EPTI really can't imagine a scenario where after this Stark-Baratheon victory, with the Lannisters in dungeons, or impaled on the walls, any kind of hostility between the two. The North isn't really fighting for independence initially.
[TV] HBO Game of Thrones - Page 758
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. | ||
|
Aegon I
Canada133 Posts
I really can't imagine a scenario where after this Stark-Baratheon victory, with the Lannisters in dungeons, or impaled on the walls, any kind of hostility between the two. The North isn't really fighting for independence initially. | ||
|
Hitch-22
Canada753 Posts
This is a call to all of my AoA loving, GoT watching and TL surfing nerds, Rage of Thrones needs to be back on the cover page of this thread ... Because "You got a new favorite show? Been watching HBO... it's called game of thrones? WELL I READ THE FUCKING BOOKS!" "The Hunger Games, the book was better, Lord of the rings the book was probably better!" "Spoilers? Don't talk to me about spoliers, winter has been coming for sixteen, fucking years!" "His name is Joffrey, not Geoffrey" "Get a fucking library card!... ... or a kindle" "D9 I sunk your battleship, movie over, fuck off!" I could just quote that shit all day long. Poll: Bring Rage of Thrones back to the front page? No (25) Yes, I love Axis of Awesome (21) 46 total votes Your vote: Bring Rage of Thrones back to the front page? Anyway... Who doesn't want the image of a cute chubby guy with some fake hair and a fur coat with an intimidating grin staring at them as they open the homepage : D | ||
|
Zooper31
United States5714 Posts
On May 03 2013 12:53 Hitch-22 wrote: POLL!!!! This is a call to all of my AoA loving, GoT watching and TL surfing nerds, Rage of Thrones needs to be back on the cover page of this thread ... Because "You got a new favorite show? Been watching HBO... it's called game of thrones? WELL I READ THE FUCKING BOOKS!" "The Hunger Games, the book was better, Lord of the rings the book was probably better!" "Spoilers? Don't talk to me about spoliers, winter has been coming for sixteen, fucking years!" "His name is Joffrey, not Geoffrey" "Get a fucking library card!... ... or a kindle" "D9 I sunk your battleship, movie over, fuck off!" I could just quote that shit all day long. Poll: Bring Rage of Thrones back to the front page? No (25) Yes, I love Axis of Awesome (21) 46 total votes Your vote: Bring Rage of Thrones back to the front page? Anyway... Who doesn't want the image of a cute chubby guy with some fake hair and a sword with an intimidating grin staring at them as they open the homepage : D Literally the very first sentence at the top of every page. This is about the show, not about how the books are better/different or whatever else you can think of. NO BOOK DISCUSSION! This thread is basically for viewers who have not read the books. There is another thread for the Books and TV. | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23447 Posts
-As I argued a couple of pages before the sheet was posted, jaime is clearly chaotic neutral -Barristan lawful good probably? -Catelyns decisions that selfishly trying to help her family and get revenge for her family (capturing tyrion who was innocent) killing 1000's of lives by basically helping causing a war also spiteful to jon snow. I would say lawful evil. -Ros is the whore right? She seems to be true neutral, I don't see her to be anything but self serving -Hodor just does what people say, kinda has to be lawful good or lawful neutral. -Varyrs might be lawful good, since I think he said something about trying to serve the realm and tried to help ned stark etc. But seems very scheming so might be lawful evil as well. -Stannis might be lawful good, he isn't much different to ned stark it seems it just he believes in the red lady a lot and we don't know if thats a good or bad thing but she clearly has him manipulated for the dead guys -ned lawful good -robert chaotic neutral probably. Too selfish to be good and certainly not self serving enough to be evil. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
But it is a bad idea to use DnD alignement system to define people outside DnD. DnD alignment system works only in a world with clearly defined rules for good and evil deeds, and these rules are not defined by people but by Gods or even greater forces. That is why Lawful Good person in DnD cannot kill 1 person to save 1000. By human logic that sounds like a good idea, but in DnD that is not "by the rules" as defined by forces greater then mortals. | ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
On May 03 2013 10:08 Aegon I wrote: Catelyn (who Rob sent to negotiate an alliance by proxy) at the very least seemed not entirely turned off by Renly's proposal under the terms of "the same oath Ned swore to Robert 18 years ago". I really can't imagine a scenario where after this Stark-Baratheon victory, with the Lannisters in dungeons, or impaled on the walls, any kind of hostility between the two. The North isn't really fighting for independence initially. Maybe Catelyn wasn't, but we wouldn't know how Robb couldn't have agreed to it. He had just declared independence and himself King in the North. Then of course there is the problem that Renly died the next day, so the entire point is kind of futile. | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23447 Posts
