Jump to content

ASOIAF/D&D Principal Character Classes


Curled Finger

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Yaya said:

i never thought about the characters in a D&D way, thanks for getting the old thinking gears in motion again Curled Finger!

the first thing that sprang into my head as i was reading was this is a great way to, potentially, better analyze who the group of friends are that will walk the walk with the hero and his horse and dog.  we need to have a representative of each sort of skill set if you catch my drift.

next thought was - could this be a way to classify the valaryian swords - i'm thinking the "personality" of the sword' for example a scorcer's sword vs a fighter's sword - do the swords match up to the ones who have held them or have yet to hold them?  you know, the "thiefy" character must, in the "final fight", be holding the "thief" sword ...

 

 

I'm not even done reading your post and laughing, YaYa!   You know me well.  OK now I'm done reading.   Yes, this is precisely where I'm going with this topic and the previous.   You clever clever post reader!    I was trying to be unassuming here, but it's hard to hide a genuine interest.  Take a look through the classifications we are given and see what comes to mind.   I'd love to read what you see.   I have a few, but not all. When in doubt turn to the book club!   Nothing getting by you today!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

Haha, Lollygag thought the same thing.  

I want to stay focused on DnD because of the information in the essays.  I don't know how long George has been with his wife, but the essay tells of her going to his closed office door to listen for the sound of typing keys or tumbling dice.  GRRM was badly sidetracked by this game, not others that I know of.  

Contrare, my dear, you always make sense.   I understand where you're going.  As much as folks want to discount this little exercise as unimportant, I read the essay and it's clear the game was a problem and of deep interest to GRRM.  Of course not all the characters fit any sort of classification, still I wonder how many sprang forth from the influence of the game.   I don't need exact matches.  Just hoping for folks like you who do have some experience to point me in the right direction.   

Ah, okay I get it! In that case there is a few more things that is very important to defining a character aside from their class and alignment, such as background and character race, if I recall correctly. Obviously, all of the main characters in asoiaf are humans despite the presence of other races, such as the giants or the CotF. That said one could argue their "family traits" and ethnic background is a substitute for that.

As for "background" etc... have you checked out "Basic Rules" yet? It's pretty much focused on character builds at the start as well as an outline of the basic backgrounds to apply to a character. You don't need to read it all the way through and you can find more backgrounds made up for different game sets. It really adds to the “gardener” process GRRM has.

EDIT: Changed the link. There is a web version that might be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay easier to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, in D&D game terms I believe that sorcerers were distinguished from wizards by "the blood of dragons", which allows spontaneous casting by tapping the arcane weave directly. Evocative, if not really analogous to how magic seems to function in ASoIaF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, hiemal said:

Hmmmm, in D&D game terms I believe that sorcerers were distinguished from wizards by "the blood of dragons", which allows spontaneous casting by tapping the arcane weave directly. Evocative, if not really analogous to how magic seems to function in ASoIaF.

Really!  That's great.  I will take that as supportive evidence that there may indeed be a connection here.  Allow me to be at least the 2nd person to tell you how awesome you are today!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I played D&D.

i thought the Stark children were Robb, warrior, Sansa, queen in chess, which is not the same, Arya, rogue assassin, Bran, magic user, Rickon, barbarian, Jon, Ranger

Mance Raydar, bard

Dany, magic user/ high charisma 

Melisandre, necromancer

Ned, paladin

Jaime, chaotic warrior

Brienne, lawful good warrior

Barriston Selmy, lawful good paladin

Cersei, chaotic evil enchantress

Tywin, lawful evil warrior

Bronn, neutral warrior

There is a start...

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HoodedCrow said:

I played D&D.

i thought the Stark children were Robb, warrior, Sansa, queen in chess, which is not the same, Arya, rogue assassin, Bran, magic user, Rickon, barbarian, Jon, Ranger

Mance Raydar, bard

Dany, magic user/ high charisma 

Melisandre, necromancer

Ned, paladin

Jaime, chaotic warrior

Brienne, lawful good warrior

Barriston Selmy, lawful good paladin

Cersei, chaotic evil enchantress

Tywin, lawful evil warrior

Bronn, neutral warrior

There is a start...

 

 

 

 

 

That's a great start, thanks so much!  Taking notes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad to know about GRRM's passion for D&D. I suspect a lot of fantasy authors are fans of those kinds of complex games, but this author chose Games as a central metaphor for his series. That should have been our first clue to look at ASOIAF in terms of games where a complex cast of varied characters would try to outwit, outlast and outplay each other.

