Game of Thrones – The Choatic

This will be the third and final post on the alignments of Game of Thrones characters.  This time, we’re doing the chaotic.  Let’s get going, shall we?

"Precious moments doll?" Call me that again... one more time!!"

Arya Stark is a bit more complicated than her tom-boy introduction shows.  Don’t forget, she’s a noble’s daughter and she knows it, which is why it is unexpected that she would cheerfully play stick fighting with a butcher’s son.  Furthermore, she heroically (and violently) defends said butcher boy against the fucking prince without so much of thought.  She does not understand court decorum and throws a hair pulling fit when she sees her sister lie about the whole affair.  Neither does she understand women’s role in her society and certainly doesn’t understand her older sister’s betrothal to that filthy bastard Joffrey.

Where do we last see Arya?  Well, she’s running off in disguise with nothing but a sword.  She’s among vagabonds, miscreants, and thieves.  Also, her last memory of her father was a forced confession and beheading -right as the living symbol of law or order watched with smug approval.  If all this isn’t a recipe for Chaotic Good, I don’t know what is.

Who stole my tarts?

People mistakenly refer to this character as Joffrey Lannister.  But, his legal father was King Robert Baratheon.  So this prince’s legal name is Joffrey the Incest-spawned-Bastard.  We all love the time that Joffrey the ISB got bitched slapped by Tyrion, but don’t forget why.  Joffrey, unlike his mother, lacks political shrewdness and does not care for court decorum.  Sympathetic (even faked) face time before the Starks would’ve earned him political capital.  He is abject bully, which is demonstrated by his delight in tormenting a random butcher’s son for no reason on King’s Road.  When Joffrey the ISB becomes king he rules with capriciousness and unrestrained cruelty.  It even surprises his mother.  A good king knows when to withhold his strength and when to kill your enemies.  Well, Joffrey, after you’ve made a promise is not the time to kill your enemies.  You also do not kill them if they’re your bargaining chip.  This is why killing Eddard Stark was both openly evil, but also nakedly chaotic.  This little bitch is unhinged, and is probably going to go down like Caligula.  What was that our Lawful Evil character, Tywin, called the result of Joffrey’s execution order?  That’s right: madness and stupidity.

Dare I say it? A tougher beard than Church Norris.

Many people would name Kahl Drogo, the barbaric hero of female-orientated literary porn, as true neutral.  I’ve decided chaotic neutral for a few reasons.

First, Kahl Drogo could care less about keeping promises.  I’ve only watched the series, but it didn’t seem like he was ever going to keep his deal with Viserys, and is quite happy to shaft him.  Also, the guy is pretty unpredictable.  When it came to his future, it only took him two episodes to go from “a king [his future son] needs no chair but a saddle” to hyperbolic, declaration of how he will invade the seven kingdoms, tear down their castles, eat their babies, and skull-fuck their old men.  Whatever this guy does, he does it 110%, but we’re never going to be sure what he’ll do.  Kahl Drogo takes slaves. He burns cities for personal fitness, and then he eats Sunday brunch.  Clearly, he’s not good aligned.  But he also lacks the callous self-serving streak that mark Queen Cersei and Lord Baelish.

Secondly, there’s a lot to be said about Dothraki.  Basically, calling them a dark-age band of warriors is actually a generous term.  The Dothraki operate like a force of nature, or a pack of carnivorous animals following the strongest alpha.   They have a system of authoritative traditions, but “Dothraki Lawyer” is like saying “effeminate football star.”  Whoever holds power in the Dothraki world does so as long as no-one else kicks their ass in a fight.  They might accept tribute from a city, or burn it to the ground.  There is no judicial system or formalized rite of succession.  The entire society strikes me as chaotic neutral and that’s why Kahl Drogo is here.

This is the last in the thread and I hope everyone enjoyed reading it as much as I liked writing it.  If any of you out there are more familiar with books.  To comment here.  Here’s the characters I never put here for their alignments. King Robert, Queen Cersei, Jaime Lannister, Lord Varys, Viserys Targaryen,Sir Jorem Mormont etc.

