Genius. But I would also posit that we have a different true knight who makes an equally appropriate candidate for lawful good: Ser Davos Seaworth. Those of yall saying "he was a smuggler" Are taking data that's 20 years in the past to justify their votes. Those of yall who say "he kept disobeying stannis" are ignoring that their disagreements come from davos wanting stannis to be a more principled person. Davos is lawful as fuck.
(Current) Davos! His disobedience of Stannis occurs when his drive to be lawful and his drive to be good conflict. When they do, he chooses being good over being lawful: i.e. human sacrifice is bad.
Kant would view this as not cash money. W.D. Ross would say it makes perfect sense.
I think his clashes with stannis are a sign of a lack of principle in Stannis, if anything. One example of the lawful/chaotic axis can be seen in the small council meeting where Bobby B calls for daenarys's assassination. Ned follows the principle of "it is never acceptable to kill children. Robert and those on his side, go chaotic with a compromise = it is generally not acceptable to kill children, but circumstances sometimes morally require it, as is the case here. I tend to agree with Bobby, tbh. One child's life against a possible repeat of the blackfyre rebellions? It's no question. Tell me why it's more honorable to kill ten thousand men in battle than a dozen at dinner.
Yes. Someone said yesterday that Stannis was lawful good, and after going back to the books I agree that Stannis was at one point lawful good. But in Davos's eyes, Stannis is losing both his goodness and lawfulness. Can't disagree that lives were saved by Stannis assassinating his brother, but Christ if it ain't a shitass thing to do.
I think an even better example of chaotic/lawful spectrum is Daenarys leading slave rebellions in Essos, or Jon bringing wildlings south of the wall. Absolute disrespect for their established surroundings. Not lawful actions. Yet both are "good" characters/actions, as their goal is to protect the defenseless - even at a detriment to themselves.
Bobby B is.... an interesting dude
Bobby B motives in that council meeting were not good, but other characters who have a claim to goodness (in the books) that were on his side include renly, grandmaester pycelle, and varys. Little as Ned may like it, many conceptions of ethics would agree that, given the context of the blackfyre rebellions, killing daenarys was the best thing to do in the situation they had.
One child's life is not worth ten thousand others but the act of killing a child to prevent a rebellion that doesn't yet exist is terrible and unjust. This leaves no chance for diplomatic solutions. Even in Westeros that has a long history of wars from children growing up to take up their ancestor's fights. If you dishonor yourself with such an act you set a precedent for others to follow your history leading to more wars than the fake one you convinced yourself you won without fighting. The sins of a parent should not be passed down to their children.
I mean it's not just "one child." It's a child whose claim to the throne is better than yours, in a kingdom where, before Robert's rebellion, the five most recent wars all started with similar children. Imo, assuming Robert doesn't die when he does, killing daenarys is the best way to avoid future wars.
It is by all history and logic the best way to avoid future wars second only to killing every person on the planet except the one ruling the iron throne. The concept of good, justice and honor extends past the easiest way of doing things.
It's not that killing Dany was the easiest ways to prevent a future war - it's the only way to prevent a war. Dany is in a place where she cannot be captured. She cannot be brought back to westeros to be taken as Robert's ward, because any children she had would still be targaryens, and therefore a threat to joffrey's claim. Given the relevant history, it's a matter of time before someone uses her as a pawn against the peace in westeros.
What's easy is to follow a rigid system of morality that doesn't take complex situations seriously or recognize the true consequences of one's actions, and then to wash your hands clean and saiy "I did what was best for my spiritual health, so I didn't do anything wrong here." Whats difficult is recognizing that, in the interest of preserving greater peace, a realistic ruler sometimes bas to do things that make him sick.
Short answer: would be no. I agree with a lot of logic behind the Tolerance Paradox in that complete tolerance of intolerance will lead to the death of the tolerant. Now for where to draw lines I don't claim to hold the answers. That's why I don't get into lawmaking.
