IS George RR martian ghost writing here? (Game of Thrones spoiler inside)

[konradknox]

Rich, here is what I am gathering from what SN137 is trying to say, I think.

That it is easier to believe and immerse yourself as a reader in courage of a character who is present in only one singular story. One book or book cycle, one contained story, which will not have sequels.

The industrialization of storytelling into never-ending continuously running series eventually simply dulls our ability to reciprocate the character and emphasize with them, because after 20 sequels, it becomes "just another Bond movie".

But it's tricky in its own way. I think this is a lot more of a perception matter which depends on whether or not it's a story which is still being actively, continuously told, and there is more coming, or if a story has been fully told, and you didn't finish it yet.

Take Roger Zelazny's "Chronicles of Amber" or Andzjei Sapkowski's "Witcher". They're a 10-book and 7-book cycles respectively.

Today you can pick up the series and it will be a singular story of multiple books. You can easily believe in true character danger, because you don't know in advance if a character will die in the last book. Or sometime before the last book. The danger is quite real.

But years ago, when readers were enjoying those stories coming out hot from the press, they knew there was going to be the next Amber book, or the next Witcher book. So perhaps for those readers of the past, the heroes seemed less heroic, because they knew another book would be coming, and the danger wasn't really that dangerous.

I won't spoil either of the series by saying what happens, but those two examples are best to be read now than they were in the 80s and 90s, because they weren't finished yet, and the ending is where it all comes down to and all the danger truly culminates.

That being said, I think that G.R.R. Martin's strategy of offing characters frequently in an ongoing continuous story combats this staleness fairly bloody effectively. Sure, you know there will be another book and another show season, but you don't know whose turn is next, you don't know which characters will remain central, and which ones will meet their death. The story keeps you on the edge of your seat the whole time.

So, when it comes to OOTS, we know that this is going to be a single story that will only be told once, from beginning to end. And there won't be OOTS-2 or OOTS Reloaded or New Adventures of OOTS. There may be prequels or side stories, but we know that the main story arc may take our heroes away from us. And that makes it easier to believe in their courage.

TL;DR:

Metaknowledge is not objective measurement of character courage, but lack of sequels does make it easier to percieve it.

[SowZ]

Most of Martin's deaths have also been secondary characters, and like you said most of the secondary characters he kills are bad guys. Rowling by contrast was a lot more willing to kill off good guy secondary characters. Deathly Hallows saw Mad-Eye Moody, Hedgwig, Dobby, Remus, Tonks, Fred Weasley, and probably others I've forgotten all get killed.


You forgot Snape and Percy. Also, well, Harry, but he was dead for all of fifty three minutes.


Rich, here is what I am gathering from what SN137 is trying to say, I think.

That it is easier to believe and immerse yourself as a reader in courage of a character who is present in only one singular story. One book or book cycle, one contained story, which will not have sequels.

The industrialization of storytelling into never-ending continuously running series eventually simply dulls our ability to reciprocate the character and emphasize with them, because after 20 sequels, it becomes "just another Bond movie".

But it's tricky in its own way. I think this is a lot more of a perception matter which depends on whether or not it's a story which is still being actively, continuously told, and there is more coming, or if a story has been fully told, and you didn't finish it yet.

Take Roger Zelazny's "Chronicles of Amber" or Andzjei Sapkowski's "Witcher". They're a 10-book and 7-book cycles respectively.

Today you can pick up the series and it will be a singular story of multiple books. You can easily believe in true character danger, because you don't know in advance if a character will die in the last book. Or sometime before the last book. The danger is quite real.

But years ago, when readers were enjoying those stories coming out hot from the press, they knew there was going to be the next Amber book, or the next Witcher book. So perhaps for those readers of the past, the heroes seemed less heroic, because they knew another book would be coming, and the danger wasn't really that dangerous.

I won't spoil either of the series by saying what happens, but those two examples are best to be read now than they were in the 80s and 90s, because they weren't finished yet, and the ending is where it all comes down to and all the danger truly culminates.

That being said, I think that G.R.R. Martin's strategy of offing characters frequently in an ongoing continuous story combats this staleness fairly bloody effectively. Sure, you know there will be another book and another show season, but you don't know whose turn is next, you don't know which characters will remain central, and which ones will meet their death. The story keeps you on the edge of your seat the whole time.

So, when it comes to OOTS, we know that this is going to be a single story that will only be told once, from beginning to end. And there won't be OOTS-2 or OOTS Reloaded or New Adventures of OOTS. There may be prequels or side stories, but we know that the main story arc may take our heroes away from us. And that makes it easier to believe in their courage.

TL;DR:

Metaknowledge is not objective measurement of character courage, but lack of sequels does make it easier to percieve it.

But he isn't just saying that it is easier to immerse yourself in works that have more drastic consequences. That isn't what he is saying. He's saying the lack of a certain type of player character death actually changes the characters themselves, changes whether or not their dangers are valid, and changes how heroic the heroes are.

[Unisus]

Interesting thread.

Let's get meta then:

Suppose we find an unpublished Bond novel where Ian Fleming shows up in the text and tells Bond that he's going to die - there will be no more Bond books.

He explains that, without him to write Bond's adventures, his life is in the hands of fate - plot armor now gone.

Picture Bond, as you know him, in your mind - does he still continue being a secret agent? Knowing that he's not invulnerable?


Err - Yes? Because Bond never knew he had plot armor. Why should there be any change? It's just like somebody unknown to you would come to you tomorrow morning and tell you that from now on you could possibly die while until now he took care that you couldn't. Would that make any difference in your life?

[SN137]

But he isn't just saying that it is easier to immerse yourself in works that have more drastic consequences. That isn't what he is saying. He's saying the lack of a certain type of player character death actually changes the characters themselves, changes whether or not their dangers are valid, and changes how heroic the heroes are.
Actually your first statement is what I was saying before , and what I thought Ring of Gygas was saying , and indeed

Can we avoid the straw men please? No one has made those arguments or anything like them.

There's nothing to be gained from arguing about the semantics of "hero", if you prefer think of it as the choices not mattering. If Bond does something clever, he'll win. If Bond does something deeply stupid like get in a firefight with 20 soldiers he'll win too. It doesn't really matter what he does, whatever he does inexorably leads to victory. That's tiresome.
, I apparently interpreted what he was saying correctly. However the Giant insisted his interpretation, the second one , was correct , and told me to talk about his interpretation of Gygas' post . So I did .

[Taelas]

You forgot Snape and Percy. Also, well, Harry, but he was dead for all of fifty three minutes.

The second character in the spoiler is alive and well by the end of the book. :smallconfused:

[EnragedFilia]

Most of Martin's deaths have also been secondary characters, and like you said most of the secondary characters he kills are bad guys. Rowling by contrast was a lot more willing to kill off good guy secondary characters. Deathly Hallows saw Mad-Eye Moody, Hedgwig, Dobby, Remus, Tonks, Fred Weasley, and probably others I've forgotten all get killed.




Ned is really the only character on that list whose death was a surprise. Robb was never a POV character, and everyone else on it was pretty obviously marked to die. (Robert had to die to get the plot going, Renly had to die to keep the series from ending in Book 2, Viserys was an outright joke, etc...)

Look at it this way, not counting the prologue and epilogue chapters there have been 24 POV characters in ASOIF, so those are presumably the protagonists of the story. Of those 24
3 have died and stayed dead. (And 2 of those 3 were very minor characters.) Quentyn Martell and Arys Oakheart
1 has died and become undead.
1 has died but is almost certain to be revived.

Now lets compare that to the 24 characters in OOTS who have had the most appearances.
1 has died and been revived (Roy)
1 has died and become undead (Durkon)
5 have died/been destroyed and seem likely to stay dead. (Nale, Miko, Thog, Malack, Z).

So OOTS seems to be a much more lethal story for leading characters than ASOIF, and that's despite it having a much smaller cast, and it not being 5000 pages long.



Fair enough, but since Martin hasn't killed those characters off yet, they shouldn't count towards his reputation. He may still unleash a blood bath in the next two books (if he ever finishes them), but he hasn't done it so far, at least not towards the good guys. (He has killed off a fair number of bad guy characters, but those types are pretty much fair game in any fictional series, so killing them doesn't really distinguish him from any other author.)

First of all, you're seem to have forgotten Jeor Mormont and Beric Dondarrion in that list of "dead secondary good guy characters", but an even bigger problem is that all five of the "major characters permanently dead in OOTS so far" are also clearly antagonists (Miko was the least antagonistic of the five, and only because she managed to spend the most panel-time not causing the protagonists immediate problems). Conversely, ASOIAF has had far more antagonists and sorta-antagonists die, so this whole comparison only works if we apply that "good guys only" criterion to both series.

As such, in terms of "fairly major non-antagonist characters who have permanently died in a way that the audience might not have seen coming", and leaving aside the distinction between PoV and non-PoV characters due to comics not working that way, I'm going to go with a tally of:
ASOIAF
Ned, Robb, Mormont, Beric. I'll accept your argument that both Robert and Renly were predictable due to the plot not really working if they both survive, and Drogo not really being a good guy in any kind of objective sense. Robb is still a major character because being the focus of a major arc is more important than having his chapters narrated through someone else's perceptions. Anyway, that makes 4.

OOTS
Shojo... and I'm trying pretty hard to think of someone else, but almost every other character that's permanently died was a blatant antagonist. Windstrider wasn't bad or anything, if you want to accept the Oracle's handwaving about being trapped in the celestial realm, and a paladin's mount starts with 6 int, which is more than some player characters... If you count the prequel books there might be some more, but then we're not counting Brandon Stark or Lyanna, who died "more recently" relative to the start of their main plot than, say, Right-eye and Fyrion did relative to the start of theirs. Oh yeah, Therkla! She turned non-antagonistic some time before dying. So I guess that makes... 2 and a horse?

[Michaeler]

Does anyone remember which book it is that does kill Bond off?

Short version, Ian Fleming got sick of the character, decided to kill him, then people offered him lots of money and he wimped out and wrote another book where Bond recovered.

[Mammal]

Does anyone remember which book it is that does kill Bond off?

Short version, Ian Fleming got sick of the character, decided to kill him, then people offered him lots of money and he wimped out and wrote another book where Bond recovered.

Arthur Conan Doyle did the same thing with Sherlock Holmes! /trivia

[TheYell]

Picture Bond, as you know him, in your mind - does he still continue being a secret agent? Knowing that he's not invulnerable?


Yes, the Fleming Bond would. He doesn't plan on being invulnerable. Fleming has him figuring that before he has to retire in 8 years, he will have "Two or three tough assignments a year. Perhaps four. Too many."

[TheYell]

Does anyone remember which book it is that does kill Bond off?

Short version, Ian Fleming got sick of the character, decided to kill him, then people offered him lots of money and he wimped out and wrote another book where Bond recovered.

From Russia With Love.

Bond's gun gets caught in his holster, he has to run around a hotel room til Rosa Klebb runs out of ammo in her phone. Then he traps her with a chair but she drops him with a fugu-tipped shoeblade. He goes down and out.
"Dr. No" opens with Bond recovering slowly, and we have some fun as M smacks him down as a doofus who packs a girly gun, then gives him a useless assignment in the boondocks as a punishment.

As I recall Tuf Voyaging, yeah Martin started with what, 8 people, and killed 7 of them, and Tuf being the 8th goes on adventures and the death toll is in the millions. Continental extermination of human populations.

[Chuikov]

Deathly Hallows isn't much of a bloodbath. Honestly, throughout the series the most important good guy characters who perish are Dumbledore (old advisor character, tends to be doomed in heroic fiction), Sirius Black (who's never really THAT important) and Snape (final book casualty: SOMEONE important needs to die in the last book and no Dobby doesn't count). You do see some secondary characters offed, but none of them are particularly important to the overall drama.

ASOIAF death rate is pretty high, especially among POV or other important characters. Through 2.5 books out of 7 or so, you had, among others:

Ned (book one main character)
Robb (decoy protaganist)
Robert (the king in book one)
Renly (presumed eventual civil war winner for a good chunk of book two)
Viserys (decoy antagonist of book one)
Drogo (another decoy book one antagonist)


And over the course of the next 2.5 books, you've got a crap-ton more characters who die or are CLEARLY on their way out (won't list here since some may just watch the TV show). Most of them are "bad guy" types, but GRRM is clearly not afraid to clear the field pretty regularly. And we're still nowhere near the actual climax of the series.