I had initially skipped this discussion because I thought it would be a reductive exercise, trying to take complicated characters and reduce them to narrow categories. But I'm already find two points of interest:

As you seemed to indicate when you directed my attention here from the "Sorcerers and Swords" thread, the "bard" category might help to clarify that GRRM's singers, storytellers and historians could be variations on a single theme; related in the sense of subversively conveying information that might otherwise be forgotten or whitewashed by partisan record-keepers. Our POV characters tell us that Renly is dead, for instance, last word uttered, blood all over the place, buried at Storm's End. But the singers at Joffrey's feast tell us that "dead" is just one way of thinking about Renly and then we start to see his presence in other details at that event. The fact that Cersei dictated that there could be only seven singers at the feast is also useful - how can you put such an arbitrary limit on truth-telling? Old Nan tells Bran that some people tell a story one way, but her version is what REALLY happened. In the World book, the historian-fool, Mushroom, comes through as the historian with the juiciest insights and raciest details outside of the accepted version of events.

The other thing I am already finding useful may be too much of an inference. I haven't played Dungeons & Dragons, so correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that people can invent their own character within those parameters you outlined in the OP and using the alignmentss that Lollygag listed. When a really bright and inventive guy like GRRM plays Dungeons and Dragons, I imagine he begins to think along the lines of, "What if a character could be both a rogue and a fighter? Or a monk and a sorcerer? Or a fool and a knight? Wouldn't that be cool?" It's not so much a desire to break the rules as to imagine an unbeatable Superman / Wonder Woman character who would be able to kick everyone's ass in some way, shape or form.

Instead of trying to invent D&D 2.0, GRRM takes this idea, invents a new world and writes some books where characters can combine in new ways as the "game" progresses: What would happen if a Frey married a Lannister and they had babies? What would happen if a fierce fighter was poisoned and beheaded and then came back to life with new body parts or blood transfusions or something? What would happen if some people could enter animals but retain human consciousness and control the animals? Under what circumstances would a Paladin feel compelled to become a liar? What if a weapon carried the "souls" of two completely different noble houses?

So @Faera's "Bran-Hodor Conundrum" and the theory I've been trying to work out about patchwork people or mystery knights (still haven't hit on the right term to describe these combined beings) could be the expression of a smart Dungeons & Dragons player who created a game where characters can transcend their initial category by combining strengths and abilities possessed by other characters.

Thanks for posting this! Very helpful background.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Seams, thank you for bringing your always imaginative and informative thoughts here.  I haven't played DnD either so I can be of zero help.  However, as I've read posts and through some characters I think match or don't match I can see where there are elements of basic character classes and I really like @Asshai Backward's idea about characters main characters come in contact with as influence.  I'm giving up on the wizard category!  Another fun discussion made a bit clearer with your input.   Thanks a million.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

@Seams, thank you for bringing your always imaginative and informative thoughts here.  I haven't played DnD either so I can be of zero help.  However, as I've read posts and through some characters I think match or don't match I can see where there are elements of basic character classes and I really like @Asshai Backward's idea about characters main characters come in contact with as influence.  I'm giving up on the wizard category!  Another fun discussion made a bit clearer with your input.   Thanks a million.  

Giving up on the wizard category is a good idea.  GRRM seems to have avoided the category deliberately.  Clerics seem to be pretty rare, as well, with a decent number of fighters and rogues. The problem comes with the fact that many characters, especially the younger and/or female ones, are very hard to categorize. Where do you put the likes of Catelyn, Sansa, Daenerys, Sam, among others.  And while Eddard, Jon, and others are fighters, they are so much else as well.

I have thought of a classification system using the Seven that works passably well.  I don't want to derail the thread, but if you're interested, I could elaborate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Nevets said:

Giving up on the wizard category is a good idea.  GRRM seems to have avoided the category deliberately.  Clerics seem to be pretty rare, as well, with a decent number of fighters and rogues. The problem comes with the fact that many characters, especially the younger and/or female ones, are very hard to categorize. Where do you put the likes of Catelyn, Sansa, Daenerys, Sam, among others.  And while Eddard, Jon, and others are fighters, they are so much else as well.

I have thought of a classification system using the Seven that works passably well.  I don't want to derail the thread, but if you're interested, I could elaborate.

