expense to themselves or their family/loved ones etc. The evil alignment implies a specific willingness to harm others in order to achieve personal goals, which most people don't have (but Baelish definitely does). Sadism is something else altogether, and it is possible to have a streak of sadism and still remain neutral or good.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The book arc for Jon was all about him being too good for the Nights watch, and he has to learn to be a brother.

Wut? Do you remember the conversation he has with Donal Noye? Where Noye calls him "a bastard and a bully" for holding himself above his brothers in the Night's Watch? His book 1 arc is all about him putting ASIDE his feelings of superiority and learning to put the Watch ahead of his own selfish desires. That's his "growing up" arc.

Actually upon re-reading your quote we might be saying the same thing, so ignore me if that's the case. =P

PS - Agreed on Dany. We've heard way, way too much about the Targaryen madness for her occasional wild mood swings and erratic behavior to be entirely coincidental.

I can see the argument you're making, but I think with the "chaos is a ladder" speech he definitely shifts into being chaotic, at least in the series if that isn't in the books (I've read the first few, but don't remember if that appears in them or not). Baelish basically says that power is everything, and the climb to power is all that matters. It doesn't even seem like he has an actual end-game for that power, it's just a philosophy of his in which the pursuit of strength and power doesn't just serve a goal (as it would for a neutral evil character), it *is* the goal. In his words, "...some are given a chance to climb, they cling to the realm or the gods or love. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.".

Gregor Clegane and Ramsay Bolton I'd say were neutral evil, given what I know. They're both self serving and extremely sadistic, but don't prefer either chaos or the law. They do what brings them their twisted happiness, and don't care about how horrific their actions are. I don't think think they have any larger philosophy than that, though it's possible they might.

In my mind the neutral alignment is for most people. People who will generally do good, as long as it comes at no great expense to themselves or their family/loved ones etc. The evil alignment implies a specific willingness to harm others in order to achieve personal goals, which most people don't have (but Baelish definitely does). Sadism is something else altogether, and it is possible to have a streak of sadism and still remain neutral or good.

I'd say Clegane fits this Chaotic Evil descriptor perfectly...

Type 2 is the exact opposite. They are so Evil that they would rather side with the bad guys even if they're the ones in charge. They place more value in unleashing fiery death and mayhem over the ability to do it at any time, so they take orders grudgingly but take them nonetheless. This type of Chaotic Evil makes for a particularly unpleasant brand of Mook, given that they don't care about collateral damage (in fact they deliberately seek it) or killing any fellow Mooks unfortunate enough to get in their way (which makes it even more fun for them). If the Big Bad handles his great big stick skillfully enough, a Type 2 may become Neutral Evil or even Lawful Evil simply out of habit. If, on the other hand, they are the Big Bad, expect them to go out of their way to violate any sense of honour, traditon, loyalty, or responsibility normally associated with the leadership position, such as betraying their own Mooks purely For the Evulz.

Ramsay is tougher. I acknowledge he could go either way, really. It's a bit hard to read him.

I concede that Littlefinger leans evil more than anything, but I still think his fundamental goals are neutral, although selfish, and thus I have a hard time sticking him fully in the evil camp. He's a "ends justify the means" type. Whereas the ends for both Ramsay and Gregor are purely malevolent. I hear your point about not reserving the evil end of the scale for sadists, but we need some way of drawing a distinction between a self-motivated schemer like Littlefinger who capitalizes on harm, and a brute like Clegane or a psychopathic serial killer like Bolton who actively seek it as an end in and of itself.

PS - TVTropes agrees with you on Littlefinger. He's listed as Neutral Evil, along with Cersei, Walder Frey, and Bronn.

Vargo Hoat, Gregor Clegane, and Ramsay Bolton are listed as Chaotic Evil.

I declare a draw!

Actually wait, that's two for me and one for you. You owe me five cookies.

 

[DEAD34345]

Spoiler

I can see the argument you're making, but I think with the "chaos is a ladder" speech he definitely shifts into being chaotic, at least in the series if that isn't in the books (I've read the first few, but don't remember if that appears in them or not). Baelish basically says that power is everything, and the climb to power is all that matters. It doesn't even seem like he has an actual end-game for that power, it's just a philosophy of his in which the pursuit of strength and power doesn't just serve a goal (as it would for a neutral evil character), it *is* the goal. In his words, "...some are given a chance to climb, they cling to the realm or the gods or love. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.".

Gregor Clegane and Ramsay Bolton I'd say were neutral evil, given what I know. They're both self serving and extremely sadistic, but don't prefer either chaos or the law. They do what brings them their twisted happiness, and don't care about how horrific their actions are. I don't think think they have any larger philosophy than that, though it's possible they might.

In my mind the neutral alignment is for most people. People who will generally do good, as long as it comes at no great expense to themselves or their family/loved ones etc. The evil alignment implies a specific willingness to harm others in order to achieve personal goals, which most people don't have (but Baelish definitely does). Sadism is something else altogether, and it is possible to have a streak of sadism and still remain neutral or good.

I'd say Clegane fits this Chaotic Evil descriptor perfectly...

Type 2 is the exact opposite. They are so Evil that they would rather side with the bad guys even if they're the ones in charge. They place more value in unleashing fiery death and mayhem over the ability to do it at any time, so they take orders grudgingly but take them nonetheless. This type of Chaotic Evil makes for a particularly unpleasant brand of Mook, given that they don't care about collateral damage (in fact they deliberately seek it) or killing any fellow Mooks unfortunate enough to get in their way (which makes it even more fun for them). If the Big Bad handles his great big stick skillfully enough, a Type 2 may become Neutral Evil or even Lawful Evil simply out of habit. If, on the other hand, they are the Big Bad, expect them to go out of their way to violate any sense of honour, traditon, loyalty, or responsibility normally associated with the leadership position, such as betraying their own Mooks purely For the Evulz.