And, of course, another part of his rep is that most all of these deaths are unexpected / sudden. Few dramatic speeches, goodbyes as they're dying etc.

Huh. I guess we ARE doing no-holds-barred spoilers. Alright.

Of those characters, I think just about any writer would have found a way to either kill or otherwise remove Robert, Renly and Drogo before too long. If they had been OotS characters, for example, I would have expected the Giant to find a way to off each and every one of them, or at least get them out of the plot.

Robert's death was the catalyst for war and necessary to propel the story into open conflict between Stark, Lannister and Baratheon. Renly and Drogo were both too powerful to live, with the first fielding an army bigger than all his rivals combined and the latter turning Dany's story into nothing but 'wait until we get the boats then land in Westeros and steamroll the opposition with my Dothraki horde.'

Viserys would also have certainly met an end sooner or later in almost any story, due to the dual handicap of being both a villain and an idiot. That it happened so soon was just one of the early indications that, in the long run, GRRM's world does not suffer delusional idiots to live.

As such, the real odd ones out in that list are Ned and Robb, the killing of whom was wholly unexpected for a whole lot of people. Those are the two deaths that give the book it's exaggerated reputation for protagonist mortality, even though the latter (as a non-PoV character almost entirely seen through his mother's eyes) is a very questionable protagonist in the books.

[TheYell]

And I've never killed a developed character where that character's death wasn't a direct result of their own choices.


dun dun dun!

This is the best written online drama going.

[SowZ]

Viserys would also have certainly met an end sooner or later in almost any story, due to the dual handicap of being both a villain and an idiot. That it happened so soon was just one of the early indications that, in the long run, GRRM's world does not suffer delusional idiots to live.

Joffrey? Punk sticks around for forever.

[Chuikov]

Joffrey? Punk sticks around for forever.

Well, yeah, but...

that's why I include the line 'in the long run.' I'm almost kinda worried that will come across as too much of a spoiler, though.

[EnragedFilia]

Renly and Drogo were both too powerful to live, with the first fielding an army bigger than all his rivals combined and the latter turning Dany's story into nothing but 'wait until we get the boats then land in Westeros and steamroll the opposition with my Dothraki horde.'

Ah, but if it was, say, Harry Turtledove or Eric Flint writing, then the tactical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwar) and/or sociopolitical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1632_series) results of that invasion would be the basis for the entire story. And if Flint was writing it with David Drake, they'd have made the odds even more overwhelming and given the outmatched side a military supergenius who proceeds to crush the invading hordes easily yet make it look difficult anyway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belisarius_series).

What you have to remember about the first book is that it isn't quite as obvious the first time reading it what kind of story it's going to be. For instance, I had recently finished Kiln People (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiln_People), and by the second chapter or so I was expecting Maester Luwin to ultimately uncover a deeply detailed and blatantly fantastical pseudoscientific explanation of what kind of bizarre combination of stellar neighborhood and axial tilt could account for seasons of arbitrary length. Needless to say, my expectations were subverted repeatedly.

[bguy]

First of all, you're seem to have forgotten Jeor Mormont and Beric Dondarrion in that list of "dead secondary good guy characters", but an even bigger problem is that all five of the "major characters permanently dead in OOTS so far" are also clearly antagonists (Miko was the least antagonistic of the five, and only because she managed to spend the most panel-time not causing the protagonists immediate problems). Conversely, ASOIAF has had far more antagonists and sorta-antagonists die, so this whole comparison only works if we apply that "good guys only" criterion to both series.

I agree that its mainly just been antagonists who have been killed in OOTS but the difference is that the Giant doesn't have a reputation as a "good guy" killer. It's Martin that has that reputation, but when we see who he's actually killed off in ASOIF that rep doesn't hold up. He's really no more prone to kill off good guys in his story than any other fantasy author. (And like I said significantly less likely to kill off good guys than Weis & Hickman or Rowling.)


As such, in terms of "fairly major non-antagonist characters who have permanently died in a way that the audience might not have seen coming", and leaving aside the distinction between PoV and non-PoV characters due to comics not working that way, I'm going to go with a tally of:
ASOIAF
Ned, Robb, Mormont, Beric. I'll accept your argument that both Robert and Renly were predictable due to the plot not really working if they both survive, and Drogo not really being a good guy in any kind of objective sense. Robb is still a major character because being the focus of a major arc is more important than having his chapters narrated through someone else's perceptions. Anyway, that makes 4.

OOTS
Shojo... and I'm trying pretty hard to think of someone else, but almost every other character that's permanently died was a blatant antagonist. If you count the prequel books there might be some more, but then we're not counting Brandon Stark or Lyanna, who died "more recently" relative to the start of their main plot than, say, Right-eye and Fyrion did relative to the start of theirs. Oh yeah, Therkla! She turned non-antagonistic some time before dying. So I guess that makes... 2 and a horse?.

What about Ho Thanh? He's a reasonably prominent characters (certainly at least equal to Beric in story importance. And if we count Start of Darkness (which really should count since its an actual book of its own rather than just events that are referenced in the main story) then we would also need to include Lirian, Dorukan, and Right-Eye. So that's either 3 or 6 significant good guys permanently killed in OOTS. And that's with out counting Miko as a good guy. (Who I think should count since she died trying to keep Xykon from capturing the Gate.)

As such OOTS has basically killed about the same number of significant good guys as ASOIF has, and it's done so with a much smaller total cast and with only 1/5 of the pages ASOIF has.

[EnragedFilia]

I agree that its mainly just been antagonists who have been killed in OOTS but the difference is that the Giant doesn't have a reputation as a "good guy" killer. It's Martin that has that reputation, but when we see who he's actually killed off in ASOIF that rep doesn't hold up. He's really no more prone to kill off good guys in his story than any other fantasy author. (And like I said significantly less likely to kill off good guys than Weis & Hickman or Rawling.)

I haven't read Weis & Hickman. Have you read Cherryh or Paolini?
Fortress series: 0 major non-antagonist deaths so far (5 books in). Mauryl doesn't count because that all happens in the prologue chapter. The King and the regent don't count because they have less characterization than Samantha or Samantha's father.

Inheritance Cycle: Brom. Ajihad, sort of, although you could probably argue he had to die just to put Nasuada in charge. Oromis and Glaedr, but I'll contend they count as one character. That's 3 total, give or take, although I haven't read the fourth book.

Naming specific examples like this isn't necessarily helpful to determine whether Mr. Martin's reputation is deserved or not, but I still say it really is. The whole Decoy_Protagonist thing just isn't common enough to make it a standard part of the genre, so using not one but two and then killing them both off is a seriously major element of the series. And that alone is enough to give a writer a reputation.



What about Ho Thanh? He's a reasonably prominent characters (certainly at least equal to Beric in story importance. And if we count Start of Darkness (which really should count since its an actual book of its own rather than just events that are referenced in the main story) then we would also need to include Lirian, Dorukan, and Right-Eye. So that's either 3 or 6 significant good guys permanently killed in OOTS. And that's with out counting Miko as a good guy. (Who I think should count since she died trying to keep Xykon from capturing the Gate.)

As such OOTS has basically killed about the same number of significant good guys as ASOIF has, and it's done so with a much smaller total cast and with only 1/5 of the pages ASOIF has.

I'll include Thanh, and admit that I forgot about him somehow, but if we're including SoD and OtOOPCs then we have to include the Dunk and Egg books too. They're actual books of their own, and clearly take place in the same timeline, and several events in them set up the events of the main series. It's certainly a less direct connection than that of the OOTS prequel books, but the similarities are there, and major non-evil characters still die in both sets of prequels.

I really don't think it's meaningful to compare page counts or character counts in the first place, although upon further consideration I will allow that the "total bodycount" seems to be less important to the popular preconceptions about Mr. Martin's writing than some of the other circumstances regarding his dead major characters, which may have been your original point but I don't really remember anymore.

[LadyEowyn]

Regarding Martin's killing off of good guys, here's my list:

Ned, plus everyone else that loyal to House Stark in Kings Landing, Arya and Sansa excepted; all the other followers/retainers/members of House Stark in Winterfell, Bran and Rickon excepted; the entire Stark armies and everyone loyal to House Stark in Robb's army, Robb and Catelyn included; Jeor Mormont, Qhorin Halfhand, and most of the Night's Watch, Jon Snow included [we don't know anything about his future fate or undead-ness; as of the end of ADWD, he's dead]. Then there's Robert, Renly, and pretty much Stannis' entire army including Davos' kids.

In short, there's one family who are the primary protagonists of the series - or one of two primary protagonist groups, with Dany representing the second (the titular "ice" and "fire" of the series) - and Martin has scattered and destroyed one of them and given the victory entirely to their enemies. He has also destroyed any other force that opposed that enemy family, and then spent an entire book on the fortunes and internecine warfare of that enemy family.

So the reputation is built on a combination of "the good guys die" and "the good guys lose", with a substantial helping of "bad guys win" ( even if you no longer consider the Lannisters as "winning", Littlefinger certainly is, and Cersei, Jaime, Tyrion, Myrcella, and Tommen are all alive). Which does not retain reader investment with the series. I don't read fiction for the message of "Evil will win, and it's good's fault for refusing to resort to evil to win".

[Flame of Anor]

even if you no longer consider the Lannisters as "winning", Littlefinger certainly is, and Cersei, Jaime, Tyrion, Myrcella, and Tommen are all alive

To be fair, only Littlefinger and Cersei are really certifiably Bad Guys from that list. (Though Jaime has had his bad moments.)

[IronFist]

I don't read fiction for the message of "Evil will win, and it's good's fault for refusing to resort to evil to win".
It's good thing that's not the message in ASoIaF, then.

[Mammal]

To be fair, only Littlefinger and Cersei are really certifiably Bad Guys from that list. (Though Jaime has had his bad moments.)

And I'm not so certain Cersei is going to be a villain much longer. We'll have to see how she reacts to being laid so low at the end of ADWD. I think there's definite potential for redemption there.

[LadyEowyn]

Speak for your own views. Jaime hasn't actually done much to indicate he's a good person other than rescuing Brienne, and he's done plenty of continuing evil things (including attacking and taking Riverrrun by threatening Edmure's child, in violation of his oath to Catelyn to take up no arms against her house). It's just that he's decided to think of himself as a good person, and the readers have decided to go along with it.

His actions and Cersei's precipitated the whole destructive civil war, including the regicide (which Cersei committed). Then there's his crippling of Bran, and his killing of all Ned's men in the first book. A couple good deeds don't come close to cancelling all that out.

[jere7my]

Which does not retain reader investment with the series. I don't read fiction for the message of "Evil will win, and it's good's fault for refusing to resort to evil to win".

I think you'd be better off saying "does not retain my investment with the series." I'm still invested, in part because I see a fundamentally different message and conflict than you appear to.

[Whiffet]

I don't watch the TV series and haven't finished reading the books. I'm past the point the TV series has reached judging by how everyone was freaking out over it, though, so I suppose I can toss my thoughts into the mix on strong enough grounds.
I never thought of Robb as a protagonist. Not once. :smallconfused: I'm not sure what this "Robb was a decoy protagonist" stuff is about. At any rate the fact he died didn't surprise me; I was sure he was going to bite the dust as soon as it was mentioned that he wanted Jon to succeed him if he died. I thought Jon needing to choose would be a perfect addition to his character arc.Granted, the exact manner of that death caught me off-guard, but in hindsight it made sense and was foreshadowed. And, frankly, I never cared much about that character for his own sake to begin with.

At any rate, I'm actually shocked; before I started reading I'd heard some vague stuff about how GRRM kills off all the likable characters (somehow avoiding specific spoilers well enough to be surprised at the first book's death-that-freaked-everyone-out... no idea how I managed that). Yet just about every character I like is still around as of book 3. And I like more characters now than I did earlier: Sansa, for example, annoyed me to no end early on but now I love her. That should mean more targets for GRRM, but he's left them alive despite the reports that he kills all the best characters. Maybe when I read farther everyone I love will die? I don't know. But somehow I doubt I'll lose all of them.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

A Dance with Dragons Spoiler
ADWD ends on a cliffhanger, we don't know Jon is dead. If there is anyone with plot armor its Jon and/or Tyrion. I'd be very surprised if Jon is honest to goodness dead. a) He doesn't die "on camera" b) he's pretty essential to the overarching plot with the Others verses humanity, and c) There is a red priest in the area. The kids fine.