Yah that wizard category is a pain.  I don't think all the characters are based on these D&D principals, only a few maybe not even main characters now--who knows?  Nevets, you are where I am--never worry about derailing anything.   I know you see things I cannot without your guidance so please, have at it, my friend.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D&D has paladins that can't cast spells — 2nd ed. had class kits, and in 3rd ed. you can't cast spells if you don't meet the Wisdom requirement (10, which is average, + spell rank). Spellcasting isn't really essential in terms of what the class stands for, I guess. It's more like a figure for praying and getting results anyway. However, laying on hands is something paladins are harded to imagine without, though I guess that too is possible.

This said, I'm not sure anyone in the entire universe meets the criteria, even once you accept that paladins don't exactly have to be consummate nice guys, extremely religious, extremely charismatic, etc. You'd still expect them to stand out in some sort of paladin-like way, and I don't think anyone does. Few people seem to be rock-solid candidates for the Lawful Good alignment as opposed to just somewhat amiable and somewhat benevolent Lawful Neutral. Few are spectacular enough. In computer D&D games a pretty average knight or lord will sometimes have paladin coded as his class, but he has scarcely any compelling need to be one as opposed to just a knight-like, chivalrous fighter. Most knights are fighters. Most champions are fighters too. On the other hand, however, some mercs are paladins, so if dude doesn't do anything clearly unpaladin-y, then he might as well be one, just low statistical chance.

Here are some people I think could be paladins without running into some sort of contradiction:

  • Faegon — probably the closest thing the universe has to a paladin as of DoD, at least I'm actually sure he's L and pretty sure he's LG (but still may be LN), as well as a hero figure; still, even he lacks the typical bells and whistles
  • Brienne — but I personally think she's not Lawful, unless a very flawed version of it, more like honourable NG, and not extremely strong on the G part, just closer to it than most other nobles, but she's still more like the vaguely amiable Tully lords than a decidedly Good character;
  • Ned — honour falls under L unless you're actively kind, charitable, widow/orphan saving etc.; he's somewhat benevolent, but I'm not sure he's necessarily LG vs LN (though closer to G than, say, Stannis); he could be either just fine, and his mystique concentrates more on the L part and being the Big Stark Dude
  • Robb Stark — basically Ned II, with some ethical similarities and charisma but little compelling reason to be a paladin
  • Barristan Selmy — he has a similar ethos to a paladin and looks closer to one than, say, Bittersteel, but still lacks any of the typical paladin-y belts and whistles and would be totally defensible as an honourable aristocratic Lawful Neutral fighter
  • Jon Con — yes, Jon Con; yes, I'm serious, though he's not a completely compelling case either
  • Arthur Dayne possibly, but we don't know much about him, so just guessing
  • Last but not least, Lord Dondarrion looks like a strong candidate, though you could argue for a Chaotic alignment shift
  • Statistically speaking, I guess some of the Glover, Tallhart and Royce clan could fit the billet, perhaps Raynald Westerling
  • Okay, it's a stretch, but Lancel may be headed there

Dunk & Egg timeline:

  • Baelor Breakspear — hey, paladins are allowed to have reasonably high INT scores; besides, dude's probably the single most paladin-like character in the whole universe of all timelines, though you could argue that even his alignment doesn't have to not be Lawful Neutral just leaning on Good, and it's not like NG couldn't have acted the way he did anyway
  • Dunk — supposing he comes clean and gets knighted at some point, the problem being the continued lie, not the lack of proper knighthood per se; even so, just remembering your vows as a knight doesn't really mean you must be a paladin, and he's more NG to me anyway (poaching, anyone? leaving Alyn in the well?), which is not to say I'm 100% sure about the G
  • Egg — meets the threshold about as much as Dunk does and is another NG candidate, as well as lacking most of the typical bells and whistles or the typical trappings and has something rogue-like about him
  • Daemon II Blackfyre — perhaps not the highest Wisdom score of all paladins and not overall a successful paladin, but being successful is not a requirement, so heck, why not, he looks much like one in the events leading up to his trial by combat with young 'Ball'

Others:

  • Addam 'Loyal' Velaryon (Addam of Hull), but I'm guessing and interpreting things in his favour
  • Aemon the Dragonknight, though that would be a Lancelot-style flawed paladin
  • Benedict Justman, but just guessing again — even Lord Tywin had a reputation for justice, and Benedict's wars of unification need not all have been just wars
  • Perhaps some guys from the Reach and perhaps some of the past Starks and their vassals

Rangers are a bit easier. I guess Jon Snow, Benjen Stark and like half the Night's Watch and most poachers in the realm. :P Perhaps Blackfish. Perhaps some Northern fighters (Stark wargs *cough*) could have additional levels here if not in the barbarian class. Proper barbarians would be more like the Skagosi or the Dothraki and perhaps 'Lord' Wull, rather than the average Stark or even Umber, but let's try to be generous and not make everybody a plain fighter. :P

Cleric: Septons and septas, by definition, though the D&D cleric is more like the adventuring kind than your typical NPC clergy. Thoros of Myr. Melisandre. And no, she's not a wizard and probably not even a sorc, just a bunch of sorc-like domain spells. This is not to say nobody in the universe has ever had a sorc level or two.