Feel free to add in the comments.

The next blog, will be back to politics and end-times.  Thanks for reading, and if you like it, than re-post it.

Game of Thrones – The Neutral

This thread continues my break from theology into fandom to write something fun.  By the way, we all know that the next season is coming up right?

Please see the previous post for an explanation on to “what the hell is going on here” because I’m jumping straight into it.

Assertive? Oh no... that involves balls. Only princes have any balls.

The true neutral alignment is often reserved for non-moral animals, zombies, and rocks.  Our winning piece of dead weight then, is Sansa Stark.  Now some might protest here than Tyrion is great example of True Neutral as is Lord Varys.  There’s an argument to made for both, but I feel that these characters are not so much True Neutral, as very good at keeping their motivations opaque.

Sansa wears her motivations on her sleeves so strongly that they could de-thread: she wants to be treated like a princess and kind of just rolls along with whatever will carry her to that goal.  Her silence during the King’s road wolf incident and her snotty tone towards her caretaker might give you the impression that she’s actually the one evil stark, but that seems counter-balanced that the former is simply inaction and the second is just brattiness.  I don’t  know if Sansa even thinks in terms of good or bad but just seems even power.  She just wants to be liked and pampered.

In the final episode, we start to see Sansa assert herself a bit before Joffrey.  Maybe the brutal execution of her father is causes Sansa to have the first moral feeling she’s ever had.  She even has the guts to look stoic-faced at her father’s head on a pike.  Maybe she’ll pull up her big girl panties, read some Virgina Woolfe, and slap Joffrey back next season.

Until then, she’s just boring old true neutral.

What's in it for me?

You nearly admire this a-moral, cunning little-mother-finger, Lord Baelish who hand-wrote “Neutral Evil for Dummies” on parchment.  He wears his clothes like a stiff piece of armor made from the lies, plots, and anonymous henchmen that all somehow give him a lot more power than you suspect he has.  I think this guy figured out that the true King is whoever sit on the throne long enough and is thus happy to swear fealty as long as keeps things going his way.  You don’t really see overturning laws, customs, or torturing people for fun -as chaotic evil character do- because Lord Baelish knows a potential political asset when he sees one.  Lord Baelish might torture someone for a bit, and then he’d somehow get the victim in his pocket and become his spy.

If I had the misfortune of having to work with someone like Lord Baelish, I’d know I’m only allowed to tell him “no” three consecutive times.  You don’t ever want to become his toxic asset.

Am I right Lord Stark?

I know where to stick it, Sam..... In King Joffrey's throat.

The bastard Jon Snow behaves with arrogance, pride and even  a bit of self-absorption at times.  It’s really amazing that G.R.R. Martin can write a Neutral Good character who acts this way.

Most of Jon Snow’s character comes out during his time on the wall.  His defense and friendship with Sam and his passion for his half-siblings, the Starks, reveal the goodness in his values.  He’s got no problem take a few scars for the people he loves.  Jon is not chaotic: you don’t keep your head down around nobility or take monastic vows if you’re modus operandi is choatic.  Still though, Jon Snow bucks at authority and as a bastard he has no chance to use the Law for good.

Jon Snow’s principle conflict isn’t between an urge to be rebel and desire to be quasi-knight.  That’s not what motivates his midnight ride to join Rob Stark’s war.  His conflict is about who is family truely is.  Ultimately, Jon Snow decides that his family is the men of the night’s watch.  His war is the quest to find his living uncle rather than avenge his murdered father.

Game of Thrones – The Lawful

My blogs have been a little heavy, controversial, and otherwise overly serious the last few posts.  That can be a bad thing.  As a breather for myself, and for readers, the next few posts will be dedicated to Game of Thrones… which I realize is not exactly a light-hearted series as I sit here and type this.  Nonetheless, what I write here will not denounce any sacred cows -unless some new religion has sprouted from this series.  That hasn’t happened right?

Hopefully, other fans of the series will share their thoughts on the character’s alignments here.