Ramsay is tougher. I acknowledge he could go either way, really. It's a bit hard to read him.

I concede that Littlefinger leans evil more than anything, but I still think his fundamental goals are neutral, although selfish, and thus I have a hard time sticking him fully in the evil camp. He's a "ends justify the means" type. Whereas the ends for both Ramsay and Gregor are purely malevolent. I hear your point about not reserving the evil end of the scale for sadists, but we need some way of drawing a distinction between a self-motivated schemer like Littlefinger who capitalizes on harm, and a brute like Clegane or a psychopathic serial killer like Bolton who actively seek it as an end in and of itself.

I guess we're just working on different definitions at this point, since I don't really agree with that chaotic evil descriptor at all. If chaotic evil is basically just a more evil/sadistic version of neutral evil, why move it along the law/chaos scale instead of simply further down the evil scale? Doing things "for the evulz" is evil, not necessarily chaotic. Baelish isn't any more evil than Clegane or Bolton, but he specifically uses the chaos and destruction he helps cultivate to advance his position, making him chaotic. He likes the fact that the realm is falling apart, because he thrives in that kind of situation.

In saying that... Ramsay Bolton might fit that description too, though he hasn't specifically given a monologue about it. He certainly likes to use the chaotic situations around him to his advantage, and he might like to push it along too considering his actions with Theon. Gregor Clegane on the other hand isn't chaotic at all, he generally just follows orders, though he does so in the most horrible ways he can. He probably doesn't consciously try to push the realm into chaos, he's just a generally shitty guy who likes to hurt people.

*Edit* I'm far too chaotic to care that I owe you something, the cookies stay with me.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I guess we're just working on different definitions at this point, since I don't really agree with that chaotic evil descriptor at all. If chaotic evil is basically just a more evil/sadistic version of neutral evil, why move it along the law/chaos scale instead of simply further down the evil scale? Doing things "for the evulz" is evil, not necessarily chaotic. Baelish isn't any more evil than Clegane or Bolton, but he specifically uses the chaos and destruction he helps cultivate to advance his position, making him chaotic. He likes the fact that the realm is falling apart, because he thrives in that kind of situation.

In saying that... Ramsay Bolton might fit that description too, though he hasn't specifically given a monologue about it. He certainly likes to use the chaotic situations around him to his advantage, and he might like to push it along too considering his actions with Theon. Gregor Clegane on the other hand isn't chaotic at all, he generally just follows orders, though he does so in the most horrible ways he can. He probably doesn't consciously try to push the realm into chaos, he's just a generally shitty guy who likes to hurt people.

Admittedly I am going entirely off TV Tropes at the moment, as the site I usually check for alignment descriptions is down at the moment, and they've put a lot more thought into this than I'm willing to. They provided this helpful legend:

If you have a difficulty deciding which alignment an Evil-aligned character belongs to, the main difference between Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil is not their devotion to their evil wishes, but what methods they believe are best to realizing it:

Even though there are some situations where they can't always use this method, Lawful Evil characters believe the best way is to have a specific, strict code of conduct, whether self-imposed or codified as a law. Their first impulse when making a moral decision is to refer back to this code; those with externally-imposed systems (codes of laws, hierarchies, etc.) will try to work within the system when those systems go wrong. Depending on whether they are more Lawful or more Evil, they will either refuse to break the code even though it would hurt their evil objectives, or else break it only very reluctantly, and only when it would hurt their evil objectives if they kept their code.

Neutral Evil characters are indifferent to Order Versus Chaos, and their only interest is in realizing their evil wishes. They will use whatever means will help in realizing their evil wishes, whether that means tearing down a code of laws, following a code of laws, creating a new code of laws, causing the breakdown of justice, or just avoiding society altogether. Their only goal is to realize their evil wishes, full stop.

Most Chaotic Evil characters don't constantly break the law, but they don't place much value in laws (or, for weaker-CCEs, do not see the value in laws that do not function solely to their depraved objectives or increase their own personal freedom). They believe that their own evil impulses are their best guides, and that tying themselves to any given code of conduct would be limiting themselves. They often react violently to anyone who tries to instill any form of order over them, believing these people to be restricting their freedom. Chaotic Evil characters often focus very strongly on their own individual rights and freedoms, and will strongly resist any form of oppression over themselves.

Where I keep struggling with Littlefinger as evil is that his GOALS do not strike me as evil. TV Tropes says...

Spoiler: Book 3 spoilers

...that he is directly responsible for starting a civil war, and that in and of itself was his goal...

...I'm not sure that's an accurate representation of his long term plans. I will freely admit, however, that there is insufficient evidence to judge one way or the other, and there is plenty of room for a "straight up evil" reading of Littlefinger, especially if you're using the show as your guideline.

Gregor, I would argue, is Chaotic Evil incarnate. He's completely uncontrollable. He doesn't listen to Robert, and Tywin doesn't even try and reign him in. He uses him specifically as a Reaver because that is where his talents lie. He just "lets him off the leash", so to speak. Roose seems to be in a similar situation with Ramsay, although Gregor is arguably a more reliable tool than Ramsay, who is almost more of a liability.

 

[AkatsukiLeader13]

Been reading this thread for a bit and decided to see if anyone had ever done those alignment memes for Game of Thrones. Wound a couple of them so I'll share them here. Not that I completely agree with, it's just amusing that others have done this before too.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler: This one's just parody but hey why not