Ned Stark of Game of Thrones is usually seen as one of the most clearly Lawful Good characters in fantasy. He's always driven by ideals of what's honorable and right.
But! Ned agrees to falsely confess to a crime when he realizes his daughter is in danger if he doesn't. He withholds hurtful truths from his friend, the king, and stands against him to protect an innocent from assassination. He engages in intrigue and bribes in an attempt to control the king's supposed heir. And he fought in A REBELLION before the story even begins.
I don't think any of that makes Ned any less Lawful Good. It makes him a reasonable, practical, sane character who acts in service of a greater good. Lawful does not mean legal, it means honorable. That's why it's annoying when people play obnoxious letter-of-the-law Lawful characters, and sad when people say Lawful is "boring" because that's all they've seen.
Lawful Good characters are people too, and Lawful is a spectrum. Lawful can be human. Lawful can be fun!
So my question is...do you agree? Or do Ned's sometimes illegal actions make him not a Lawful character? I know alignment is a fuzzy concept, so I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on how to play Lawful.
Yes, totally agree. Lawful Good doesn't mean Lawful Boring Stupid.
By the way, the flip side of that is also true. Chaotic Evil doesn't have to be "LOLRandom I'm gonna set the next person I see on fire JUST BECAUSE!!!" Someone who is selfish and has no regard for society or laws can still make long-term plans (including long-term plans that involve being trusted and liked by a lot of people) and act accordingly (i.e. work well with others, be helpful and trustworthy, as long as it suits their needs to be seen as such.)
Yes, totally agree. Lawful Good doesn't mean Lawful Boring Stupid.
By the way, the flip side of that is also true. Chaotic Evil doesn't have to be "LOLRandom I'm gonna set the next person I see on fire JUST BECAUSE!!!" Someone who is selfish and has no regard for society or laws can still make long-term plans (including long-term plans that involve being trusted and liked by a lot of people) and act accordingly (i.e. work well with others, be helpful and trustworthy, as long as it suits their needs to be seen as such.)
for Chaotic Evil. I always picture Kefka.
follows the rules and such when it’s convenient for him. When he’s not being watched handles things how he wants to.
when he sees a shot to accomplish his goals he takes it, by whatever means necessary.
Yes, totally agree. Lawful Good doesn't mean Lawful Boring Stupid.
By the way, the flip side of that is also true. Chaotic Evil doesn't have to be "LOLRandom I'm gonna set the next person I see on fire JUST BECAUSE!!!" Someone who is selfish and has no regard for society or laws can still make long-term plans (including long-term plans that involve being trusted and liked by a lot of people) and act accordingly (i.e. work well with others, be helpful and trustworthy, as long as it suits their needs to be seen as such.)
Well said! I guess the same goes for Chaotic Neutral or really any alignment...characters aren't caricatures.
And "chaos is a ladder." Littlefinger is probably Chaotic Evil and he's one of the sneakiest characters in Thrones.
I've never seen GoT, but the actions you describe seem more neutral good to me.
Lying (something bad) to protect someone (something good) that you love (?) is not lawful good. It's breaking your code/morals out of self interest.
Withholding hurtful truths from a friend, the king, doesn't allow the king agency to act on those truths and possibly change his actions.
Standing against the king to protect an innocent from assassination could very well be a lawful good action. Like you said, lawful doesn't mean legal.
Attempting to control someone through intrigue/bribes is evil. Doing it "for the greater good" could be good or evil but is probably not lawful.
There is a difference between someone's ideals and someone's actions. If Ned Stark consistently fails to live up to those ideals when the pressure's on, then he's not lawful good. What we do is who we are.
Lawful good people are extreme people. While I agree that law/chaos is a spectrum, that spectrum isn't represented in D&D.
Alignment was never meant to be a straitjacket for a PC's actions. People who play "lawful stupid" characters do so often as a caricature of other characters in fiction (see Dudley Do-Right) or b/c they take the term Lawful Good very literally.
I would, however, argue that Littlefinger is more Neutral Evil than Chaotic Evil. IMO, hIs "Chaos is a ladder" line shows that he is using chaos itself as a stepping stone to greater power, not that he himself prefers chaos over order. Also, he is very organized and good with numbers, which is a large part of why he was successful in increasing the income to King's Landing. Somebody who does that for a sustained period of years is not likely to be Chaotic anything.
Ned Stark has a code of ethics, but it's a hierarchy. It also doesn't mean that his code has to 100% be the code of laws of the land. It just has to be NED'S code. In the case of Ned Stark, protecting the House Stark is his #1 priority. If that means he has to lie and confess to a crime he didn't commit to save his daughter, he does.