Druid: Them tree-huggin' Children and the humans who'd hang out with them. And probably everybody's grandmother in the North.

Bard: Bael (huh) and Mance, though not necessarily, as any class can learn to play instruments and sing. Rhaegar could play and sing, but he hardly strikes me as bard material… well, no, wait, he does, somewhat. But he was no squishy d6-er. That Costayne guy, unless he was just a plain NPC, perhaps was more like a proper bard.

(Royal) Ass: Viserys ('III'). Viserys, however, probably simply had the Aristocrat NPC class, in which probably even Dany has a bunch of levels.

The maesters resemble wizards in organizational terms, but they're properly Loremasters (a prestige class), as are the Alchemists.

There's some necromancy in the game; those are probably clerics or sorcs but who knows, perhaps a specialist wizard or two, but don't really expect them to also know Fireball or Mirror Image. ;) Or Knock. :P The closest thing would be the Rhoynish water wizards, unless they were really sorcs or druids. The rest are probably like 3E prestige classes with limited access to specific spells, often cast as innates.

Assassins abound, and there are a bunch of plain rogues too and a swashbuckler (2E rogue kit or 3E prestige class) too.

The KG aren't paladins, they're just an in-game society or a prestige class open to just about anybody with high enough attack bonus and possibly hit dice.

This said, linking people to the various prestige classes from D&D lore could be a lot of fun. Weaponmasters, water dancers, diplomats, scholarly knights, champions of The Seven (or Old Gods) and the like would fit snug there. Actually, the NW would probably have their own tailored prestige class as opposed to being rangers, but who knows. Your average not overly martial lord would probably mostly have the Aristocrat NPC class, especially if hanging out at court.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/02/2018 at 4:02 PM, Curled Finger said:

Brienne is true knight to me.  Hers was the face of Gallahad when I read The Once and Future King.  So here I am presented with a paladin who fits true knight definition better than the other fighters or warriors or whatever we are to call the class in this scenario.   However, she lacks religious zeal--or does she?  I counter with knighthood is her religion.

 
Back!
 
So, seeing as she was the figure of interest - let’s go over Brienne as if we were conceiving her as a character we were going to play in DnD. I used a few online resources to patch this together and decided not to a lot abilities/stats to her as I'm not very good at judging that way.
 
Quote

"Ser" Lady Brienne Tarth 

Female / about 20-years-old / 6' foot
Race: Human*, "Stormlander" tribe
+1 to All Ability Scores**
 
*In DnD, she might possibly get some homebrew a ‘half-golith" or something equivalent, what asoif calls “giant’s blood”. If not part of her race, her features can be an aspect of her tribe.
**Also get ‘Extra Language’ - not a perfect fit but take what you will).
 
Quote

 

Alignment
Lawful Good*: “(LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good.” (Quoted from here).

 

*Brienne certainly held law and oath in high regard, quite befuddled by some of the things that came out of Jaime's mouth.

 
Quote

 

Class:
Paladin [Sources: 1, 2 and 3]
+1 Strength, +1 Charisma

Proficiencies

Armor: All armor, shields, Weapons: Simple weapons, martial weapons, Tools: None, Saving Throws: Wisdom, Charisma, Skills: Choose two from Athletics, and Religion

 

We know Brienne is strong for a woman, surprising even Jaime.

**Despite being written off as graceless and ugly, she still succeeds in getting Jaime to open up.
 
By following the links above on the Paladin 'Class Features', I hope you can see by the abilities they pick up as they level why it is a nice for for Brienne even if she doesn't have all the aspects per se.
 
Perhaps "the" most defining thing about the Paladin class is their level 3 'Sacred Oaths'. Brienne takes her oaths seriously, is hesitant to break laws and codes. Yet, as an interesting development from a DnD POV, she might be on the road to becoming a "Dark Paladin" or Oathbreaker by lying.
 