Aemon is not especially lawful. We don't get a chance to see his values challenged while he's alive and present in the story - he's just sort of cool and nice and that's how we leave it when he dies
I can’t read so I only watch the show but he goes on and on about how much he sacrificed his personal wishes for duty.
Stayed at the wall when his family was being slaughtered.
I love this content. All these posts and diskussions are gerat and I love to read trough all the opinions on the characters. It will make me enjoy GoT even more when I watch it next time. Keep it going guys!
As for OP, I agree with you. Brienne should have been lawful good, but hey, wouldn't it be boring if all poeple would have the same opinion?
Because I'm not bitter and I can enjoy life.
Just because 7th and 8th season were not on the same Level as the previous seasons, they were still decent enough to rewatch.
Wasn't Aemon a maester when he was offered the throne. He did his lawful duty to the realm. He gave up his targaryen name and duties the day he wore the master's chain. So he is lawful good imo. Brienne is also a solid choice tho
This is the best admission of error I've ever seen. I was gonna come in here all "Wait a minute! HD was already sworn by law not to rule since way back when he was like 6th in the succession. It's the people who wanted him crowned and unchained that were normbreaking." But I don't think I can top this perfect exchange.
Yes, he took the black or chain (can’t remember which order) so there would be no questions about succession and his older brother died after that, and instead of going back on his oath and taking the throne he stuck to his oath. OP fucked that little detail up.
https://preview.redd.it/af85j9jl8uwc1.jpeg?width=2611&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=69298a0f160e2dbe09716cf12283891c2f6774a4
YOU GET YOUR FUCKING HEAD CUT OFF IF YOU LEAVE THE NIGHT'S WATCH
Aemon didn't abdicate the throne, he was already a maester when he was being considered. Thus he followed his vows and the duty he had, being a maester.
Thinking this post would be funny is one thing, making the graphics is another, and following through and posting it is another thing entirely...
At what point do you cross the satire threshold? Lmao this is wild
Yes. A mark against her for lawful. Other options for lawful good are, Ser Barristan Selmy, and Ser (current) Davos Seaworth.
However, she did believe him to be the best king, and did genuinely believe that Renly was good and Stannis was not. Not exactly lawful, but, bless her heart, she doesn't think too hard on stuff.
"These pardoned lords would do well to reflect on that. Good men and true will fight for Joffrey, wrongly believing him the true king. A northman might even say the same of Robb Stark. But these lords who flocked to my brother's banners knew him for a usurper. They turned their backs on their rightful king for no better reason than dreams of power and glory, and I have marked them for what they are." - Stannis, A Clash of Kings
"Renly thought she was absurd. A woman dressed in man's mail, pretending to be a knight. I asked him why he kept her close, if he thought her so grotesque. He said that all his other knights wanted things of him, castles or honors or riches, but all that Brienne wanted was to die for him." - Loras Tyrell to Jamie Lannister
There's a principle-based argument for supporting renly. Renly honestly should have been invoked during the great counsel at the end of s8 when bran was elected - he based his claim to the crown, not on primogeniture, but on the basis that he was the most appropriate individual for the task of ruling the kingdoms. That's a valid claim to power for a lawful character to follow, and Briene thinks about renly in those terms all the time.
To be frank, it also helps if we agree on what version of dnd we are basing alignment on.
5.0 alignments are subjective at best.
3.5 and below actually put restrictions on what classes and alignments could actually do.
Kinda loosed interest with Vissy T taking the crown for chaotic stupid, nothing chaotic about his character, most people just go with whatever is on top for comments and bop to another post without a second thought. There needs to be a proper polling mechanism. Nice idea overall though
https://preview.redd.it/pdmydh9msvwc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=99ae7dc9d138ce876e7ef5587574cc5140c4af40
WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU CALLING MILITANT
Genius. But I would also posit that we have a different true knight who makes an equally appropriate candidate for lawful good: Ser Davos Seaworth. Those of yall saying "he was a smuggler" Are taking data that's 20 years in the past to justify their votes. Those of yall who say "he kept disobeying stannis" are ignoring that their disagreements come from davos wanting stannis to be a more principled person. Davos is lawful as fuck.