[Angulf]

Regarding Martin's killing off of good guys, here's my list:

Ned, plus everyone else that loyal to House Stark in Kings Landing, Arya and Sansa excepted; all the other followers/retainers/members of House Stark in Winterfell, Bran and Rickon excepted; the entire Stark armies and everyone loyal to House Stark in Robb's army, Robb and Catelyn included; Jeor Mormont, Qhorin Halfhand, and most of the Night's Watch, Jon Snow included [we don't know anything about his future fate or undead-ness; as of the end of ADWD, he's dead]. Then there's Robert, Renly, and pretty much Stannis' entire army including Davos' kids.

In short, there's one family who are the primary protagonists of the series - or one of two primary protagonist groups, with Dany representing the second (the titular "ice" and "fire" of the series) - and Martin has scattered and destroyed one of them and given the victory entirely to their enemies. He has also destroyed any other force that opposed that enemy family, and then spent an entire book on the fortunes and internecine warfare of that enemy family.

So the reputation is built on a combination of "the good guys die" and "the good guys lose", with a substantial helping of "bad guys win" ( even if you no longer consider the Lannisters as "winning", Littlefinger certainly is, and Cersei, Jaime, Tyrion, Myrcella, and Tommen are all alive). Which does not retain reader investment with the series. I don't read fiction for the message of "Evil will win, and it's good's fault for refusing to resort to evil to win".

Oh, sweet summer child... if you read closely, you can see that it is not a full victory. The end of book 5 has a lot of opened doors and closed ones. If there's something I've learned while reading ASOIAF is that you need to look forward, not now. The example in that is Tyrion. Tyrion is smart, makes good moves that for example, readers and TV audience find cool. Tyrion's a total pimp when doing what he does. EXCEPT that his moves work only for a short period of time. Working against Pycelle ended up turning the table around when the old man got his post back, because Tyrion did the "right call" at the moment, but didn't see what could happen next. No move is final in the whole series, for example AND DON'T READ THE SPOILER IF YOU HAVEN'T FINISHED BOOK 5:

Cersei gaining full control of the Council by naming idiots, friends and some guy she finds attractive. One of the idiots dies because of a disease, the other one turns out to be... an idiot, her friends are useless in their position, and the pretty guy flees with an entire fleet he had built "for her".

I believe that what grinds my gears about SOIAF is not the series itself (I mean, I REALLY like it), it's the new fandom it's made due to the TV series. All the "Martin's so ruthless" drama that's been created is because of people who happened to get their favourite character killed. The thing is, it's hard to see something "good" happening because SOIAF is "dark fantasy". It doesn't mean that everything will turn out poorly, though.

On the other hand, I find the bodycount comparison a bit pointless. I don't think Rich or even Martin write stories to see how many characters can they kill. In fact, every single death in OOTS and ASOIAF isn't random. And even in that similarity, both stories are completely different, even opposite. I mean, I know that in the end, the Order of the Stick will prevail. They are the heroes and they will. I just want to see what they do to prevail, and what trouble will they face.

In A Song of Ice and Fire, I haven't the foggiest idea about what will happen, and that's okay. It's not the kind of story in which you know who will win. All I know is who will CLEARLY not win. And I'll say it loud, clear, and completely confident. The Lannisters. They're doomed, period. IF this post lives when the books end, I want to be reminded of my own statement :P

[Red XIV]

Frankly, I think it's odd that this comparison to Martin is coming up now and not, say, back when War and XPs was going on. Back then, we had the deaths of way more characters, many of whom were plenty likeable, including Shojo, Sangwaan, General Chang, the entire Sapphire Guard, Roy, and Miko.
Still not ready to assume that Sangwaan is dead. She didn't die from the dragon bite (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0429.html), and as for the fall? As I've said before, a blind wizard walking on the top of a hundred-foot wall with no railing, and she didn't have Feather Fall prepared? Please. "Always prepare Feather Fall" is a pretty basic rule for arcane spellcasters, too.

[Chuikov]

Oh, sweet summer child... if you read closely, you can see that it is not a full victory.

I'm not sure it can even be called a 'victory' at all, except in the most pyrrhic sense.

Let's do a brief recap of the situation by the end of DwD for the 'victors', shall we?

Tywin is dead, Kevan is dead, Joffrey is dead, Myrcella is horribly scarred, Jaime is maimed and possibly about to face Lady Stoneheart, Tyrion has defected to a rival monarch, Tommen is a small child and Cersei is an arrogant idiot who is nevertheless the only one left to rule in Tommen's name.

To the west, the Lannisters have a massive Ironborn fleet encroaching (with no fleet to oppose them, due to Cersei's stupidity), to the south Aegon (or whoever it is) and the Golden Company, and to the north the remnants of Stannis' army. Their allies include the Tyrells, who Cersei is almost certainly going to be ostracizing to the point of a complete break quite soon, and the Boltons and Freys, the latter of whom are infamously treacherous and the former of whom might just see obvious Lannister weakness as his chance to declare himself King in the North. One of their supposed 'allies', Doran Martell, has been quietly plotting the destruction of House Lannister for years now and will certainly defect to one side or another, probably to Aegon after Doran learns what happened to his son.

The Iron Bank, in response to Cersei's stupidity, has called in its loans and is lending direct support to Stannis. Littlefinger and Varys, the two principle schemers, are both plotting in their own way to challenge House Lannister, the former by bringing House Arryn into the list of Lannister enemies. At some point, the Others and Dany with her three dragons may well join the list of enemies directly trying to bring down the Lannister regime. In the midst of all of that, the treasury is empty, the granaries are empty and winter has finally come.

Did I miss anything, or does all of that combined suggest heavily that a catastrophic collapse is imminent?

[Angulf]

I'm not sure it can even be called a 'victory' at all, except in the most pyrrhic sense.

Let's do a brief recap of the situation by the end of DwD for the 'victors', shall we?

Tywin is dead, Kevan is dead, Joffrey is dead, Myrcella is horribly scarred, Jaime is maimed and possibly about to face Lady Stoneheart, Tyrion has defected to a rival monarch, Tommen is a small child and Cersei is an arrogant idiot who is nevertheless the only one left to rule in Tommen's name.

To the west, the Lannisters have a massive Ironborn fleet encroaching (with no fleet to oppose them, due to Cersei's stupidity), to the south Aegon (or whoever it is) and the Golden Company, and to the north the remnants of Stannis' army. Their allies include the Tyrells, who Cersei is almost certainly going to be ostracizing to the point of a complete break quite soon, and the Boltons and Freys, the latter of whom are infamously treacherous and the former of whom might just see obvious Lannister weakness as his chance to declare himself King in the North. One of their supposed 'allies', Doran Martell, has been quietly plotting the destruction of House Lannister for years now and will certainly defect to one side or another, probably to Aegon after Doran learns what happened to his son.

The Iron Bank, in response to Cersei's stupidity, has called in its loans and is lending direct support to Stannis. Littlefinger and Varys, the two principle schemers, are both plotting in their own way to challenge House Lannister, the former by bringing House Arryn into the list of Lannister enemies. At some point, the Others and Dany with her three dragons may well join the list of enemies directly trying to bring down the Lannister regime. In the midst of all of that, the treasury is empty, the granaries are empty and winter has finally come.

Did I miss anything, or does all of that combined suggest heavily that a catastrophic collapse is imminent?

And even more importantly, if you like:

There is no Lannister decendants. Tommen is Jamie's and Cersei's, but he remains a Baratheon officially, if not he would just be a bastard born of incest. The only Lannister "capable" of making a child now is Lancel. LANCEL.

Victory? No, not victory. Begun, this winter has.

[Flame of Anor]

Still not ready to assume that Sangwaan is dead. She didn't die from the dragon bite (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0429.html), and as for the fall? As I've said before, a blind wizard walking on the top of a hundred-foot wall with no railing, and she didn't have Feather Fall prepared? Please. "Always prepare Feather Fall" is a pretty basic rule for arcane spellcasters, too.

Oh come on, the Giant said she was dead.

[EnragedFilia]

A few fairly minor points:
According to the wiki (http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/House_Lannister), Kevan has two other living children, and Tyrek is only probably dead. The reavers are currently blockading Oldtown and the Arbor rather than Lannister holdings, and the Redwyne fleet is at least theoretically returning to oppose them. Of course, Euron fighting Tyrell forces is probably worse for what's left of Cersei's coalition than fighting Lannister holdings directly, since Tyrell and by inclusion Hightower and Redwyne are pretty much the only side with enough force left to make a difference against the Golden Company's invasion, with or without Martell's direct involvement. Also, I must have missed the hints that the Iron Bank was working with Baelish, but it certainly makes sense. Baelish would definitely have make that deal by now if it's been offered, and Gulltown is an easy stopover for Tycho to have made on his way to the Wall.

[Geordnet]

I haven't read Weis & Hickman. Have you read Cherryh or Paolini?

Inheritance Cycle: Brom. Ajihad, sort of, although you could probably argue he had to die just to put Nasuada in charge. Oromis and Glaedr, but I'll contend they count as one character. That's 3 total, give or take, although I haven't read the fourth book.
Brom died because he was the Obi-Wan. Seriously, compare the plot of Eragon with that of A New Hope.

Honestly though, he'd have been better off sticking to ripping off Star Wars; I really didn't care so long as he retold the story in an intriguing way. I thought he really had a cool mythology going for the first book and a half. But then he goes and uproots, upstages, trivializes or contradicts everything... Lucas really would be proud. :smallyuk:

I put down the series at the end of Book 3.



Still not ready to assume that Sangwaan is dead. She didn't die from the dragon bite (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0429.html), and as for the fall? As I've said before, a blind wizard walking on the top of a hundred-foot wall with no railing, and she didn't have Feather Fall prepared? Please. "Always prepare Feather Fall" is a pretty basic rule for arcane spellcasters, too.
She was an arcane caster? I thought the "blind prophet" archetype would be divine. :smallconfused:

[IronFist]

A few fairly minor points:
According to the wiki (http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/House_Lannister), Kevan has two other living children, and Tyrek is only probably dead. The reavers are currently blockading Oldtown and the Arbor rather than Lannister holdings, and the Redwyne fleet is at least theoretically returning to oppose them. Of course, Euron fighting Tyrell forces is probably worse for what's left of Cersei's coalition than fighting Lannister holdings directly, since Tyrell and by inclusion Hightower and Redwyne are pretty much the only side with enough force left to make a difference against the Golden Company's invasion, with or without Martell's direct involvement. Also, I must have missed the hints that the Iron Bank was working with Baelish, but it certainly makes sense. Baelish would definitely have make that deal by now if it's been offered, and Gulltown is an easy stopover for Tycho to have made on his way to the Wall.

House Lannister is very, very big. They are the only of the main houses with two branches, in Casterly Rock and in Lannisport. There are like a dozen living named Lannisters and some unnamed ones left.

[Starwulf]

Don't really want to start a whole new topic on the media discussion forums, so I'll just ask here in this thread, since it's been discussed earlier on.

I've been considering trying out the Song of Fire and Ice novels by GRRM, but after reading several posts in this thread, I'm not so sure now. Are there really multiple scenes of rape?(And by multiple, I mean more then 2) I ask, because I really can't stomach it. I've watched a few movies that had rape scenes in them, and I nearly vomited from it(The last house on the Left is the most recent). It's just so heinous and disturbing to me, so if there are multiple scenes in his novels dealing with that topic, I think I may have to give the books a pass.

[T-O-E]

Oh come on, the Giant said she was dead.

That's what he wants you to think.

[Fafnir13]

Don't really want to start a whole new topic on the media discussion forums, so I'll just ask here in this thread, since it's been discussed earlier on.

I've been considering trying out the Song of Fire and Ice novels by GRRM, but after reading several posts in this thread, I'm not so sure now. Are there really multiple scenes of rape?(And by multiple, I mean more then 2) I ask, because I really can't stomach it. I've watched a few movies that had rape scenes in them, and I nearly vomited from it(The last house on the Left is the most recent). It's just so heinous and disturbing to me, so if there are multiple scenes in his novels dealing with that topic, I think I may have to give the books a pass.