Also, for Ned, one of the tenets of his code is loyalty to his friends and comrades. For Ned, Baratheon's status as king is trumped by his long-standing status as friend. And Ned isn't about to destroy his friend's world by telling him his children aren't his and his wife is an incestuous *****. He's going to protect his friend, because those are the consequences he cares about.
But he has ZERO loyalty to Joffrey because he KNOWS Joffrey isn't the rightful heir. So he has no problems trying to mitigate damage to the kingdom in any way necessary.
Alignment was never meant to be a straitjacket for a PC's actions. People who play "lawful stupid" characters do so often as a caricature of other characters in fiction (see Dudley Do-Right) or b/c they take the term Lawful Good very literally.
...
I agree that alignment shouldn't be a straitjacket. It should be descriptive and not prescriptive. People who don't portray their lawful good characters with a strict adherence to code, honor, and order, should probably just write "neutral good" on the character sheet and be done with it.
Ned Stark has a code of ethics, but it's a hierarchy. It also doesn't mean that his code has to 100% be the code of laws of the land. It just has to be NED'S code. In the case of Ned Stark, protecting the House Stark is his #1 priority. If that means he has to lie and confess to a crime he didn't commit to save his daughter, he does.
Also, for Ned, one of the tenets of his code is loyalty to his friends and comrades. For Ned, Baratheon's status as king is trumped by his long-standing status as friend. And Ned isn't about to destroy his friend's world by telling him his children aren't his and his wife is an incestuous *****. He's going to protect his friend, because those are the consequences he cares about.
But he has ZERO loyalty to Joffrey because he KNOWS Joffrey isn't the rightful heir. So he has no problems trying to mitigate damage to the kingdom in any way necessary.
Again, I'm only passingly familiar with GoT. The way you describe Ned screams lawful neutral. He protects "me and mine" and follows a personal code without regard for what is "objectively" good.
Again, I'm only passingly familiar with GoT. The way you describe Ned screams lawful neutral. He protects "me and mine" and follows a personal code without regard for what is "objectively" good.
Ned Stark is generally seen as a Good character because he does think about the good of others. For instance, when Renly Baratheon (brother of the king Stannis Baratheon) approaches Ned about kidnapping the queen's children ASAP, Ned resists doing so on the grounds that it could lead to them being killed. He also does not rat out the Queen when he gets the opportunity to speak with Stannis on his deathbed, also for the same reason. A Neutral would have been much more likely to listen to Renly's sensible advice or to tell Stannis about the Circe's bedroom betrayal before the King died while he could still do something about it.
I’ve never liked D&D’s take on alignments. People (interesting people) don’t fit into 9 categories; particularly across all of their concerns and interactions. I also don’t think it should be “society” focused as the rules recommend. I use it as a guideline to how the actor thinks and acts and approaches their motivations and problems.
I always characterize my npc’s in terms of motivations and methods rather than alignment.
I think people tend to think of “lawful” in it’s “legal” and “following the rules sense.” I tend to think of it in terms of structure and systems; being methodical in nature. Sometimes LG means being a straight arrow and following “code and honour,” but it could also mean an actor who takes a highly tactical and practical approach to minimizing suffering, but could care less about honour and the law on the way. Chaotic, similarly doesn’t have to mean erratic or someone who ignores the rules, but a rather free spirited, organic, non-linear thinker.
The system of alignment doesn’t hold up well when you start exploring means versus ends.
As I wrote that, another idea occurs to me. You could make a case that Lawful is more concerned with means and Chaotic is more concerned with ends.
...You could make a case that Lawful is more concerned with means and Chaotic is more concerned with ends.
This is probing the right space. I might argue that Chaotic is also concerned with means and Neutral is only concerned with ends. I can kind of see it both ways though.
I would argue that Good/Evil represents ends and Lawful/Chaotic represents means, generally. Of course I don't think any alignment can be generalized.
That said, I also dislike D&D alignments. The original three were Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic, which at the time meant Good, Neutral, Evil. I think we should bring that back, although we can change the names to Good and Evil to clarify.
I’ve never liked D&D’s take on alignments. People (interesting people) don’t fit into 9 categories; particularly across all of their concerns and interactions. I also don’t think it should be “society” focused as the rules recommend. I use it as a guideline to how the actor thinks and acts and approaches their motivations and problems.
I always characterize my npc’s in terms of motivations and methods rather than alignment.