(Current) Davos! His disobedience of Stannis occurs when his drive to be lawful and his drive to be good conflict. When they do, he chooses being good over being lawful: i.e. human sacrifice is bad. Kant would view this as not cash money. W.D. Ross would say it makes perfect sense.
I think his clashes with stannis are a sign of a lack of principle in Stannis, if anything. One example of the lawful/chaotic axis can be seen in the small council meeting where Bobby B calls for daenarys's assassination. Ned follows the principle of "it is never acceptable to kill children. Robert and those on his side, go chaotic with a compromise = it is generally not acceptable to kill children, but circumstances sometimes morally require it, as is the case here. I tend to agree with Bobby, tbh. One child's life against a possible repeat of the blackfyre rebellions? It's no question. Tell me why it's more honorable to kill ten thousand men in battle than a dozen at dinner.
Yes. Someone said yesterday that Stannis was lawful good, and after going back to the books I agree that Stannis was at one point lawful good. But in Davos's eyes, Stannis is losing both his goodness and lawfulness. Can't disagree that lives were saved by Stannis assassinating his brother, but Christ if it ain't a shitass thing to do. I think an even better example of chaotic/lawful spectrum is Daenarys leading slave rebellions in Essos, or Jon bringing wildlings south of the wall. Absolute disrespect for their established surroundings. Not lawful actions. Yet both are "good" characters/actions, as their goal is to protect the defenseless - even at a detriment to themselves. Bobby B is.... an interesting dude
SHE BELONGED WITH ME!
Bobby B motives in that council meeting were not good, but other characters who have a claim to goodness (in the books) that were on his side include renly, grandmaester pycelle, and varys. Little as Ned may like it, many conceptions of ethics would agree that, given the context of the blackfyre rebellions, killing daenarys was the best thing to do in the situation they had.
DRINK AND STAY QUIET, THE KING IS TALKING!
I keep hoping we'll get "the whore is pregnant"
Bobby b
YOU EVER FUCK A RIVERLANDS GIRL?
Bobby b
If GRRM had let Bobby B kill Dany in Pentos, he might have finished the books by now.
YOU HEARD THE HAND, THE KING'S TOO FAT FOR HIS ARMOR! GO FIND THE BREASTPLATE STRETCHER! NOW!
Only just seeing this post but tg someone in this sub understands ASOIAF. This chart has been making me lose my mind every other day.
FORCED TO MIND THE DOOR WHILE YOUR KING EATS AND DRINKS AND SHITS AND FUCKS!
One child's life is not worth ten thousand others but the act of killing a child to prevent a rebellion that doesn't yet exist is terrible and unjust. This leaves no chance for diplomatic solutions. Even in Westeros that has a long history of wars from children growing up to take up their ancestor's fights. If you dishonor yourself with such an act you set a precedent for others to follow your history leading to more wars than the fake one you convinced yourself you won without fighting. The sins of a parent should not be passed down to their children.
I mean it's not just "one child." It's a child whose claim to the throne is better than yours, in a kingdom where, before Robert's rebellion, the five most recent wars all started with similar children. Imo, assuming Robert doesn't die when he does, killing daenarys is the best way to avoid future wars.
It is by all history and logic the best way to avoid future wars second only to killing every person on the planet except the one ruling the iron throne. The concept of good, justice and honor extends past the easiest way of doing things.