There are many scenes dealing with it from various angles. A lot of it is not happening "on camera" but described by one character to another or through recollection. Not that it makes much difference when, as readers, we get the full visual in our heads just from reading the words.
I really like the books, but would recomend you steer clear of them.

[Starwulf]

There are many scenes dealing with it from various angles. A lot of it is not happening "on camera" but described by one character to another or through recollection. Not that it makes much difference when, as readers, we get the full visual in our heads just from reading the words.
I really like the books, but would recomend you steer clear of them.

Alright, thank you for the heads up, it's much appreciated. Glad I happened to stumble upon this thread, as I was going to grab the first book the next time I went to 2nd & Charles(a great used book/video/comic/card store). It's weird, I can stomach the most intensely described murder scenes, but even a single line spent on describing a rape and I'm queasy.

[Chuikov]

Don't really want to start a whole new topic on the media discussion forums, so I'll just ask here in this thread, since it's been discussed earlier on.

I've been considering trying out the Song of Fire and Ice novels by GRRM, but after reading several posts in this thread, I'm not so sure now. Are there really multiple scenes of rape?(And by multiple, I mean more then 2) I ask, because I really can't stomach it. I've watched a few movies that had rape scenes in them, and I nearly vomited from it(The last house on the Left is the most recent). It's just so heinous and disturbing to me, so if there are multiple scenes in his novels dealing with that topic, I think I may have to give the books a pass.

Is there rape, more than two instances of it? Yes, well more than two instances. I was going to say that none of it is actually described in any real detail, but cracking open my kindle and doing a quick search for 'rape' proves me somewhat wrong, as there's a Lazarene woman who is in the process of being raped when Dany swoops in to save her and there's a bit of description as to what's going on before she does so. Nothing too graphic or too extensive, but enough to let us know why Dany is upset at seeing it.


...

...and now I've started thinking more as I type, remembering things like Jeyne Poole and Ramsay and Theon, or Gregor Clegane and his men, and realizing that if you can't stand reading about rape you're probably going to have a difficult time making it through the series. That's a pity, but it's a fact.

[Chuikov]

A few fairly minor points:
According to the wiki (http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/House_Lannister), Kevan has two other living children, and Tyrek is only probably dead. The reavers are currently blockading Oldtown and the Arbor rather than Lannister holdings, and the Redwyne fleet is at least theoretically returning to oppose them. Of course, Euron fighting Tyrell forces is probably worse for what's left of Cersei's coalition than fighting Lannister holdings directly, since Tyrell and by inclusion Hightower and Redwyne are pretty much the only side with enough force left to make a difference against the Golden Company's invasion, with or without Martell's direct involvement. Also, I must have missed the hints that the Iron Bank was working with Baelish, but it certainly makes sense. Baelish would definitely have make that deal by now if it's been offered, and Gulltown is an easy stopover for Tycho to have made on his way to the Wall.

Has Baelish made a deal with the Iron Bank? I didn't catch that, either, though as you say it would make sense. I hope I didn't accidentally imply I think that above, as I didn't mean to do so.

[Zerter]

I have read some stuff in this thread. Even though I think GoT is good, but not great (this comic is great), a lot of people also really seem to see GoT in a weird way. It promotes evil, it is a cynical world. Uh... no. Most of the good guys die because they are stupid. Ned Stark is a idiot, he gets a lot outs handed to him and he does not take any. His son marries some random girl even though he knows and everyone tells him that that is not a good idea.

We see that the smarter good individuals, those willing to play the game, actually get things done and get some support going. Deanarys, Jon Snow (no way he is dead), the onion knight. Sure they might die eventually, but so did Shojo. The thing that makes evil different from good in both OotS and GoT in terms of rewards is that good guys tend to gather allies and support more readily and make less enemies. The good guys dont get killed by their father or by their son. The evil guys dont have the greatest swordman alive showing up and offering their services just because they like them.

Another point entirely btw, but Jaime/Belkar might be on paths to redemption, They are still evil bastards. Doing some nice stuff does not cancel out the sick stuff that easily. I am not saying redemption is impossible, I am just saying it takes more than just trying a little for a short amount of time.

[EnragedFilia]

Has Baelish made a deal with the Iron Bank? I didn't catch that, either, though as you say it would make sense. I hope I didn't accidentally imply I think that above, as I didn't mean to do so.

Huh, you're right;
I had apparently read that '.' between Stannis and Littlefinger as a ',' and thus interpreted the three names in a row as elements of a list, then ignored the resultant nonsensical elements but not what it would mean about Tycho's activities.
Sorry about the misunderstanding.

[pendell]

Maybe I'm misreading things, but to my mind the reason the Giant is killing off characters is at least partly due to a desire to be economical in terms of storytelling.

A big, big problem storytellers have is the way their stories tend to expand over time. Witness just how long Death Hallows was in comparison to Philosopher's Stone in Rowling's books. And OOTS to some extent suffers from the same problem -- we've introduced a lot more characters , a lot more places. Telling the story in a believable manner means that, for every introduced character , you have to continually ask yourself the following questions:

1) Something is happening. Do any of these characters have the willingness and ability to impact the plot?

2) If so, how do they do that?

Hinjo, the IFC, the Linear Guild, Team Tarquin, un-named other sides -- this story has a LOT of moving parts, and good storytelling means the Giant has to make sure ALL of that is behaving consistently. What's more, none of these actions are in isolation -- if TT takes any action, all the other players may or may not be aware of it , and they will respond in kind. So one action by, say, Elan, will kick off a flurry of reactions from the rest of the cast, which will each kick off their own individualized reactions by everyone else, until at some times it seems as if the story has taken on a life of its own, outside the author's control. And that's if you're only following ONE plot. When you start introducing all the subplots, you have to track behavior across all those as well.

Small wonder OOTS is a paper-thin anyworld. Who has time for that? Rich has enough of a job keeping the characters believable and realistic without having to worry about keeping them consistent with a detailed background story as well.

I don't know how he keeps track of it all. I myself would be tempted to use a spreadsheet, or perhaps a chart with boxes and lines , each box with the name of a character and a three-word summary describing their motivation.

What's more, many of the characters attract their own little fandoms , of people who love or hate them, with the result that people are going to be asking "What happened to so-and-so? What happened to the quest for X? " Nobody likes a plotline dangled out there as bait and then promptly ignored for the rest of the story.

The problem is, there aren't really a cast of thousands of people fighting a planetary war for control of a gate, each acting on their own. There's only one guy sitting at a desk trying to believably fake the action of ... just how many major players are there right now? I've lost count.

Anyway, the problem is that we're heading for a final , dramatic confrontation. And the thing about a final dramatic confrontation is that it has to typically be a duel, between two people. Each expressing their view of the world, their ideas making as sharp a contrast as the weapons flicking between them.

But that's only possible when you've got a very few players standing in the final round. If ALL the major actors show up, it's less "decisive, dramatic conflict" and more "utterly confusing rugby scrum."

Which means we need a minimum of major actors when the story reaches its final epic conclusion.

Which means all these little subplots have to be wrapped up.

And in many of these subplots, it means the characters in question have to die, because otherwise there's no way to keep the characters from getting back in the game. The Giant obviously didn't want Tsukiko at the final battle, and there's no plausible way she wouldn't have been there at her power level. So she had to die in such a way that she can't be brought back. Same with the Linear Guild. They were always a sideshow, but Nale's literal mission in life is killing Nale. The only way to stop him is to put him down, and the entire LG has to suffer TPK or the sole survivor will resurrect all the others, and one teleport puts them back in the game. It's HARD to definitively write a character out in D&D when there are so many ways of cheating death and sending/teleport/scrying allow them both to get instantaneous information on events and act on them.

Which presumably is one reason we never see true resurrection in-comic. If there's one true resurrection we'll NEVER see the back of any of these people. And again, who has time for that?

So that's why, in my view, Rich Burlew is killing characters off. It's not because he hates characters , or wants to rack up a body count , or is enamored of death. It's simply that he's got a dramatic story to tell and it's not possible with the current number of moving parts. All of the little subplots need wrapping up before the main event. That's why Clancy kills off characters towards the end of the book, that's why Turtledove kills off characters towards the end. Heck, that's probably why Tolkien killed off Boromir. Tolkien would have been better served to kill off MORE of the fellowship, because otherwise he had to follow the adventures of three separate parties across multiple books, and the eventual finished work was a doorstop. You could use LOTR as an anvil because Tolkien didn't practice story economy. He left too many characters alive for too long.

Which brings up another point -- I get the impression Tolkien was extremely reluctant to kill off heroes, even when they were utterly superfluous as Merry and Pippin were. He seems to have almost fallen in love with them. And so they were kept around in frame and they had to take time and effort to portray. A good author, I think , has to be a little bit coldblooded with his creations and be willing to either kill them or remove them from the story when they aren't contributing to it any more. Otherwise it not only takes time and pages to write and portray them, it detracts from the whole effect by taking something which should be clean and elegant and making it confusing and complex.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Mammal]

I agree with Brian. One of my friends also reads OotS, and our conclusion after this arc was pretty much "Giant's paring down the cast list in preparation for the final battle." That he's doing it so well-all the deaths feel consistent with the narrative-is a testament to his skill as a storyteller. I think at this point in an ongoing work, the temptation to start dropping rocks would be pretty high.

[deworde]

And thus began the "What kind of sandwich is your favourite hero most like?" thread.

Spider-Man is totally a New York Meatball Sub: Amazing and Beloved, but Carrying an Immense Burden of Guilt.

Steve Rodgers is a Lean Beef Sandwich on White: Wholesome, good for you, and ever so slightly boring. The Winter Soldier is the same sandwich with mustard. Just... better.

Tony Stark is a Chilli Cheese and Egg Sandwich: All Over the Place, and you know you should hate it, but somehow you find yourself loving it.

[mhsmith]

On the other hand, I find the bodycount comparison a bit pointless. I don't think Rich or even Martin write stories to see how many characters can they kill. In fact, every single death in OOTS and ASOIAF isn't random. And even in that similarity, both stories are completely different, even opposite. I mean, I know that in the end, the Order of the Stick will prevail. They are the heroes and they will. I just want to see what they do to prevail, and what trouble will they face.
...


Very much +1. It seems part of this thread has devolved into comparing body counts (and yes, I'm guilty of this as well unfortunately). ASOIAF has a larger body count than OOTS because they're fundamentally different stories. This doesn't say anything good OR bad about either of them. What matters is how well a story is told, not arbitrary metrics like "how many people did you kill off".


... I don't read fiction for the message of "Evil will win, and it's good's fault for refusing to resort to evil to win".


It's good thing that's not the message in ASoIaF, then.

+1. There's WAY more of a "the good guys and bad guys aren't who you actually think they are" theme than there is a "bad guys win" theme.

Jaime is probably the perfect example. He sure looks like a bad guy at first, fairly Chaotic Evil (throws a kid off a tower, cares not a whit for much of any societal rules, is carrying on an incestual affair with the queen, etc.) and readers go through at least the first book and probably the second too continuing to see him this way.

Until the third book. That's when his actions start to change, he starts to undergo some moral growth, and most importantly of all, we find out that in the most important moral moment of his life, he made the RIGHT decision (saving basically the entire population of Kings Landing), and that he's actually been much more of a decent human being than we thought. He's still a brat, still impulsive, and still prone to bad decision making, but at his core he's really not evil at all. Despite the fact that everyone in the kingdom thinks he is (which is due to the ironic fact, which he explicitly calls out, that everyone in the kingdom hates and despise him for his Chaotic Good action of killing the evil king).

If you still see Jaime as evil... we're just not reading the same series. He's fundamentally a chaotic good to neutral (and chaotic may be swinging towards neutral as well) person who is prone to making bad decisions. The only especially evil actions he's taken during the series were tossing Bran off a tower (an evil action, yes, but also one without premeditation and in his mind an act of self defense) and ordering the execution of Ned's guards. Those aren't nearly enough to swing the pendulum towards evil. At most, it'd go neutral, and it really does seem like he's becoming more of a good person as the series goes on.

[tomandtish]

What you have to remember about the first book is that it isn't quite as obvious the first time reading it what kind of story it's going to be. Snip.

Exactly. If you haven't read (or watched, for those on the series) anything like this before, this can really catch you off guard. I read the novels first, but my wife started with the series. I can still remember her reaction.