I think people tend to think of “lawful” in it’s “legal” and “following the rules sense.” I tend to think of it in terms of structure and systems; being methodical in nature. Sometimes LG means being a straight arrow and following “code and honour,” but it could also mean an actor who takes a highly tactical and practical approach to minimizing suffering, but could care less about honour and the law on the way. Chaotic, similarly doesn’t have to mean erratic or someone who ignores the rules, but a rather free spirited, organic, non-linear thinker.
The system of alignment doesn’t hold up well when you start exploring means versus ends.
As I wrote that, another idea occurs to me. You could make a case that Lawful is more concerned with means and Chaotic is more concerned with ends.
The problem with alignments as I see it is people have it backwards. If you say I am lawful so I have to keep my word your doing wrong however if you believe you have to keep your word because it is ethical and people describe you as being lawful then your doing it right
Beliefs determine your actions and alignments is just a quick and dirty way for others to describe your actions. I see your alignment as basically the same thing as what political party you belong to. People pick what party to join by looking at their beliefs and picking the party whose platform most closely their beliefs
I've always run the alignments as where your character sits on a sliding grid with the four sides being your view of the importance of society vs the individual (Law vs Chaos) and your view on the importance of yourself vs others. (Good vs Evil).
Does your character act for the good of society even if it might infringe on some? Will they put others before themselves? LG away.
It's why one character I'm playing is pretty much a hero in all regards but has CN on the sheet. She follows laws until they interfere with her or someone she cares about. She goes out of her way to help folks but the moment anyone she cares about or her own life are in jeopardy she's done.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ned Stark of Game of Thrones is usually seen as one of the most clearly Lawful Good characters in fantasy. He's always driven by ideals of what's honorable and right.
But! Ned agrees to falsely confess to a crime when he realizes his daughter is in danger if he doesn't. He withholds hurtful truths from his friend, the king, and stands against him to protect an innocent from assassination. He engages in intrigue and bribes in an attempt to control the king's supposed heir. And he fought in A REBELLION before the story even begins.
I don't think any of that makes Ned any less Lawful Good. It makes him a reasonable, practical, sane character who acts in service of a greater good. Lawful does not mean legal, it means honorable. That's why it's annoying when people play obnoxious letter-of-the-law Lawful characters, and sad when people say Lawful is "boring" because that's all they've seen.
Lawful Good characters are people too, and Lawful is a spectrum. Lawful can be human. Lawful can be fun!
So my question is...do you agree? Or do Ned's sometimes illegal actions make him not a Lawful character? I know alignment is a fuzzy concept, so I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on how to play Lawful.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
WARNING: TVTopes links ahead! Your productivity will suffer!
I think they key points are that good is not nice, good is not soft and good is not dumb.
Yes, totally agree. Lawful Good doesn't mean Lawful Boring Stupid.
By the way, the flip side of that is also true. Chaotic Evil doesn't have to be "LOLRandom I'm gonna set the next person I see on fire JUST BECAUSE!!!" Someone who is selfish and has no regard for society or laws can still make long-term plans (including long-term plans that involve being trusted and liked by a lot of people) and act accordingly (i.e. work well with others, be helpful and trustworthy, as long as it suits their needs to be seen as such.)
for Chaotic Evil. I always picture Kefka.
follows the rules and such when it’s convenient for him. When he’s not being watched handles things how he wants to.
when he sees a shot to accomplish his goals he takes it, by whatever means necessary.
Blank
Well said! I guess the same goes for Chaotic Neutral or really any alignment...characters aren't caricatures.
And "chaos is a ladder." Littlefinger is probably Chaotic Evil and he's one of the sneakiest characters in Thrones.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
I've never seen GoT, but the actions you describe seem more neutral good to me.
Lying (something bad) to protect someone (something good) that you love (?) is not lawful good. It's breaking your code/morals out of self interest.
Withholding hurtful truths from a friend, the king, doesn't allow the king agency to act on those truths and possibly change his actions.
Standing against the king to protect an innocent from assassination could very well be a lawful good action. Like you said, lawful doesn't mean legal.
Attempting to control someone through intrigue/bribes is evil. Doing it "for the greater good" could be good or evil but is probably not lawful.
There is a difference between someone's ideals and someone's actions. If Ned Stark consistently fails to live up to those ideals when the pressure's on, then he's not lawful good. What we do is who we are.
Lawful good people are extreme people. While I agree that law/chaos is a spectrum, that spectrum isn't represented in D&D.
Alignment was never meant to be a straitjacket for a PC's actions. People who play "lawful stupid" characters do so often as a caricature of other characters in fiction (see Dudley Do-Right) or b/c they take the term Lawful Good very literally.