She does not break this by agreeing to fetch Jaime for Stoneheart as this was to save Podrick. HOWEVER we should consider whether she might become a rogue Paladin because at level 3, Paladins begin to take sacred Oaths, the most common being ‘Oath of Devotion’ two of the universal tenants are:
 
Quote

Honesty. Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.

Even if Brienne is being coerced by the BwB and Stoneheart to bring Jaime for a hanging, she lies about finding Sansa to get him to come.

The other is;
 
Quote

Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you.

Now, here is the problem - Brienne swore an oath of service to Catelyn to return Sansa and Arya to their mother. Jaime then amended the oath, telling her to find Sansa and keep her safe (essentially from the retribution of Cersei). Brienne swore the same oath but to two different people and both have authority over Brienne in terms of rank.

The question we must ask is — has Brienne done anything wrong to justify either Stoneheart or Jaime calling her an oath breaker for it when, arguably, Catelyn has now broken her oath by demanding Brienne trick Jaime (“ask nothing that will cause you dishonour” etc.) while Jaime has already broken his oath by fighting Tullys.
 
Either way, I think the abilities Brienne definitely has through her 1st oath is ‘Channel Divinity’ not least because one half of it is called “Sacred Sword”, which makes me think of Oathkeeper.
 
Her background would probably be a "Knight”.
 
While she is not a “Ser” (which is gender neutral), one could argue Renly “knighted” her by naming her to his Rainbow Guard.
 
Quote

Skill Proficiencies: Athletics, Religion

Knights also get as their feature an NPC squire to follow them around. Podrick is essentially an “NPC” as we only ever see him through Brienne (or Tyrion’s) POV.

As for the personality picks:

Quote

 

Personality Trait (Select 2)
“You never back down from a fight or a challenge, even in the face of overwhelming odds.”
And
“You are slow to anger but can be merciless and relentless once a situation has escalated to violence.”
 
Ideal (Select 1)
Honor.  My word is my reputation and I will always honor it.
 
Bond (Select 1)
You idealize a heroic figure or ancestor that you believe embodies the spirit of what it truly means to be a knight.
 
Flaw (Select 1)
“You are prone to falling in love at first sight.”*
 
Quote

*Though I might ask the DM to amend this to: “You are prone to falling in love with unattainable men.” Or something

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2018 at 2:38 PM, newbieone said:

D&D has paladins that can't cast spells — 2nd ed. had class kits, and in 3rd ed. you can't cast spells if you don't meet the Wisdom requirement (10, which is average, + spell rank). Spellcasting isn't really essential in terms of what the class stands for, I guess. It's more like a figure for praying and getting results anyway. However, laying on hands is something paladins are harded to imagine without, though I guess that too is possible.

This said, I'm not sure anyone in the entire universe meets the criteria, even once you accept that paladins don't exactly have to be consummate nice guys, extremely religious, extremely charismatic, etc. You'd still expect them to stand out in some sort of paladin-like way, and I don't think anyone does. Few people seem to be rock-solid candidates for the Lawful Good alignment as opposed to just somewhat amiable and somewhat benevolent Lawful Neutral. Few are spectacular enough. In computer D&D games a pretty average knight or lord will sometimes have paladin coded as his class, but he has scarcely any compelling need to be one as opposed to just a knight-like, chivalrous fighter. Most knights are fighters. Most champions are fighters too. On the other hand, however, some mercs are paladins, so if dude doesn't do anything clearly unpaladin-y, then he might as well be one, just low statistical chance.

Here are some people I think could be paladins without running into some sort of contradiction:

  • Faegon — probably the closest thing the universe has to a paladin as of DoD, at least I'm actually sure he's L and pretty sure he's LG (but still may be LN), as well as a hero figure; still, even he lacks the typical bells and whistles
  • Brienne — but I personally think she's not Lawful, unless a very flawed version of it, more like honourable NG, and not extremely strong on the G part, just closer to it than most other nobles, but she's still more like the vaguely amiable Tully lords than a decidedly Good character;
  • Ned — honour falls under L unless you're actively kind, charitable, widow/orphan saving etc.; he's somewhat benevolent, but I'm not sure he's necessarily LG vs LN (though closer to G than, say, Stannis); he could be either just fine, and his mystique concentrates more on the L part and being the Big Stark Dude
  • Robb Stark — basically Ned II, with some ethical similarities and charisma but little compelling reason to be a paladin
  • Barristan Selmy — he has a similar ethos to a paladin and looks closer to one than, say, Bittersteel, but still lacks any of the typical paladin-y belts and whistles and would be totally defensible as an honourable aristocratic Lawful Neutral fighter
  • Jon Con — yes, Jon Con; yes, I'm serious, though he's not a completely compelling case either
  • Arthur Dayne possibly, but we don't know much about him, so just guessing
  • Last but not least, Lord Dondarrion looks like a strong candidate, though you could argue for a Chaotic alignment shift
  • Statistically speaking, I guess some of the Glover, Tallhart and Royce clan could fit the billet, perhaps Raynald Westerling
  • Okay, it's a stretch, but Lancel may be headed there