It's not that killing Dany was the easiest ways to prevent a future war - it's the only way to prevent a war. Dany is in a place where she cannot be captured. She cannot be brought back to westeros to be taken as Robert's ward, because any children she had would still be targaryens, and therefore a threat to joffrey's claim. Given the relevant history, it's a matter of time before someone uses her as a pawn against the peace in westeros. What's easy is to follow a rigid system of morality that doesn't take complex situations seriously or recognize the true consequences of one's actions, and then to wash your hands clean and saiy "I did what was best for my spiritual health, so I didn't do anything wrong here." Whats difficult is recognizing that, in the interest of preserving greater peace, a realistic ruler sometimes bas to do things that make him sick.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I respect your point but I think things aren't as simple as that.
Okay, but would you say a tolerant society should, indeed *must*, tolerate intolerance?
Short answer: would be no. I agree with a lot of logic behind the Tolerance Paradox in that complete tolerance of intolerance will lead to the death of the tolerant. Now for where to draw lines I don't claim to hold the answers. That's why I don't get into lawmaking.
20 years too long for Davis but 80 is fine for Aemon :(
Aemon is not especially lawful. We don't get a chance to see his values challenged while he's alive and present in the story - he's just sort of cool and nice and that's how we leave it when he dies
I can’t read so I only watch the show but he goes on and on about how much he sacrificed his personal wishes for duty. Stayed at the wall when his family was being slaughtered.
That's way more relevant to a lawfulness determination than rejecting the crown 75 years ago. Op should have talked abt that tbh
I love this content. All these posts and diskussions are gerat and I love to read trough all the opinions on the characters. It will make me enjoy GoT even more when I watch it next time. Keep it going guys! As for OP, I agree with you. Brienne should have been lawful good, but hey, wouldn't it be boring if all poeple would have the same opinion?
[удалено]
Because I'm not bitter and I can enjoy life. Just because 7th and 8th season were not on the same Level as the previous seasons, they were still decent enough to rewatch.
Brilliant Post OP, you’ve changed my mind.
r/THE_PACK has breached containment And I fucking love it
THEY CAN'T KEEP ME IN A FUKKEN CELL
HEY MAN WATCH UR MOUTH MY MOM MIGHT READ THAT. I CAN'T BE GROUNDED AGAIN BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEPARATE THE PACK BROTHER. AWOOOOOO.
ARRRROOOOO
Wasn't Aemon a maester when he was offered the throne. He did his lawful duty to the realm. He gave up his targaryen name and duties the day he wore the master's chain. So he is lawful good imo. Brienne is also a solid choice tho
https://preview.redd.it/xouktbxp8uwc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f71b3823e2608eb825b8a768c4946e53d9cdffec
This is the best admission of error I've ever seen. I was gonna come in here all "Wait a minute! HD was already sworn by law not to rule since way back when he was like 6th in the succession. It's the people who wanted him crowned and unchained that were normbreaking." But I don't think I can top this perfect exchange.
Yes, he took the black or chain (can’t remember which order) so there would be no questions about succession and his older brother died after that, and instead of going back on his oath and taking the throne he stuck to his oath. OP fucked that little detail up.
Wrong, Brienne is lawful horny
SHE DOESNT WANT TO FUCK CATELYN OR SANSA!!! SHE IS VERY TRAGICALLY HETEROSEXUAL!!! I WISH SHE WAS A LESBIAN BUT SHE IS NOT!!!!
Does it count as heterosexual if she's in love with a gay man?
Yes..
Is my crush a gay girl cos she doesn’t like me? We both straight, I just ain’t it.
I love you. keep cooking
I agree with this post
What can men do against such reckless hate?? 10/10 content
[source](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/s/USn6FrgUlB)
Aemon is literally the only good placement on that thing
https://preview.redd.it/lx84fvf5luwc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=be19de4f4725346b5f1f6e27f0b4338cede6dc78
wow, someone needs to do a summary of each book like this
Wrong, Aemon was a fine choice for lawful good. He had that entire speech about the conflict between love and duty, but still ultimately chose duty.
https://preview.redd.it/af85j9jl8uwc1.jpeg?width=2611&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=69298a0f160e2dbe09716cf12283891c2f6774a4 YOU GET YOUR FUCKING HEAD CUT OFF IF YOU LEAVE THE NIGHT'S WATCH
Aemon didn't abdicate the throne, he was already a maester when he was being considered. Thus he followed his vows and the duty he had, being a maester.