Her: "But.. they just killed Sean Bean!"
Me: "Yep".
Her: "But... But ... he's Sean Bean! He's the star of the show!"
Me: "Not any more. Beside, think about it. In how many movies is Sean bean actually alive at the end?"
Her: "You totally suck! Well, at least Rob's still alive. He can avenge his father".
Me: chokes on drink.

She spent all of third season convinced that this "Red Wedding" she'd heard rumors about (but managed to avoid spoilers for) was Joffrey's wedding. It literally wasn't till Kat realized what was going on that she realized she had the wrong wedding.

Her: "Why didn't you warn me?!?"
Me: "You said you didn't want any spoilers!" laughing
Her: "You could have given me a little clue!"
Me: "Even the words 'There's more than one wedding' might have been too much".
Her: "You know what this means!"
Me: grabs pillow and heads for the couch still laughing "Totally worth it!"

Rich and Martin both kill off characters. The primary diffference is that it is much harder with Martin to determine who is going to be around at the end of the series. With Rich, it's a reasonably safe bet that Roy, Elan, Hailey, V, Durkon, Belkar, Xykon, Redcloak, and MitD will all be active participants in the finale. With 2 more books planned after book 5, I wouldn't expect the permanent removal of any of them before book 7.

The big difference with Martin is that you can't take any particular character and assume that they will be around at the climax. Some seem more likely than others, but no one seems to be a 100% sure thing anymore.


Very much +1. It seems part of this thread has devolved into comparing body counts (and yes, I'm guilty of this as well unfortunately). ASOIAF has a larger body count than OOTS because they're fundamentally different stories. This doesn't say anything good OR bad about either of them. What matters is how well a story is told, not arbitrary metrics like "how many people did you kill off".





+1. There's WAY more of a "the good guys and bad guys aren't who you actually think they are" theme than there is a "bad guys win" theme.

Jaime is probably the perfect example. He sure looks like a bad guy at first, fairly Chaotic Evil (throws a kid off a tower, cares not a whit for much of any societal rules, is carrying on an incestual affair with the queen, etc.) and readers go through at least the first book and probably the second too continuing to see him this way.

Until the third book. That's when his actions start to change, he starts to undergo some moral growth, and most importantly of all, we find out that in the most important moral moment of his life, he made the RIGHT decision (saving basically the entire population of Kings Landing), and that he's actually been much more of a decent human being than we thought. He's still a brat, still impulsive, and still prone to bad decision making, but at his core he's really not evil at all. Despite the fact that everyone in the kingdom thinks he is (which is due to the ironic fact, which he explicitly calls out, that everyone in the kingdom hates and despise him for his Chaotic Good action of killing the evil king).

If you still see Jaime as evil... we're just not reading the same series. He's fundamentally a chaotic good to neutral (and chaotic may be swinging towards neutral as well) person who is prone to making bad decisions. The only especially evil actions he's taken during the series were tossing Bran off a tower (an evil action, yes, but also one without premeditation and in his mind an act of self defense) and ordering the execution of Ned's guards. Those aren't nearly enough to swing the pendulum towards evil. At most, it'd go neutral, and it really does seem like he's becoming more of a good person as the series goes on.

Very much agreed. Jaime, like Belkar, is a work in progress. And we'll have to wait and see where he ends up. He definitely started off doing some bad things, but seems to be gradually changing.

[SowZ]

I don't think the message is that evil wins. I don't think the message is that good wins, either. I think it is more this existential nihilism thing where good and evil only exist to the individual and the universe isn't biased to help either 'good' or 'evil' win. Things just happen and we each have to make the choice if we want to give those things value anyway.

[The Oni]

While I haven't gotten far enough into the series to see Jaime really reveal his true colors, I've always felt he was intended to be the "hero of another story." He certainly looks the part. He had his moment of courage, and the world hates him for it. That'd be enough to make most paladins fall, let alone mere mortals.

[Aquillion]

People really, really overstate how often George R. R. Martin kills off main characters. Seriously, aside from the oneshot characters who are used once solely to die, how many recurring POV characters can you say have actually died and stayed permanently dead? I can think of one, that's it, in the entire series.

He does a lot of cliffhangers that make it feel like those characters are always at risk, and he kills large numbers of "peripheral" characters, even ones who you might not have realized were peripheral characters. For instance: In the books, Robb is never a POV character and is, in fact, almost never "onscreen" at all. Despite playing a major role in the plot, he's actually an extreme background character in the story. Only one POV character died in the Red Wedding, and surprise surprise, she came back.

(On the other hand, he very frequently ends a chapter or even a volume with a cliffhanger making it look like a POV character has died -- for instance, there was a chapter ending near the Red Wedding where it looked like Arya took an axe to the head, then with her next chapter it turned out her companion just smacked her with the flat of it to keep her from charging to her death. Later he seems to die, only no wait, he survived and became a monk. Brienne gets hung, but wait, no, she's alive! Etc etc. I think the first chapters where he introduces a new POV character only to kill them off is also a factor in why people think the body count in these books is so high.)

[Red XIV]

Oh come on, the Giant said she was dead.
Where was this?


She was an arcane caster? I thought the "blind prophet" archetype would be divine. :smallconfused:
Sangwaan is/was a diviner, a wizard whose school specialization is divination (www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#schoolSpecialization).

[Shale]

Where was this?

Right in this very thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15874847&postcount=66)

[Taelas]

Where was this?


Sangwaan is/was a diviner, a wizard whose school specialization is divination (www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#schoolSpecialization).

Why are you so sure she wasn't a cleric?

Let me point out that the high priest of the Twelve Gods (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html) also wears robes, though not quite the same as Sangwaan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0271.html).

She was probably not really either one. She fits either class just as well as the other: she's not important enough to get defined as either class. We see just enough of her abilities to know she divines things and can cast true seeing.

I will point out, however, that in order to cast true seeing as a cleric, she only had to be 9th level, whereas she'd have to be 11th as a diviner.

Besides, if Shojo had access to an 11th level wizard, why wouldn't he get her to cast teleport for the Order instead of insisting that they wait until they had resurrected the one who wanted to be a baker?

[EnragedFilia]

People really, really overstate how often George R. R. Martin kills off main characters. Seriously, aside from the oneshot characters who are used once solely to die, how many recurring POV characters can you say have actually died and stayed permanently dead? I can think of one, that's it, in the entire series.

He does a lot of cliffhangers that make it feel like those characters are always at risk, and he kills large numbers of "peripheral" characters, even ones who you might not have realized were peripheral characters. For instance: In the books, Robb is never a POV character and is, in fact, almost never "onscreen" at all. Despite playing a major role in the plot, he's actually an extreme background character in the story. Only one POV character died in the Red Wedding, and surprise surprise, she came back.

(On the other hand, he very frequently ends a chapter or even a volume with a cliffhanger making it look like a POV character has died -- for instance, there was a chapter ending near the Red Wedding where it looked like Arya took an axe to the head, then with her next chapter it turned out her companion just smacked her with the flat of it to keep her from charging to her death. Later he seems to die, only no wait, he survived and became a monk. Brienne gets hung, but wait, no, she's alive! Etc etc. I think the first chapters where he introduces a new POV character only to kill them off is also a factor in why people think the body count in these books is so high.)

And once again,
I'm afraid you might be overstating the significance of being a "POV character". When a solid quarter of a volume (the second one, in this case) centers around a given character's role and actions and the effect they have on the world and so forth, that in and of itself makes the character "major". The Mule is by definition a central character in Foundation and Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_and_Empire) because his actions drive a large portion of the plot, despite personally playing a rather small role in the events that actually occur on-page. Similarly, Robert, Renly, and Jeor Mormont were all major characters because they had major roles. They weren't Main_Character characters, to be sure, but killing off explicit protagonists isn't the only way to establish that reputation as a character killer.

[TheYell]

With Rich, it's a reasonably safe bet that Roy, Elan, Hailey, V, Durkon, Belkar, Xykon, Redcloak, and MitD will all be active participants in the finale. With 2 more books planned after book 5, I wouldn't expect the permanent removal of any of them before book 7.

I think we have one last book on the Gates quest. I think the other book will be a prequel explaining the backstory of the Western Continent.

And I think the fight to stop Xykon and the fight to secure the Gates are linked but separate stories, and not all the current characters will be at hand for both resolutions.

[Geordnet]

But that's only possible when you've got a very few players standing in the final round. If ALL the major actors show up, it's less "decisive, dramatic conflict" and more "utterly confusing rugby scrum."
The two are mutually exclusive? :smallconfused:



Sangwaan is/was a diviner, a wizard whose school specialization is divination (www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#schoolSpecialization).
Miko held the title of "Samurai" despite not being the Samurai class. "Diviner" is also a general term for "those who divine" (which includes divine casters, no pun intended).


And since the original point was about her being able to survive if she cast Feather Fall:

The creature can drop a creature it has snatched as a free action or use a standard action to fling it aside. A flung creature travels 1d6 × 10 feet, and takes 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet traveled. If the creature flings a snatched opponent while flying, the opponent takes this amount or falling damage, whichever is greater.
RAW doesn't specify how Feather Fall interacts with Snatch, but a reasonable interpretation would be that it negates the falling damage but not the (1d6)d6 from being thrown. Sangwaan was thrown quite a ways, and 20-30 damage could easily be enough to kill her.

Besides, she may have barred Transmutation. :smalltongue:

[Math_Mage]

The reason people react the way they do to ASOIAF is that GRRM is trying to tell three stories at once. Everyone is wrapped up in watching Westeros destroy itself a la The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, while winter slowly comes and Daenerys plays White Man's Burden in Essos. As a result, many characters are simultaneously 'main' characters and 'side' characters because they matter to one plot, but not the others. A few characters have managed to wind themselves into multiple plots--Stannis, Tyrion, Varys. And while the Westeros plotline is very much an Anyone Can Die story, the others are not.

As I've said previously, GRRM is trying to tell the story of an entire setting with ASOIAF. I've lost patience with it, but I have to respect his devotion to that cause.

About Jaime:

Speak for your own views. Jaime hasn't actually done much to indicate he's a good person other than rescuing Brienne, and he's done plenty of continuing evil things (including attacking and taking Riverrrun by threatening Edmure's child, in violation of his oath to Catelyn to take up no arms against her house). It's just that he's decided to think of himself as a good person, and the readers have decided to go along with it.

His actions and Cersei's precipitated the whole destructive civil war, including the regicide (which Cersei committed). Then there's his crippling of Bran, and his killing of all Ned's men in the first book. A couple good deeds don't come close to cancelling all that out.
There's the little matter of 'Kingslayer' becoming a solid plus in his moral accounting.

Also, your discussion of Riverrun is very one-sided. Jaime may have violated his oath, but he ended the conflict peacefully. The naive idealism of Ned Stark and the brutal practicality of Tywin Lannister would have both lead to needless slaughter. I count Jaime's handling of Riverrun in his favor.

[allenw]

Re: GRRM, killing off main characters, and Lady Stoneheart:
If LS really is "the same character" as Catelyn Stark (and not just the same body), then saying "she came back" doesn't lessen the significance of her death. She came back wrong, both physically and spiritually; more so than Durkon, I'd say. And I doubt we'll be seeing her as a viewpoint character again, though I could be wrong as well.

[Chuikov]

About Jaime:

There's the little matter of 'Kingslayer' becoming a solid plus in his moral accounting.

Also, your discussion of Riverrun is very one-sided. Jaime may have violated his oath, but he ended the conflict peacefully. The naive idealism of Ned Stark and the brutal practicality of Tywin Lannister would have both lead to needless slaughter. I count Jaime's handling of Riverrun in his favor.

Jaime's 'redemption' is overplayed.

He's trying to be a better person, and for that he deserves recognition, but going from that point to actually achieving his goal is quite a different story. He's still one half of the couple responsible for a war that has seen a good portion of the country destroyed and who knows how many people slaughtered, still actively fighting for a cause he knows to be unjust, and still more in mourning for his hand than he is for shoving an 8 year old boy out a window or any of the other atrocities he's committed outside of killing the Mad King. He keeps fixating on how unfair it is that he's treated so badly for killing King Aerys and yet doesn't seem to fully recognize there are now about a dozen other reasons why everyone in Westeros has a justified reason to hate his guts, all of which are entirely deserved.

Basically, as much as people love the guy, he is not a good man. He's just no longer as bad as he was.

[Math_Mage]

Jaime's 'redemption' is overplayed.