Dunk & Egg timeline:

  • Baelor Breakspear — hey, paladins are allowed to have reasonably high INT scores; besides, dude's probably the single most paladin-like character in the whole universe of all timelines, though you could argue that even his alignment doesn't have to not be Lawful Neutral just leaning on Good, and it's not like NG couldn't have acted the way he did anyway
  • Dunk — supposing he comes clean and gets knighted at some point, the problem being the continued lie, not the lack of proper knighthood per se; even so, just remembering your vows as a knight doesn't really mean you must be a paladin, and he's more NG to me anyway (poaching, anyone? leaving Alyn in the well?), which is not to say I'm 100% sure about the G
  • Egg — meets the threshold about as much as Dunk does and is another NG candidate, as well as lacking most of the typical bells and whistles or the typical trappings and has something rogue-like about him
  • Daemon II Blackfyre — perhaps not the highest Wisdom score of all paladins and not overall a successful paladin, but being successful is not a requirement, so heck, why not, he looks much like one in the events leading up to his trial by combat with young 'Ball'

Others:

  • Addam 'Loyal' Velaryon (Addam of Hull), but I'm guessing and interpreting things in his favour
  • Aemon the Dragonknight, though that would be a Lancelot-style flawed paladin
  • Benedict Justman, but just guessing again — even Lord Tywin had a reputation for justice, and Benedict's wars of unification need not all have been just wars
  • Perhaps some guys from the Reach and perhaps some of the past Starks and their vassals

Rangers are a bit easier. I guess Jon Snow, Benjen Stark and like half the Night's Watch and most poachers in the realm. :P Perhaps Blackfish. Perhaps some Northern fighters (Stark wargs *cough*) could have additional levels here if not in the barbarian class. Proper barbarians would be more like the Skagosi or the Dothraki and perhaps 'Lord' Wull, rather than the average Stark or even Umber, but let's try to be generous and not make everybody a plain fighter. :P

Cleric: Septons and septas, by definition, though the D&D cleric is more like the adventuring kind than your typical NPC clergy. Thoros of Myr. Melisandre. And no, she's not a wizard and probably not even a sorc, just a bunch of sorc-like domain spells. This is not to say nobody in the universe has ever had a sorc level or two.

Druid: Them tree-huggin' Children and the humans who'd hang out with them. And probably everybody's grandmother in the North.

Bard: Bael (huh) and Mance, though not necessarily, as any class can learn to play instruments and sing. Rhaegar could play and sing, but he hardly strikes me as bard material… well, no, wait, he does, somewhat. But he was no squishy d6-er. That Costayne guy, unless he was just a plain NPC, perhaps was more like a proper bard.

(Royal) Ass: Viserys ('III'). Viserys, however, probably simply had the Aristocrat NPC class, in which probably even Dany has a bunch of levels.

The maesters resemble wizards in organizational terms, but they're properly Loremasters (a prestige class), as are the Alchemists.

There's some necromancy in the game; those are probably clerics or sorcs but who knows, perhaps a specialist wizard or two, but don't really expect them to also know Fireball or Mirror Image. ;) Or Knock. :P The closest thing would be the Rhoynish water wizards, unless they were really sorcs or druids. The rest are probably like 3E prestige classes with limited access to specific spells, often cast as innates.

Assassins abound, and there are a bunch of plain rogues too and a swashbuckler (2E rogue kit or 3E prestige class) too.

The KG aren't paladins, they're just an in-game society or a prestige class open to just about anybody with high enough attack bonus and possibly hit dice.

This said, linking people to the various prestige classes from D&D lore could be a lot of fun. Weaponmasters, water dancers, diplomats, scholarly knights, champions of The Seven (or Old Gods) and the like would fit snug there. Actually, the NW would probably have their own tailored prestige class as opposed to being rangers, but who knows. Your average not overly martial lord would probably mostly have the Aristocrat NPC class, especially if hanging out at court.