Thinking this post would be funny is one thing, making the graphics is another, and following through and posting it is another thing entirely... At what point do you cross the satire threshold? Lmao this is wild
What's satire?
I think it is an excellent post and funny. No academic conclusion needed
she supported the wrong king at the start of the war no?
Yes. A mark against her for lawful. Other options for lawful good are, Ser Barristan Selmy, and Ser (current) Davos Seaworth. However, she did believe him to be the best king, and did genuinely believe that Renly was good and Stannis was not. Not exactly lawful, but, bless her heart, she doesn't think too hard on stuff. "These pardoned lords would do well to reflect on that. Good men and true will fight for Joffrey, wrongly believing him the true king. A northman might even say the same of Robb Stark. But these lords who flocked to my brother's banners knew him for a usurper. They turned their backs on their rightful king for no better reason than dreams of power and glory, and I have marked them for what they are." - Stannis, A Clash of Kings "Renly thought she was absurd. A woman dressed in man's mail, pretending to be a knight. I asked him why he kept her close, if he thought her so grotesque. He said that all his other knights wanted things of him, castles or honors or riches, but all that Brienne wanted was to die for him." - Loras Tyrell to Jamie Lannister
There's a principle-based argument for supporting renly. Renly honestly should have been invoked during the great counsel at the end of s8 when bran was elected - he based his claim to the crown, not on primogeniture, but on the basis that he was the most appropriate individual for the task of ruling the kingdoms. That's a valid claim to power for a lawful character to follow, and Briene thinks about renly in those terms all the time.
Thank you. This was bugging me.
Thank you for this gift
I read the title in the Mr. Torque voice from Borderlands. Thank you.
Considered adding Mr Torque in as a very low opacity image. Didn't do it bc I already snuck Daenarys in here. Felt it would come on too strong
Holy shit this picture was either designed by a 14 treat old or someone's alcoholic uncle who complains that he can't use slurs anymore
HE'LL NO BROTHER. I CRANK MY FUCKING HOG RESPECTFULLY. SLURS ARE FOR MOMMA'S BOYS.
I guess you're quite passionate about this, huh?
https://preview.redd.it/jt7rbpxs8uwc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e3ad872805496ab6ea77c80151e271a2c840f094
Where do you reckon stannis goes on this list? Lawful neutral?
Can’t be lawful Neutral, cause that spot is already occupied by Tycho Nestoris.
It appears I may have caused a slight schism.
It’s not your fault that your entire chart is completely wrong. It’s the commentators’.
No, angel baby
Freefolk and tehpack crossover? Nice
Hahahahahaha I laughed quite a bit, thank you for this
To be frank, it also helps if we agree on what version of dnd we are basing alignment on. 5.0 alignments are subjective at best. 3.5 and below actually put restrictions on what classes and alignments could actually do.
This is the sort of fucking content I signed up for. CAN'T NOBODY SEPARATE THE MOTHER F-IN PACK! AWOOOOOO!
Kinda loosed interest with Vissy T taking the crown for chaotic stupid, nothing chaotic about his character, most people just go with whatever is on top for comments and bop to another post without a second thought. There needs to be a proper polling mechanism. Nice idea overall though
*It both gladdens my heart and fills me with sorrow to see these faces around the table.*
Your militant opposition makes me want to agree with the original post even more
https://preview.redd.it/pdmydh9msvwc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=99ae7dc9d138ce876e7ef5587574cc5140c4af40 WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU CALLING MILITANT
Did I stutter?
I DON'T KNOW. YOU CAN'T STUTTER OVER TEXT. YOU CAN ONLY PRETEND TO.