He's trying to be a better person, and for that he deserves recognition, but going from that point to actually achieving his goal is quite a different story. He's still one half of the couple responsible for a war that has seen a good portion of the country destroyed and who knows how many people slaughtered, still actively fighting for a cause he knows to be unjust, and still more in mourning for his hand than he is for shoving an 8 year old boy out a window or any of the other atrocities he's committed outside of killing the Mad King. He keeps fixating on how unfair it is that he's treated so badly for killing King Aerys and yet doesn't seem to fully recognize there are now about a dozen other reasons why everyone in Westeros has a justified reason to hate his guts, all of which are entirely deserved.

Basically, as much as people love the guy, he is not a good man. He's just no longer as bad as he was.

Wait, we're laying fully half the blame for the war of five kings on Jaime? You have got to be kidding me.

Similarly for this supposedly lengthy list of atrocities, the obviousness of the unjustness of Jaime's cause, and the 'entirely deserved' dozen reasons for Westeros to hate his guts.

He was an ass, and he's still an ass. I didn't claim he'd been redeemed because I don't think he's on a redemption arc in the first place. But in the context of ASOIAF black-on-black morality? He's a helluva lot better than most.

[mhsmith]

Jaime's 'redemption' is overplayed.

He's trying to be a better person, and for that he deserves recognition, but going from that point to actually achieving his goal is quite a different story. He's still one half of the couple responsible for a war that has seen a good portion of the country destroyed and who knows how many people slaughtered, still actively fighting for a cause he knows to be unjust, and still more in mourning for his hand than he is for shoving an 8 year old boy out a window or any of the other atrocities he's committed outside of killing the Mad King. He keeps fixating on how unfair it is that he's treated so badly for killing King Aerys and yet doesn't seem to fully recognize there are now about a dozen other reasons why everyone in Westeros has a justified reason to hate his guts, all of which are entirely deserved.

Basically, as much as people love the guy, he is not a good man. He's just no longer as bad as he was.


Wait, we're laying fully half the blame for the war of five kings on Jaime? You have got to be kidding me.

Similarly for this supposedly lengthy list of atrocities, the obviousness of the unjustness of Jaime's cause, and the 'entirely deserved' dozen reasons for Westeros to hate his guts.

He was an ass, and he's still an ass. I didn't claim he'd been redeemed because I don't think he's on a redemption arc in the first place. But in the context of ASOIAF black-on-black morality? He's a helluva lot better than most.

I'm with Math_Mage here. If we're going to assign moral responsibility for this war, there are a LOT of people who have made active decisions that were way more directly relevant, and in many cases did so knowing that things could potentially blow up. Some of them (and this is just actions taken during book one):


Littlefinger: I'll lay off some spoiler items relating to him for those who watch the TV show instead of reading the books, but he's made a bunch of decisions with the express intent of creating conflict and war.
Joffrey: Demanded Ned's execution, a decision that made it impossible to end the rebellion before it started. Did some other stuff that was both evil and stupid that would be spoiler-y to reveal. Long term, the Lannisters arguably both created and (still to be seen but it's sure heading that way) lost the war in that moment.
Ned Stark: Made choice after choice that made things worse. Including (as I've mentioned before) actively choosing to attempt to unleash a major civil war by declaring for Stannis. Readers like him because we see his POV (and his childrens'), but it's really not THAT hard to imagine his actions from a hostile or even independent perspective and see a mad usurping tyrant instead of an LG hero type just trying to do his best to do the "right" thing (an over-interpretation, sure, but there's still something there). I'm pretty sure this disconnect is intentional on GRRM's part in a few cases, to intentionally play with POV's to guide readers to one conclusion and then force them to re-evaluate when you later see things from others' perspectives.
Catelyn: Over the course of the series, holds the Idiot Ball nearly as often as her husband. Her decision to abduct Tyrion despite ZERO proof of any wrongdoing on his part leads to conflict and chaos and starts the ball rolling
Robb: Decides to secede from the kingdom, declare himself king, and actively attack the Lannisters (as opposed to, say, hunkering down and forcing them to either invade or accept de facto independence).
Tywin: Started killing people after Tyrion's abduction.
Cersei: Actively murdered the king. At best, you can argue self-defense here.
Varys: General principle since he has his fingers in so many pies. Plus he was (seemingly) planning to betray Robert to Viserys anyway.
etc.


PS I WOULD say that Jaime is on something a redemption arc, but it's more that he's (finally) starting to grow up, accept responsibility for actions, and make better decisions (plus becoming much less of an obvious jackass). It's certainly NOT that he has to make up for being a truly horrible human being, at least not from what we've seen on screen (it's implied at times that there might be other nasty stuff on his end that we haven't directly seen, but at the least we don't have direct evidence).

Westeros hates Jaime NOT because he's evil, or deserves it, but because there's a strong societal value on oathkeeping (which in fairness is probably necessary to avoid outright chaos in a feudal, decentralized world). Also because he never bothered to explain his actions, probably just assuming that no one would believe him.

[EnragedFilia]

-LIST-
Varys: General principle since he has his fingers in so many pies. Plus he was (seemingly) planning to betray Robert to Viserys anyway.
-/LIST-

If you count that one, you gotta include Doran Martell too. Also, battered wife syndrome is slightly different from self-defense, although they're both considered usable forms of affirmative defense in some jurisdictions.

As for Jaime now,
it seems that what he's in the process of trying to turn into isn't "good" as we would see it, but closer to "self-centered yet pragmatic", sort of like Tyrion has been acting the whole time.

[FlawedParadigm]

Re: Blame for the war.

You missed Sansa on that list, who went and told Cersei her father's plans for leaving the city, without which it's quite possible the both of them and Arya would have gotten free of King's Landing and most likely with Ned alive and his daughters free, House Stark would not have declared open war, or at least if they had, it would have been by Ned's calmer head and probably with more allies than Robb's impetuous and hot-headedness. It's hard for me to have much Stark sympathy since they spend the entire first book pretty much juggling dozens of idiot balls between them. Arya's pretty much the only one with much in the head.

[LadyEowyn]

I'm with Math_Mage here. If we're going to assign moral responsibility for this war, there are a LOT of people who have made active decisions that were way more directly relevant, and in many cases did so knowing that things could potentially blow up. Some of them (and this is just actions taken during book one):

[LIST]
Littlefinger: I'll lay off some spoiler items relating to him for those who watch the TV show instead of reading the books, but he's made a bunch of decisions with the express intent of creating conflict and war.
Joffrey: Demanded Ned's execution, a decision that made it impossible to end the rebellion before it started. Did some other stuff that was both evil and stupid that would be spoiler-y to reveal. Long term, the Lannisters arguably both created and (still to be seen but it's sure heading that way) lost the war in that moment.
Ned Stark: Made choice after choice that made things worse. Including (as I've mentioned before) actively choosing to attempt to unleash a major civil war by declaring for Stannis. Readers like him because we see his POV (and his childrens'), but it's really not THAT hard to imagine his actions from a hostile or even independent perspective and see a mad usurping tyrant instead of an LG hero type just trying to do his best to do the "right" thing (an over-interpretation, sure, but there's still something there). I'm pretty sure this disconnect is intentional on GRRM's part in a few cases, to intentionally play with POV's to guide readers to one conclusion and then force them to re-evaluate when you later see things from others' perspectives.
Catelyn: Over the course of the series, holds the Idiot Ball nearly as often as her husband. Her decision to abduct Tyrion despite ZERO proof of any wrongdoing on his part leads to conflict and chaos and starts the ball rolling
Robb: Decides to secede from the kingdom, declare himself king, and actively attack the Lannisters (as opposed to, say, hunkering down and forcing them to either invade or accept de facto independence).
Tywin: Started killing people after Tyrion's abduction.
Cersei: Actively murdered the king. At best, you can argue self-defense here.

Supporting the succession of the legitimate king does not make Ned culpable for civil war when others try to usurp the throne. This is what I meant about the idea in ASOIAF that good people are morally responsible for the actions of evil people. Ned's primary tactical mistake was not telling Robert about Cersei's adultery the moment he found out about it, and especially telling Cersei that he knew - but it was a mistake made out of the desire to avoid the murder of children, so it was Good even if it wasn't prudent.

Similarly, Catelyn's action was unwise, but it was based on the only evidence she had, and it did not have to lead to civil war - unleashing civil war in an utterly disproportionate response was Tywin's decision.

Blame for the war rests utterly with the Lannisters and Littlefinger, but it would never have happened if not for Jaime and Cersei's incest, and it was pretty near inevitable as a result of that - there's a reason why adultery with or by the queen was high treason in medieval monarchies - so they get primary blame.

Regarding Jaime, he is an awful person - for crippling Bran, for killing all the Stark men in King's Landing, for threatening Edmure's child in order to defeat a family he'd sworn not to fight against.

He's also far, far too self-pitying for my tastes. He makes a lot of being despised as the "Kingslayer", but prior to his capture by Robb he had still spent many years as a member of the Kingsguard - one of the most prestigious positions in Westeros - as the realm's most admired swordsman, and as the firstborn son of the wealthiest and most powerful noble house in the realm. On the other hand - a lot of people especially in the upper classes disapproved of him for an action he'd taken that saved a lot of lives. The positives in his life still outweigh that negative by a large margin. Add to that the fact that he could have said what happened at any time, but was too darn stubborn and too determinedly convinced that nobody would believe him (in reality, nobody openly would have disbelieved him if he'd told his story - all it would have taken is one "Are you calling my son a liar?" from Tywin).

Plus, while killing Aerys was necessary, if Jaime didn't believe in the king then he shouldn't have joined the Kingsguard - you can turn it down. He chose to accept the position, not because he had any respect for the position whatsoever, or because he believed in the oath he took, but because he wanted to be in the capital so he could screw his sister.

[B. Dandelion]

Plus, while killing Aerys was necessary, if Jaime didn't believe in the king then he shouldn't have joined the Kingsguard - you can turn it down. He chose to accept the position, not because he had any respect for the position whatsoever, or because he believed in the oath he took, but because he wanted to be in the capital so he could screw his sister.

He didn't know the kind of person Aerys truly was when he accepted the position, and once he did there was no way out because the position is for life.

Even though he was screwing his sister, he seemed to be fairly idealistic about the roles of knights, and having the position offered to him was a huge honor to a fifteen-year-old. Then he found out what his position entailed... standing around doing nothing as Aerys burned people to death or savaged his wife, plus apparently he'd picked Jaime as a sort of glorified hostage to his father whom Aerys didn't trust.

Then Jaime was forced to kill Aerys for all the right reasons and was despised for it. Being admired as a swordsman from a rich and powerful family doesn't buy back the total disillusionment that comes from having all your ideals shattered in such rapid order.

[SowZ]

I'm with Math_Mage here. If we're going to assign moral responsibility for this war, there are a LOT of people who have made active decisions that were way more directly relevant, and in many cases did so knowing that things could potentially blow up. Some of them (and this is just actions taken during book one):


Littlefinger: I'll lay off some spoiler items relating to him for those who watch the TV show instead of reading the books, but he's made a bunch of decisions with the express intent of creating conflict and war.
Joffrey: Demanded Ned's execution, a decision that made it impossible to end the rebellion before it started. Did some other stuff that was both evil and stupid that would be spoiler-y to reveal. Long term, the Lannisters arguably both created and (still to be seen but it's sure heading that way) lost the war in that moment.
Ned Stark: Made choice after choice that made things worse. Including (as I've mentioned before) actively choosing to attempt to unleash a major civil war by declaring for Stannis. Readers like him because we see his POV (and his childrens'), but it's really not THAT hard to imagine his actions from a hostile or even independent perspective and see a mad usurping tyrant instead of an LG hero type just trying to do his best to do the "right" thing (an over-interpretation, sure, but there's still something there). I'm pretty sure this disconnect is intentional on GRRM's part in a few cases, to intentionally play with POV's to guide readers to one conclusion and then force them to re-evaluate when you later see things from others' perspectives.
Catelyn: Over the course of the series, holds the Idiot Ball nearly as often as her husband. Her decision to abduct Tyrion despite ZERO proof of any wrongdoing on his part leads to conflict and chaos and starts the ball rolling
Robb: Decides to secede from the kingdom, declare himself king, and actively attack the Lannisters (as opposed to, say, hunkering down and forcing them to either invade or accept de facto independence).
Tywin: Started killing people after Tyrion's abduction.
Cersei: Actively murdered the king. At best, you can argue self-defense here.
Varys: General principle since he has his fingers in so many pies. Plus he was (seemingly) planning to betray Robert to Viserys anyway.
etc.