On May 03 2013 17:03 -Archangel- wrote: Stannis cannot be Lawful good ever. He approved assassination on his brother using dark magic. He is Lawful Neutral or even Lawful Evil. Lawful Evil is someone that will use evil to accomplish anything including good deeds. People that kill 1 person to save 1000 are usually Lawful Evil. For the greater good is a sentence that usually comes from Lawful Evil people. But it is a bad idea to use DnD alignement system to define people outside DnD. DnD alignment system works only in a world with clearly defined rules for good and evil deeds, and these rules are not defined by people but by Gods or even greater forces. That is why Lawful Good person in DnD cannot kill 1 person to save 1000. By human logic that sounds like a good idea, but in DnD that is not "by the rules" as defined by forces greater then mortals. I'm not a DnD player I just thought it was a cool little categorization by my logic saving 1 person to kill 1000 is evil so if we REVERSE THE POLARITY my logic works reversing catelyn with stannis | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On May 03 2013 18:18 Slayer91 wrote: I'm not a DnD player I just thought it was a cool little categorization by my logic saving 1 person to kill 1000 is evil so if we REVERSE THE POLARITY my logic works reversing catelyn with stannis Let me expand on my explanation and give a small example. In DnD all Gods are detailed and explained, what they ask from their followers is detailed and explained. When you die as mortal you go to their realm if you been faithful follower. Lawful Good Gods are paragons of that alignment and they ask their followers to be the same. A guy that follows a God of Life, cannot kill 1 person to save 1000 lives, it just does not work that way. While he as a mortal will probably believe he did the right thing, when he dies he will go somewhere else and will probably end up as a newbie demon or devil. So in the long run, while he saved 1000 lives (well 999) Evil won because they got another soul and another demon. This same rules of alignments cannot be used in GRRM world because we don't have defined Gods, demons, angels and so on. Nobody knows what happens when you die in Westeros. The world is as grey as our real world. | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23447 Posts
you can do it with your friends if you like. Except evil would have to be the guy who will eat your icecream from your fridge and the good guy the one who will offer you icecream and the neutral is the guy who says its mine get your own damn icecream! (you know who you are) | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On May 03 2013 05:43 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: My alignment sheet so far It's interesting to see how many people are morally ambiguous but for all intents and purposes maintain a polite outward appearance, especially the nobles. The "good" tend to have to settle for less polite ways to stay alive, and are split between neutral and lawful. Also the "chaotic" column seems to almost be devoid of nobles sans Joffrey and Arya, both children. Expected but it's cool to see on paper. Hmm, I think you may be taking the "lawful" definition too literally. Lawful vs chaotic is usually more of a measure of how willing the character is to lie, steal, cheat, etc. to serve their own needs. Jaime can't possibly be lawful since he has lied and killed on many occasions just to save his own ass. However, he is not malicious, so he can't be evil. I'd say he's either true neutral or CN. Littlefinger is the most chaotic character in GoT, he probably has to be CE. Cersei is similar, but maybe closer to NE. Joffrey, interestingly, is almost certainly LE because he does not have any need for deception, and in fact he believes in a rigid order (his own). I think Jorah is NG or LG, because he follows a cause that he believes in and places it above himself, it's hard for him to actually be neutral. Daenerys, however, I am not sure if she is truly good. While I've no doubt that she'd be a kind ruler, it doesn't seem like her motivations for the throne are well-intentioned (since she doesn't know the state of Westeros, she doesn't know that she can change it for the better). She just wants it because she thinks it's rightfully hers, and because dragons. | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23447 Posts
Refusing to lie and cheat and steal is something a lawful good guy would never do, but maybe a lawful neutral guy would take a bribe? In my mind lawful evil and chaotic good people are natural enemies, so look at arya evading littlefinger completely because she goes to the slums and lives along with poor people even though she's a noble, and littlefinger would never suspect someone would do that. | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On May 03 2013 19:23 Slayer91 wrote: I always thought littlefinger has to be lawful. I feel like lawful is the guy in the higher ups manipulating people to serve him and destroy people around him, which sounds exactly like littlefinger. He plays by the rules on the front but is secretly manipulating things. The chaotic guy hates the rules while littlefinger loves to play within them. I feel like that's the opposite of lawful. Someone who's lawful plays within the rules because he believes in them, whereas Littlefinger pretends to play by the rules, but is actually undermining them at every opportunity. He lies, steals, turns people against each other, and seemingly does it all because he enjoys it, which is basically the definition of chaotic. | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23447 Posts
The definition of chaotic to me is that you hate rules naturally. Like arya was always running away from shit she was told to do. (the sewing with sansa, couldn't be bothered just ran away) EDIT: again I view it in more of a societal view of anarchy vs conformism. In which case it doesnt have a lot to do with whether you lie or cheat or take bribes. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