You look like you had a lot of fun writing that.   I hope so because I sure had fun reading it.   Keep in mind, I have only vague concepts of half the things you spoke of.    Nonetheless, I really enjoyed your take on these classes and was surprised at your Brienne/Paladin comparison and contrast.  Very interesting concepts here.  I will take your obviously far more knowledgeable understandings, add them to my notes and thank you for taking the time to lay it all out.  Feel free to jump in and comment wherever you are interested.  Great stuff!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Curled Finger said:

@Faera, that was a great break down for Lady Brienne.   You found some nice stuff there!   Well done, as usual! 

I'm very tempted to do it for a few other characters as well because it was quite fun. Though I still don't quite understand how to play, I can understand how the process of "character building" might have appealed to GRRM and contributed to his "gardener" style of character building and storytelling.

TBH, I think the current NP(ov)Cs of the series might be easier to categorise as we aren't quite as engrossed in all the mental gymnastics and complexity that goes on in their heads first hand...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Faera said:

I'm very tempted to do it for a few other characters as well because it was quite fun. Though I still don't quite understand how to play, I can understand how the process of "character building" might have appealed to GRRM and contributed to his "gardener" style of character building and storytelling.

TBH, I think the current NP(ov)Cs of the series might be easier to categorise as we aren't quite as engrossed in all the mental gymnastics and complexity that goes on in their heads first hand...

You're probably right about the non POV characters.  This is a lot of fun insofar as exploring qualities of fighting deemed worthy in this setting as well as magic.   No idea how close to the structures GRRM wrote anyone with, but it's an interesting exercise.  You brought up a few items in discussing Brienne above.   I keep seeing all that discussion about touching the hilt of the sword as a sort of "tell" from Brienne to Jamie.    We will see in time, no doubt, but it's still hard for me to let go of Lady Ser's exemplary characteristics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

You're probably right about the non POV characters.  This is a lot of fun insofar as exploring qualities of fighting deemed worthy in this setting as well as magic.   No idea how close to the structures GRRM wrote anyone with, but it's an interesting exercise.  You brought up a few items in discussing Brienne above.   I keep seeing all that discussion about touching the hilt of the sword as a sort of "tell" from Brienne to Jamie.    We will see in time, no doubt, but it's still hard for me to let go of Lady Ser's exemplary characteristics. 

Seeing as I have Bran on the brain, I've been thinking a lot about how we would categorise characters like Meera and Jojen, the latter in particular, as he lacks any combat skills whatever. Even Bran is capable of battle and defending himself through his skills. Plus, they fit the "NPovC" category that might make it easier to ID them a bit more. Thinking about it, Bran himself is very difficult to categorise and might even require a dnd homebrew class for him, or at least a subclass to the Druid or Warlock classes.

Another POV character that might be interesting is Jon. While plenty have proposed a Ranger or Fighter class for him, I agree that what he might represent is a type of Paladin. When the Night's Watch join the order, all past sins are forgotten and they are born again as they take their oath. They also do mini training sessions to assess their skills - parallel to the idea that a DnD player's Paladin is no true Paladin until they reach Level 3 and take their Sacred Oath. At this point I would identify Jon as a "Blackguard Paladin", if the option is available, a Paladin specialising in strike attacks over defence, which matches Jon's fighting style as well as being conveniently named. Yet with Jon we actually see him forced to break his oath by killing Qoran, "marrying" Ygritte and fighting with the barbarians, druids and ranger-like wildlings. Thus, Jon becomes the Oathbreaker, forced to abandon the Paladin class and reclass or remain in the road of evil. Jon does reclassify - he becomes a Ranger, as his bond with his animal companion Ghost is strengthening and he fearfully begins to embrace that side of his powers. Finally, his alignment switches from Lawful to quite Chaotic Good, as he throws thousands of years of laws and traditions to the wind and begins to run the Night's Watch how he believes it needs to be morally (chaos) rather than the status quo (lawful). It is that embracing of what the perceived good is over lawful leave that leads to, ironically, his unlawful attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

You look like you had a lot of fun writing that.   I hope so because I sure had fun reading it.   Keep in mind, I have only vague concepts of half the things you spoke of.    Nonetheless, I really enjoyed your take on these classes and was surprised at your Brienne/Paladin comparison and contrast.  Very interesting concepts here.  I will take your obviously far more knowledgeable understandings, add them to my notes and thank you for taking the time to lay it all out.  Feel free to jump in and comment wherever you are interested.  Great stuff!