PS I WOULD say that Jaime is on something a redemption arc, but it's more that he's (finally) starting to grow up, accept responsibility for actions, and make better decisions (plus becoming much less of an obvious jackass). It's certainly NOT that he has to make up for being a truly horrible human being, at least not from what we've seen on screen (it's implied at times that there might be other nasty stuff on his end that we haven't directly seen, but at the least we don't have direct evidence).

Westeros hates Jaime NOT because he's evil, or deserves it, but because there's a strong societal value on oathkeeping (which in fairness is probably necessary to avoid outright chaos in a feudal, decentralized world). Also because he never bothered to explain his actions, probably just assuming that no one would believe him.

Ned is as much a mad usurping tyrant as Danny is a cold, calculating slaver. As in that is the opposite of who they are. Ned was just a moral objectivist, (not in the Randian sense.) What is right is always right. What is wrong is always wrong. Ned rarely considers the end result as more important than the means. Ned will not consider murdering an innocent 14 year old girl even if it could save thousands of lives because murdering children is wrong and that is the end of it. Ned didn't take his chance to overthrow Joffrey because it would mean killing children. Even at the risk of his own life, he would not cross that line.

Almost all of Ned's most unreasonable decisions directly stemmed from his conviction that killing kids is wrong. Seems pretty Good to me. That isn't a conviction that takes away someone's goodness. It just makes him less utilitarian if he considers only the parts and not the whole. But utilitarian does not equal good. It is only one philosophy.

Ned had two chances to take the throne for himself. He never once considered it. He is not a usurper because of that. Ned is compassionate and truly cares for the little people, but he cannot see the forest for the trees. He sees each persons individual rights and well being, not what is best for the people as a whole. He is not a tyrant for this reason, though he may lack prudence and a type of wisdom. He is not mad just because he has strong convictions he refuses to waver on. That just makes him unreasonable.

Lawful Stupid? Maybe. But still certainly Lawful Good.

Also, I think you missed Robbs goal or at least failed to mention it. Robb wasn't trying to free the north otherwise he would have been smart enough to make Tywin come to him. But that wasn't the point. That eventually became his purpose but at first it was all about saving dad. When that stopped being an option, he was so far invested there was no backing out now and he refused to bow to those who killed his father so he had little choice.

Despite being clearly intelligent, he was also kind of foolish. He had a brilliant mind that he rarely used, instead trusting his emotions and gut for almost every major decision in his life and refusing to view things objectively.

[EnragedFilia]

Re: Blame for the war.

You missed Sansa on that list, who went and told Cersei her father's plans for leaving the city, without which it's quite possible the both of them and Arya would have gotten free of King's Landing and most likely with Ned alive and his daughters free, House Stark would not have declared open war, or at least if they had, it would have been by Ned's calmer head and probably with more allies than Robb's impetuous and hot-headedness. It's hard for me to have much Stark sympathy since they spend the entire first book pretty much juggling dozens of idiot balls between them. Arya's pretty much the only one with much in the head.

Bran doesn't do much of anything in the first book either, so it's not really fair to include him in that juggling act. And as long as we're counting idiot balls, then we might as well count Robert himself. Because being an abusive, rapist, adulterous, lazy, gluttonous, spendthrift, marginally-functional alcoholic who can't be bothered to run his own kingdom, raise his own alleged children or find somebody competent to do either one until it's just about too late was at least as much of a problem as all of those idiot balls put together. The show's version even outright states that he realizes the entire continent is being held together by his own abusive marriage and daddy-in-law's money, yet he never even tries to prop the situation up before both of them very predictably turn against him. And all of this is perfectly in keeping with his character, just as pretty much everything else on the above list is in keeping with everyone else's character.

So what we've really got here is the good characters causing problems by being good, the neutral characters causing problems by being neutral and the evil characters causing problems by being evil. And at that point, everyone's to blame for the problems just for being themselves.

[Math_Mage]

Supporting the succession of the legitimate king does not make Ned culpable for civil war when others try to usurp the throne. This is what I meant about the idea in ASOIAF that good people are morally responsible for the actions of evil people. Ned's primary tactical mistake was not telling Robert about Cersei's adultery the moment he found out about it, and especially telling Cersei that he knew - but it was a mistake made out of the desire to avoid the murder of children, so it was Good even if it wasn't prudent.

Similarly, Catelyn's action was unwise, but it was based on the only evidence she had, and it did not have to lead to civil war - unleashing civil war in an utterly disproportionate response was Tywin's decision.
I think we're talking at cross purposes. You're arguing that just because their stupidity contributed to the war doesn't mean they were Evil. We're arguing that just because they were Good doesn't mean their stupidity didn't contribute to the war--and as Niven put it, stupidity is always a capital crime. In a place where what matters is the art of the possible and the study of consequences, Ned and Catelyn never let the thought of what was possible, or of consequences, interfere with their sense of justice. The lesson of this is not that Good is morally responsible for Evil, but that naivete is costly.


Blame for the war rests utterly with the Lannisters and Littlefinger, but it would never have happened if not for Jaime and Cersei's incest, and it was pretty near inevitable as a result of that - there's a reason why adultery with or by the queen was high treason in medieval monarchies - so they get primary blame.
Specific trumps general. It was far from inevitable in this story.


Regarding Jaime, he is an awful person - for crippling Bran, for killing all the Stark men in King's Landing, for threatening Edmure's child in order to defeat a family he'd sworn not to fight against.
So much for a 'lengthy' list of atrocities. I think I already discussed the latter point. I don't think anyone has disputed that Jaime did awful things.


He's also far, far too self-pitying for my tastes. He makes a lot of being despised as the "Kingslayer", but prior to his capture by Robb he had still spent many years as a member of the Kingsguard - one of the most prestigious positions in Westeros - as the realm's most admired swordsman, and as the firstborn son of the wealthiest and most powerful noble house in the realm. On the other hand - a lot of people especially in the upper classes disapproved of him for an action he'd taken that saved a lot of lives. The positives in his life still outweigh that negative by a large margin. Add to that the fact that he could have said what happened at any time, but was too darn stubborn and too determinedly convinced that nobody would believe him (in reality, nobody openly would have disbelieved him if he'd told his story - all it would have taken is one "Are you calling my son a liar?" from Tywin).
Tywin would have backed him up, and everyone would have seen it as the Lannisters covering up their joint treachery (remember, Jaime slew Aerys immediately after Tywin betrayed Aerys and set about sacking King's Landing). Jaime would have convinced nobody. And if you think it's easy being endlessly surrounded by people who despise you, you try it. Why do you think Jaime was so attached to his sword arm? It was the one thing people respected him for.


Plus, while killing Aerys was necessary, if Jaime didn't believe in the king then he shouldn't have joined the Kingsguard - you can turn it down. He chose to accept the position, not because he had any respect for the position whatsoever, or because he believed in the oath he took, but because he wanted to be in the capital so he could screw his sister.
Right, he should have seen all this coming at a time when the Mad King wasn't mad yet. Yeah, no.

[FlawedParadigm]

Bran doesn't do much of anything in the first book either, so it's not really fair to include him in that juggling act. And as long as we're counting idiot balls, then we might as well count Robert himself. Because being an abusive, rapist, adulterous, lazy, gluttonous, spendthrift, marginally-functional alcoholic who can't be bothered to run his own kingdom, raise his own alleged children or find somebody competent to do either one until it's just about too late was at least as much of a problem as all of those idiot balls put together. The show's version even outright states that he realizes the entire continent is being held together by his own abusive marriage and daddy-in-law's money, yet he never even tries to prop the situation up before both of them very predictably turn against him. And all of this is perfectly in keeping with his character, just as pretty much everything else on the above list is in keeping with everyone else's character.

So what we've really got here is the good characters causing problems by being good, the neutral characters causing problems by being neutral and the evil characters causing problems by being evil. And at that point, everyone's to blame for the problems just for being themselves.

Re: Bran/Robert
Bran specifically doesn't do much in the first book because one of the only things he does do is go and do something he's been warned his whole life - by almost everyone he knows - to not do. Admittedly, that's only tangentially related to what befalls him, however it's also the only way he would have been in that place at that time.

And I don't think anyone has said Robert was anything but, at best, a man out of his element, Which is the most charitable thing one could say (aside from the fact that there was, technically, peace during his reign, at least outwardly.)

[SowZ]

I think we're talking at cross purposes. You're arguing that just because their stupidity contributed to the war doesn't mean they were Evil. We're arguing that just because they were Good doesn't mean their stupidity didn't contribute to the war--and as Niven put it, stupidity is always a capital crime. In a place where what matters is the art of the possible and the study of consequences, Ned and Catelyn never let the thought of what was possible, or of consequences, interfere with their sense of justice. The lesson of this is not that Good is morally responsible for Evil, but that naivete is costly.


Specific trumps general. It was far from inevitable in this story.


So much for a 'lengthy' list of atrocities. I think I already discussed the latter point. I don't think anyone has disputed that Jaime did awful things.


Tywin would have backed him up, and everyone would have seen it as the Lannisters covering up their joint treachery (remember, Jaime slew Aerys immediately after Tywin betrayed Aerys and set about sacking King's Landing). Jaime would have convinced nobody. And if you think it's easy being endlessly surrounded by people who despise you, you try it. Why do you think Jaime was so attached to his sword arm? It was the one thing people respected him for.


Right, he should have seen all this coming at a time when the Mad King wasn't mad yet. Yeah, no.

Yes, Ned sticking up for his principles was costly and likely did much more harm than good. But Ned just represented the extreme of always doing the 'moral' thing, caring about the process and not the end result. Contrast Varis, who is willing to do evil things as long as the result is good. The process doesn't matter as much as the good of the people matters, at least that is how he presents himself and there is no reason to think otherwise early in the series.

If all you look at is the end result, the man in front of a drunk in line at Taco Bell is responsible for the drunk accident resulting in a death or two because if the drunk had got on the road two minutes sooner, he may have made it home safely.

While Ned certainly has more agency than the Taco Bell example, his only crime was making the evil of others easier to perpetrate by refusing to play their game. (Contrast Tyrion, not very honorable or responsible, but prevents a lot more evil by playing an evil game.) This doesn't make Ned less Good, or even that he had the wrong attitude, just that he was in the wrong place.

People with that kind of unflinching dedication to their principles are generally beneficial to the world and in most positions are very good. Unfortunately, leaders of nations and people with similar levels of power cannot afford to be so impractical since many peoples lives hinge on the results of their decisions. Ned should have never left Winterfell, he didn't belong in King's Landing, he wasn't smart enough or pragmatic enough or wise enough to have any business there. It wasn't anything immoral. It was just not where Ned belonged. It is tough for people to do good in places they don't understand or belong in general.

[Math_Mage]

SowZ, I think we are entirely in agreement on that point.

[EnragedFilia]

Contrast Varis, who is willing to do evil things as long as the result is good. The process doesn't matter as much as the good of the people matters, at least that is how he presents himself and there is no reason to think otherwise early in the series.

I wouldn't go quite that far. For one thing,
people who act really secretive usually have really big secrets. That alone is a hint that his motivations are more complex than they seem, so the real mystery is merely what those motivations are, which is itself hinted in that one vague scene between him and someone resembling and later confirmed to be Illyrio Mopatis.

I'll agree with the significance of the contrast between Varys and the more honorable characters, however.

[Knaight]

Re: Blame for the war.

You missed Sansa on that list, who went and told Cersei her father's plans for leaving the city, without which it's quite possible the both of them and Arya would have gotten free of King's Landing and most likely with Ned alive and his daughters free, House Stark would not have declared open war, or at least if they had, it would have been by Ned's calmer head and probably with more allies than Robb's impetuous and hot-headedness. It's hard for me to have much Stark sympathy since they spend the entire first book pretty much juggling dozens of idiot balls between them. Arya's pretty much the only one with much in the head.

Sansa made some dumb decisions, but she's hardly responsible for starting the war. There might have been fewer factions without her, but as soon as Ned released the information war was inevitable. The best case scenario without her doing this is that Stannis leads an army (which includes Ned), Renly leads an army, and then there's the established powers.