So, to show my high school geek stripes, let’s discuss the alignments of the Game of Thrones cast.  You know Lawful Good, Neutral Evil, True Neutral etc.  This will be divided up into three blogs by the modus operandi of the characters, I.e. Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic.

Oh… and just so I’m clear this is pre-4.o alignments.  The 4.0 continuum is far to one dimensional.

If you have never heard of alignments before, please check out this article here.

Without further ado, here is my first.

I'm Lawful Good, so Lawful Good it hurts...

If alignments have Platonic forms, than we’ve found an incarnation in Eddard Stark.  Professor X and Aragorn wish they were as noble as Eddard.  And speaking Platonism, one of his most Lawful Good traits is his reluctance to take up political power and his slow acquiesce to do so.  Many Machiavellian minded readers might think that Eddard is a naive or lacks will i.e. he sees what’s effective, but is too good and honorable to execute.  I disagree: Eddard sincerely believes that doing the good thing is the effective thing.  How else do you explain his willingness to stand-up against his best friend, and the his’s advisers over the issue of assassination plans against Daenerys Targaryen?

Even when Law and Goodness seem to be in conflict, Eddard tries to keep both intact.  During the wolf incident along King’s Road, Eddard reluctantly carries out the execution of his daughter’s dire wolf -by the Queen’s order- but he does it the most good an honorable way.  He even tries (vainly) to make it up to his daughter later.

And we all know the end point Stark’s goodness and duty lead him.  The point at the end of pike.  So Lawful Good.  So lawful good it hurts.

By the way, all of you table-top RPG kiddies who aren’t quite sure how to play Paladin?  Just ask yourself one question: What would Eddard do?

I'll run you through.... after throwing a fit.

I considered King Robert for my Lawful Neutral -and I still fee like he is- but I chose the relatively minor character Sir Barrister Selmy.  Let’s work backwards.  What offended Sir Barrister?  Was it suddenly being on the same side as his former opponent, Eddard Stark?  No, they had a nice and pleasant conversation.  How about working for a King who some feel decry as usurper?  Doesn’t bother sir Barrister one bit.  What about the next coup, when the queen -with transparently vile opportunism- overrides King Robert’s dying wish?  A little, but not much.

The only time Sir Barrister raised a fuss was when he was dismissed from his duty, and I might’ve cried for the guy.  He’s upset because he can no longer serve.  Who is king and what their values doesn’t really seem to register for poor sir Barrister.  He simply wants to do his dutiful role for the realm.

You only *think* you got me cornered.

Blend together Lucuis Malfoy, Scrooge, and Michael Corleone and you have Tywin Lannister.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Lawful Evil character written this well, and they are hard to write.  Tywin isn’t just some angry, bitter, verbally abusive old man -(and there is more than one in Game of Thrones).  He’s puppet stringing master mind who could have you killed as easily as he wipes his ass with gold-foil.

Tywin Lannister is like a mafia don who has spent years and years getting everyone in his pocket until he is completely untouchable.  Even King Robert admits that he can’t move against this guy or his family.  In the monologue before his son Jaime, Tywin explains that Lions need not fear sheep and their house -the Lannisters- is a house to be feared.  It sounds like the worst parts Neitzche and Machiavelli put together.  Furthermore, there’s no way he qualifies as Neutral or Chaotic Evil.  Tywin, as the head of the powerful noble house, is far too invested in the system to disregard it even if it wasn’t working for him.  And just look at that guy!  Do you want to cross him?

Arguably, Tywin has not done anything heinously evil, but he is very concerned with Lannister name.    When Tywin reprimanded Jaime for his fight with Eddard, it was a reprimand for not killing Eddard.  Do you think that Tywin was ignorant of Cersai’s plots against John Aron, or the letting loose of “the Mountain” on peasant villages?  Hard to imagine him not keeping close tabs on his adult children.  Thus, I don’t think the apples fell far from the tree.  He is guilty -at the very least- by complicity.

For the next blogs, I’ll write the Neutral Good, True Neutral, and Neutral Evil characters.  Thanks for reading and commenting.