A third good alignment?

Dulrik · **Posted:** Sun May 11, 2014 11:39 pm

On SK, I'd peg Eddard Stark as dogmatic.

Opey · **Posted:** Mon May 12, 2014 6:19 am

Lykofos wrote:

GoT is not based on a strict dichotomy between good and evil.

Yeah, I agree with this. The characters on GoT are a bit too shifty to be categorized in our SK alignments.

ninja_ardith · **Joined:** Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:21 pm **Posts:** 4452

Dulrik wrote:

On SK, I'd peg Eddard Stark as dogmatic.

I can't see a guy going into open rebellion against his king as being dogmatic.

Dulrik · **Posted:** Mon May 12, 2014 8:27 am

ninja_ardith wrote:

Dulrik wrote:

On SK, I'd peg Eddard Stark as dogmatic.

I can't see a guy going into open rebellion against his king as being dogmatic.

I think you can only push a dogmatic so far. He rebelled because the king unjustly executed his father and older brother. In fact, its pretty clear that he also viewed the rebellion as protecting the kingdom from the rule of a madman who was incapable of following the law.

ninja_ardith · **Joined:** Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:21 pm **Posts:** 4452

Dulrik wrote:

ninja_ardith wrote:

Dulrik wrote:

On SK, I'd peg Eddard Stark as dogmatic.

I can't see a guy going into open rebellion against his king as being dogmatic.

I think you can only push a dogmatic so far. He rebelled because the king unjustly executed his father and older brother. In fact, its pretty clear that he also viewed the rebellion as protecting the kingdom from the rule of a madman who was incapable of following the law.

In the song of ice and fire world, most of the kings are straight up jerks. I also don't see a problem with a dogmatic guy serving under someone like Aerys. You can even back it up with real world examples like the Nuremberg trials or Milgram experiments.

Meissa · **Posted:** Mon May 12, 2014 9:09 am

Indeed, I could see both scenarios working for dogmatic characters.

Vindicator · **Joined:** Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:55 am **Posts:** 327

Dulrik wrote:

Is there really no good character to occupy the place between the extremes of Superman and Robin Hood? I think there is, but it would probably necessitate a bit of rewriting for scrupulous. I think the boundary of scrupulous was pushed out because there was otherwise no middle ground.

Jack Reacher

Baldric · **Posted:** Tue May 13, 2014 5:34 am

SK alignment system doesn't fit with game of thrones world. That being said, if we're going to put Ned in a category, he's definitely not dogmatic.

He led a rebellion against someone he considered the rightful king because the king was unjust.
He refused his best friend and king's orders when he judged them to be unethical (assassinating Dany), even resigning his post as the King's hand.
He gave his enemies a heads up so that they could escape, trying to show mercy even though it could (and did) lead to his own downfall.
He is extremely concerned with doing what is right, throughout the first book. Those considerations include his duty to follow the law since he has sworn an oath to do so, but this is consistent with the principled alignment.
While he does tell some lies for the greater good, he is haunted by these lies.
In general, he does not support the idea that the ends justify the means.

Ed Stark is as close to principled as a realistic character could be. If you classify him as grey aura, there is virtually no room for anybody in GoT or real life being light aura.

Dulrik · **Posted:** Tue May 13, 2014 6:21 am

Baldric wrote:

SK alignment system doesn't fit with game of thrones world. That being said, if we're going to put Ned in a category, he's definitely not dogmatic.

He led a rebellion against someone he considered the rightful king because the king was unjust.
He refused his best friend and king's orders when he judged them to be unethical (assassinating Dany), even resigning his post as the King's hand.
He gave his enemies a heads up so that they could escape, trying to show mercy even though it could (and did) lead to his own downfall.
He is extremely concerned with doing what is right, throughout the first book. Those considerations include his duty to follow the law since he has sworn an oath to do so, but this is consistent with the principled alignment.
While he does tell some lies for the greater good, he is haunted by these lies.
In general, he does not support the idea that the ends justify the means.

Ed Stark is as close to principled as a realistic character could be. If you classify him as grey aura, there is virtually no room for anybody in GoT or real life being light aura.

Fair enough. That's a well thought out analysis. Although it's true that in GoT very few appear to qualify as good.

Opey · **Posted:** Tue May 13, 2014 12:50 pm

This is also true in real life.

Shattered Kingdoms

A third good alignment?

Who is online