Thanks!

@Faera: I'm not necessarily saying your arguments for Brienne as a paladin are invalid, but in my understanding NGs will still generally respect the law — just as much as even LGs don't always play 100% by the book — and while CGs will be stubborn individualists with perhaps arbitrary ways, the G part will prevent them from intentionally inflicting unwarranted harm, which would be evil. Simply being Good precludes most betrayals and such like, which would generally be evil unless done for a higher purpose (e.g. supporting Renly over loyalty owed to Stannis when you know, which most of the realm doesn't know, about the Lannincesters, or Jaime slaying Aerys II). Generally, CGs can still be relied on to keep their personal oaths because of CGs attachment to personal loyalties. In some cases a CG would hold on to an oath that an LG would regard as illegal or overridden by some other higher directive. I'm not necessarily saying being in Renly's camp precludes Brienne from being Lawful (after all, Renly was annointed by the High Septon and Joff was not, Joff was a bad king, Stannis wasn't heard from, Renly was her liege lord, etc.), but all in all I'm just not convinced she has to be a paladin or even LG. Doesn't mean she can't be, of course. But I find her unlikely in the end. Possible, but unlikely.

Can't really agree with Jon as a Blackguard, as I can't see him as at any point becoming Evil. I'm not sure what alignment he should be, but given his morality I'd be inclined to regard him as being either Good or Lawful, not necessarily both. There are some situations when he looks a bit like a paladin of the Old Gods, so I could perhaps give him a level in that, if only to see some nice saves (with CHA bonus) and a bunch of rules to live by, but overall it's hard to tell. So far I'd give him Ranger levels (time ranging) and perhaps a Fighter level or two (Winterfell training and early NW training, which was pure Fighter Training) and perhaps a Barbarian level or two (time among Wildlings). From gameplay perspective, it would probably be more expedient to further train him as a Ranger exclusively for big-time bonding with Ghost and later with dragons, as well as all-round Night-Watch/North stuff. This said, I believe Northern paladins of the Old Gods would by necessity be very similar to Rangers or Barbarians in a lot of ways, especially in terms of ethos and overall impression. Jon as King in the North could possibly gravitate toward Paladin more than Ranger depending on lifestyle and personality.

That said, I find your argumentation quite interesting and in fact quite convincing anyway. I can certainly see where you're coming from, and a lot of that is valid points. For the record, killing his superior on the latter's own orders perhaps not, but violating the vows with Ygritte — unless justified/mitigated by the effective blackmail on her part — is among the typical stuff that turns paladins into fallen paladins. And yes, Jon can be seen as leaning CG in a lot of ways, though I still think it fits within acceptable Lawful range after he becomes the Lord Commander.

@Hooded Crow: Tywin was an interesting case. By the public image, you could position him as LG in his youth and even later, and certainly at least LN — he was just and fair and made the real prosper, which means that while he may not have been overly concerned with individual people's welfare, he cared for the common good, beyond just running the realm as a profitable well-managed business. That kind of sounds like LN, which includes a lot of decent folks, including dedicated and dutiful public servants who serve the common good (and certainly oppose evil, rather than believing in balance) but don't have much heart for people. Some of Tywin's later actions were selfish or even somewhat evil, precluding him from being Good but not necessarily firmly establishing him as Evil yet. I don't think even Castamere would have been conclusive, although it was a strong indication of sadism, along with the advice given to his father about the Tarbecks. However, I'm finally convinced by his handling of Tysha, Tyrion's wife. A Neutral character could perhaps have had her killed — having been conditioned to regard the high lords as pretty much owning the smallfolk and entitled to punish them harshly for small transgressions — but not gang-raped, not even while thinking her a gold-digger (because that's what Jaime said).

I'm not entirely sold on the Lawfulness (in alignment terms) of some of Tywin's various actions, but LEs don't follow the law, they try to make the law follow them. Abusing and twisting the system but generally staying within the established ruleset, that's LE. So Tywin is probably LE in the end, perhaps leaning NE at some points but also sometimes leaning LN (just like he may well have been LN leaning variously LG or LE in his past). Tywin isn't perfectly stable, and/or he's opportunistic and fights dirty. He certainly has two classes of enemies: business (like Ned, whom he'd send to the wall) and personal (like Tysha or the Tarbecks), and he's only sadistic with the latter, while rejecting sadism in general (e.g. he's disgusted with Joffrey's sadistic antics despite having some of his own).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...