I would, however, argue that Littlefinger is more Neutral Evil than Chaotic Evil. IMO, hIs "Chaos is a ladder" line shows that he is using chaos itself as a stepping stone to greater power, not that he himself prefers chaos over order. Also, he is very organized and good with numbers, which is a large part of why he was successful in increasing the income to King's Landing. Somebody who does that for a sustained period of years is not likely to be Chaotic anything.
Nah, I still agree more with the OP.
Ned Stark has a code of ethics, but it's a hierarchy. It also doesn't mean that his code has to 100% be the code of laws of the land. It just has to be NED'S code. In the case of Ned Stark, protecting the House Stark is his #1 priority. If that means he has to lie and confess to a crime he didn't commit to save his daughter, he does.
Also, for Ned, one of the tenets of his code is loyalty to his friends and comrades. For Ned, Baratheon's status as king is trumped by his long-standing status as friend. And Ned isn't about to destroy his friend's world by telling him his children aren't his and his wife is an incestuous *****. He's going to protect his friend, because those are the consequences he cares about.
But he has ZERO loyalty to Joffrey because he KNOWS Joffrey isn't the rightful heir. So he has no problems trying to mitigate damage to the kingdom in any way necessary.
I agree that alignment shouldn't be a straitjacket. It should be descriptive and not prescriptive. People who don't portray their lawful good characters with a strict adherence to code, honor, and order, should probably just write "neutral good" on the character sheet and be done with it.
Again, I'm only passingly familiar with GoT. The way you describe Ned screams lawful neutral. He protects "me and mine" and follows a personal code without regard for what is "objectively" good.
Ned Stark is generally seen as a Good character because he does think about the good of others. For instance, when Renly Baratheon (brother of the king Stannis Baratheon) approaches Ned about kidnapping the queen's children ASAP, Ned resists doing so on the grounds that it could lead to them being killed. He also does not rat out the Queen when he gets the opportunity to speak with Stannis on his deathbed, also for the same reason. A Neutral would have been much more likely to listen to Renly's sensible advice or to tell Stannis about the Circe's bedroom betrayal before the King died while he could still do something about it.
Ned Stark was lawful good. Stannis Baratheon was Lawful Neutral.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I’ve never liked D&D’s take on alignments. People (interesting people) don’t fit into 9 categories; particularly across all of their concerns and interactions. I also don’t think it should be “society” focused as the rules recommend. I use it as a guideline to how the actor thinks and acts and approaches their motivations and problems.
I always characterize my npc’s in terms of motivations and methods rather than alignment.
I think people tend to think of “lawful” in it’s “legal” and “following the rules sense.” I tend to think of it in terms of structure and systems; being methodical in nature. Sometimes LG means being a straight arrow and following “code and honour,” but it could also mean an actor who takes a highly tactical and practical approach to minimizing suffering, but could care less about honour and the law on the way. Chaotic, similarly doesn’t have to mean erratic or someone who ignores the rules, but a rather free spirited, organic, non-linear thinker.
The system of alignment doesn’t hold up well when you start exploring means versus ends.
As I wrote that, another idea occurs to me. You could make a case that Lawful is more concerned with means and Chaotic is more concerned with ends.
This is probing the right space. I might argue that Chaotic is also concerned with means and Neutral is only concerned with ends. I can kind of see it both ways though.
Where does that leave Ned?
I would argue that Good/Evil represents ends and Lawful/Chaotic represents means, generally. Of course I don't think any alignment can be generalized.
That said, I also dislike D&D alignments. The original three were Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic, which at the time meant Good, Neutral, Evil. I think we should bring that back, although we can change the names to Good and Evil to clarify.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Without a head.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The problem with alignments as I see it is people have it backwards. If you say I am lawful so I have to keep my word your doing wrong however if you believe you have to keep your word because it is ethical and people describe you as being lawful then your doing it right
Beliefs determine your actions and alignments is just a quick and dirty way for others to describe your actions. I see your alignment as basically the same thing as what political party you belong to. People pick what party to join by looking at their beliefs and picking the party whose platform most closely their beliefs
I agree. Nobody rigidly responds in the same way to every circumstance.
I've always run the alignments as where your character sits on a sliding grid with the four sides being your view of the importance of society vs the individual (Law vs Chaos) and your view on the importance of yourself vs others. (Good vs Evil).
Does your character act for the good of society even if it might infringe on some? Will they put others before themselves? LG away.
It's why one character I'm playing is pretty much a hero in all regards but has CN on the sheet. She follows laws until they interfere with her or someone she cares about. She goes out of her way to help folks but the moment anyone she cares about or her own life are in jeopardy she's done.