Littlefinger is something between LE and NE, probably closer to NE. He does use all laws and rules that he can to accomplish his goals but he also does not care if he spies, bribes and breaks rules here and there to get what he wants. | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On May 03 2013 19:32 Slayer91 wrote: I think the lawful good guy believes in the rules, the lawful evil guy plays by the rules, thats his natural inclination, but since he's evil he wants to serve himself and undermine other people. The definition of chaotic to me is that you hate rules naturally. Like arya was always running away from shit she was told to do. (the sewing with sansa, couldn't be bothered just ran away) You've got the alignments wrong. Lawful is lawful, they believe in order, regardless of whether they're good or evil. Someone who's lawful evil might be a ruthless dictator, but he's ruling that way because he believes it's the right way to rule. The adviser who watches him from the shadows and merely manipulates his position to gain reward is chaotic, or at best, neutral, because he's looking out for himself. The difference between good and evil is actually very subjective, but the difference between law and chaos is not, which is why L/C tends to define a character moreso than G/E. Example 1: Magneto is lawful evil. He believes in the good of his cause, and he does many things that most would consider "good". He is not willing to abandon his principles, and is generally pretty honorable. However, he will gladly slaughter millions of humans if it serves his cause. Example 2: Professor X is lawful good. The only real difference between him and Magneto is that he will not kill humans for his cause. Good/evil is blurred here, because many people would see Magneto's means as more justified than Xavier's. Example 3: Mr. Sinister watches from behind the scenes and uses opportunities to interfere in the X-Men's conflicts for his own gain. His primary weapon is deception, and he serves no cause besides himself. He may less violent and less malevolent than Magneto, but he openly exploits the order that the others follow to suit his needs, which absolutely makes him chaotic evil/chaotic neutral. Littlefinger is Mr. Sinister. | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23447 Posts
Which is going against all laws natural and unnatural pretty much. mr sinister here would be neutral evil some part of the human organisation who supports magneto secretly for money and protection or something would be lawful good here My rulebook is different here but I feel like it makes more sense. The evil guy who strikes out on his own and does his own thing is chaotic which includes any ruthless dictator since he's clearly exercising an unlawful amount of power and usually for a selfish cause. Yours kind of makes sense too. Say in star wars we have emperor palpatine being lawful evil the whole time while chaotic evil is a harder alignment to place on him since he manipulates his way into power but after that becomes a huge dictator. On the other hand he helps corrupt anakin who is definitely a chaotic guy on the bridge between good evil and choses selfish motivations (saving his wife) to justify killing tons of innocents and definitely become chaotic evil with palpatine. (obviously converts at the end) Obviously this is getting convoluted and off topic but I feel like in terms of categorization of characters the anarchist vs conformist or lawful vs chaotic is a lot easier to place in all types of situations while good vs evil is something where everyones a shade of grey here so we have to alter perception. (in my example friend who takes your icecream = EVIL doesnt tell you = chaotic evil, says he'll buy you some later and never does = lawful evil huehue) | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
(For what it's worth, I understand alignment is somewhat of a grey area, but I played on RP-enforced MUDs for 7+ years where this sort of thing was taken VERY seriously, so I learned this stuff. Representing as CE and then playing as NE was a punishable offense.) | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23447 Posts
See, I view that as neutral, where you don't care about the laws unless they help you. Chaotic means you naturally despise them and do as you see fit, and making your own established laws doesn't turn you from chaotic to evil. A chaotic guy can't be a ruthless dictator because he makes up his own rules and then destroys them? Doesn't make sense to me. By this definition dany is pretty chaotic, but probably chaotic good because she doesn't like things like slavery and rape and stuff. By my view of natural enemies chaotic good vs lawful evil, the slavers who she destroyed were lawful evil, abiding a strict society but breeding and training slaves. Pretty much not moral guys but they don't want to rule the world or anything so not chaotic evil for sure. | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On May 03 2013 20:10 Slayer91 wrote: ". If you don't have a cause, and undermine established laws and moral codes, and see them only as a means to get personally rewarded, you are neutral/chaotic" See, I view that as neutral, where you don't care about the laws unless they help you. Chaotic means you naturally despise them and do as you see fit, and making your own established laws doesn't turn you from chaotic to evil. A chaotic guy can't be a ruthless dictator because he makes up his own rules and then destroys them? Doesn't make sense to me. That's true, Littlefinger might be NE, I don't fully understand his intentions. I get the impression that he enjoys destroying what order exists in Westeros, and stirring up trouble, which would make him CE. But lawful is impossible. | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23447 Posts
| ||
| ||