Also, who's bright idea was it to bring Sansa into a bunch of political scheming after having her raised in such a way that she was totally unequipped to deal with it? That would be Ned. Sansa's dumb decisions are his responsibility more than hers, really.

[Sir_Leorik]

I'm with Math_Mage here. If we're going to assign moral responsibility for this war, there are a LOT of people who have made active decisions that were way more directly relevant, and in many cases did so knowing that things could potentially blow up. Some of them (and this is just actions taken during book one):


Littlefinger: I'll lay off some spoiler items relating to him for those who watch the TV show instead of reading the books, but he's made a bunch of decisions with the express intent of creating conflict and war.
Joffrey: Demanded Ned's execution, a decision that made it impossible to end the rebellion before it started. Did some other stuff that was both evil and stupid that would be spoiler-y to reveal. Long term, the Lannisters arguably both created and (still to be seen but it's sure heading that way) lost the war in that moment.
Ned Stark: Made choice after choice that made things worse. Including (as I've mentioned before) actively choosing to attempt to unleash a major civil war by declaring for Stannis. Readers like him because we see his POV (and his childrens'), but it's really not THAT hard to imagine his actions from a hostile or even independent perspective and see a mad usurping tyrant instead of an LG hero type just trying to do his best to do the "right" thing (an over-interpretation, sure, but there's still something there). I'm pretty sure this disconnect is intentional on GRRM's part in a few cases, to intentionally play with POV's to guide readers to one conclusion and then force them to re-evaluate when you later see things from others' perspectives.
Catelyn: Over the course of the series, holds the Idiot Ball nearly as often as her husband. Her decision to abduct Tyrion despite ZERO proof of any wrongdoing on his part leads to conflict and chaos and starts the ball rolling
Robb: Decides to secede from the kingdom, declare himself king, and actively attack the Lannisters (as opposed to, say, hunkering down and forcing them to either invade or accept de facto independence).
Tywin: Started killing people after Tyrion's abduction.
Cersei: Actively murdered the king. At best, you can argue self-defense here.
Varys: General principle since he has his fingers in so many pies. Plus he was (seemingly) planning to betray Robert to Viserys anyway.
etc.


PS I WOULD say that Jaime is on something a redemption arc, but it's more that he's (finally) starting to grow up, accept responsibility for actions, and make better decisions (plus becoming much less of an obvious jackass). It's certainly NOT that he has to make up for being a truly horrible human being, at least not from what we've seen on screen (it's implied at times that there might be other nasty stuff on his end that we haven't directly seen, but at the least we don't have direct evidence).

Westeros hates Jaime NOT because he's evil, or deserves it, but because there's a strong societal value on oathkeeping (which in fairness is probably necessary to avoid outright chaos in a feudal, decentralized world). Also because he never bothered to explain his actions, probably just assuming that no one would believe him.

In Westeros, Oathbreaking and Kinslaying are viewed as the worst forms of Evil (with a capital "E", as Elan might say). By breaking his oath to protect Aerys with his very life, if necessary, Jaime was going to be reviled, even if he'd led Ned Stark through King's Landing, urgently showing him where the Alchemists had left Aerys' "good-bye present". The King is ready to blow up the capital to avoid letting Robert Baratheon take it? Too bad Ser Jaime, you swore an oath, you were anointed with holy oils and you were appointed to the Kingsguard in front of cheering crowds. Jaime knew that, but his conscience would not let stand silently while Aerys set the city on fire.

I feel that had Jaime confessed everything to Ned Stark, shown him the pots of dragonfire, and then taken up the Black, Jaime would be viewed as a hero; he dishonored his oath, but by taking the Black that crime is washed away, and he became the Knight who saved King's Landing.


Supporting the succession of the legitimate king does not make Ned culpable for civil war when others try to usurp the throne. This is what I meant about the idea in ASOIAF that good people are morally responsible for the actions of evil people. Ned's primary tactical mistake was not telling Robert about Cersei's adultery the moment he found out about it, and especially telling Cersei that he knew - but it was a mistake made out of the desire to avoid the murder of children, so it was Good even if it wasn't prudent.

Similarly, Catelyn's action was unwise, but it was based on the only evidence she had, and it did not have to lead to civil war - unleashing civil war in an utterly disproportionate response was Tywin's decision.

Ned Stark was placed in an impossible position: lie to his friend and allow him to be cuckolded, or tell his friend the truth, and lead to the execution of a woman and three children. The best option for him would have been to quit and return to Winterfell, but thanks to Catelyn's incredibly stupid decision to seize Tyrion and haul him to the Aerie, leading to Jaime attacking Ned in the streets of the capital and Tywin Lannister sending Ser Gregor Clegane out to butcher civilians, that was no longer an option. Catelyn Stark played right into Littlefinger's hands, giving the Lannisters an excuse to cause trouble.


Blame for the war rests utterly with the Lannisters and Littlefinger, but it would never have happened if not for Jaime and Cersei's incest, and it was pretty near inevitable as a result of that - there's a reason why adultery with or by the queen was high treason in medieval monarchies - so they get primary blame.

Except that the Lannisters aren't the primary architects of the civil war; that would be Varys and his co-conspirators, who seek to restore a Targaryen to the Iron Throne. They took advantage of Cersei's indiscretions with Jaime to further their goals.


He didn't know the kind of person Aerys truly was when he accepted the position, and once he did there was no way out because the position is for life.

Even though he was screwing his sister, he seemed to be fairly idealistic about the roles of knights, and having the position offered to him was a huge honor to a fifteen-year-old. Then he found out what his position entailed... standing around doing nothing as Aerys burned people to death or savaged his wife, plus apparently he'd picked Jaime as a sort of glorified hostage to his father whom Aerys didn't trust.

Then Jaime was forced to kill Aerys for all the right reasons and was despised for it. Being admired as a swordsman from a rich and powerful family doesn't buy back the total disillusionment that comes from having all your ideals shattered in such rapid order.

Aerys picked Jaime for two reasons, both to hurt Tywin: 1) Jaime would make a convenient hostage, who could be accused of treason and executed at a moment's notice; and 2) Tywin's sole remaining male heir would be Tyrion. And as we've seen Tywin was not willing to consider Tyrion his heir, despite the inheritance laws of Westeros forcing Jaime to forfeit his inheritance.


Ned is as much a mad usurping tyrant as Danny is a cold, calculating slaver. As in that is the opposite of who they are. Ned was just a moral objectivist, (not in the Randian sense.) What is right is always right. What is wrong is always wrong. Ned rarely considers the end result as more important than the means. Ned will not consider murdering an innocent 14 year old girl even if it could save thousands of lives because murdering children is wrong and that is the end of it. Ned didn't take his chance to overthrow Joffrey because it would mean killing children. Even at the risk of his own life, he would not cross that line.

Okay, now I want to see a fan dub where Jeffrey Combs' voice-over, as The Question in "Justice League Unlimited", is dubbed onto Sean Bean's scenes in season one of "Game of Thrones"! Make this happen Internet! Make it happen or the aglets will have already won!


Also, I think you missed Robbs goal or at least failed to mention it. Robb wasn't trying to free the north otherwise he would have been smart enough to make Tywin come to him. But that wasn't the point. That eventually became his purpose but at first it was all about saving dad. When that stopped being an option, he was so far invested there was no backing out now and he refused to bow to those who killed his father so he had little choice.

Despite being clearly intelligent, he was also kind of foolish. He had a brilliant mind that he rarely used, instead trusting his emotions and gut for almost every major decision in his life and refusing to view things objectively.

Robb Stark's major flaw was that he acted based on his emotions, not on basic common sense. He was a brilliant tactician, but he was incapable of making sound strategic decisions. Deciding to call his banners and secede from the Seven Kingdoms may or may not have been a sound strategy, but doing so solely to avenge his father's death was not a sound strategy.
He should have ordered that the Northmen bring in their havests, and start training for war once Spring came. Instead he marches his army to war immediately. He should have immediately contacted Howland Reed, and told him that he needed to make sure no one could get North of the Neck; instead he waits till shortly before the Red Wedding to deploy the Crannogmen. He should have realized that the best revenge is living well, or barring that, hiring a Faceless Man to sow death and destruction. Instead he went to war to avenge his father's death. He should have negotiated for the release of Sansa and Arya (and proof they were alive), instead he refused to do so, so Catelyn acted against his own interests by releasing Ser Jaime. And of course he broke his alliance to the Freys because he had to be more honorable than Ned Stark. None of decisions required Robb to make a decision as difficult as the one Ned had to, and Ned knew that his life (and his daughters' lives) were in jeopardy if he made the wrong choice. If anything, Ned's problem was taking too long to make a decision, rather than being impetuous and making irreversible decisions based on spur of the moment feelings.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

George R. R. Martin is not the only author who kills off major characters like flies, nor is he the most triumphant example of such. Elizabeth Alder, in her book The King's Shadow (which is inexcusably obscure, despite being a magnificent book that you should all read), does just that; and is much less sparing than Martin.

If you want the absolute master of character-killing in my books, it's Gene Wolfe; who seems unable to write a paragraph without at least one neat idea, and who seems unable to write any ending other than killing off all sympathetic characters.


Douglas Adams killed everyone in Mostly Harmless.

Personally, if there's any stupidly popular grimdark series that OOTS reminds me of, it's the ludicrously gory and unbelievably violent Berserk manga[/COLOR]. At the Eclipse, Griffith is tempted by the very powerful demons of the Godhand to join them and become, essentially, God; at the cost of sacrificing all his friends. This temptation of a formerly sympathetic character with ultimate power by a group of mysterious evil beings with an unknown agenda is the Darth Vaarsuvius arc. And, like Griffith, Vaarsuvius commits at least one unforgivable travesty. Unlike Griffith, Vaarsuvius is only so powerful for a short period of time, regrets hir actions, and is a fundamentally good person.

[Paseo H]

I'm sure Giant didn't intend for the strip to come off grimdark, but given that we have a four way fight between:

Complete Monster (Tarquin)
Complete Monster (Nale)
Complete Monster (Malack)
Complete Monster (Laurin + probably the rest of Team Tarquin)

while the good guys watch helplessly, it's an easy mistake for the reader to make.

[Thokk_Smash]

Personally, if there's any stupidly popular grimdark series that OOTS reminds me of, it's the ludicrously gory and unbelievably violent Berserk manga[/COLOR]. At the Eclipse, Griffith is tempted by the very powerful demons of the Godhand to join them and become, essentially, God; at the cost of sacrificing all his friends. This temptation of a formerly sympathetic character with ultimate power by a group of mysterious evil beings with an unknown agenda is the Darth Vaarsuvius arc. And, like Griffith, Vaarsuvius commits at least one unforgivable travesty. Unlike Griffith, Vaarsuvius is only so powerful for a short period of time, regrets hir actions, and is a fundamentally good person.

...Yeah, no. In no way did I connect OOTS and Berserk until you mentioned it, and I still don't see it. Unless you mean only in the arc you mentioned, in which case I agree they are similar then. But overall? They're nothing alike.

[tomandtish]

I'm sure Giant didn't intend for the strip to come off grimdark, but given that we have a four way fight between:

Complete Monster (Tarquin)
Complete Monster (Nale)
Complete Monster (Malack)
Complete Monster (Laurin + probably the rest of Team Tarquin)

while the good guys watch helplessly, it's an easy mistake for the reader to make.

Paseo, I think your definition of a 4-way fight and mine differ a great deal. And if you're right I've been doing it wrong all these years. :redface:

What we would have had at best is a two way fight. Nale vs. Malack as the two main sides. Tarquin might have tried to talk both sides down if present but presumably would not have actively fought both sides. If he decided he had to fight, he would probably have chosen Malack his friend, especially since once he starts talking it's a safe bet the rejection from Nale would occur anyway. Laurin would either have stayed on the sideline with Tarquin or sided with Malack (she seemed to have a very strong reaction to his death).

So what we have is a two-sided fight. Nale on one side, and anywhere from 0-2 others on the other side with Malack. But not a 4-way fight (where all 4 of them are trying to kill each other).

[Paseo H]

With this strip, Tarquin proved that all he cares about is himself. Hence, he's his own side, even if the rest of Team Tarquin are willing to go along with him.

[jere7my]

If you want the absolute master of character-killing in my books, it's Gene Wolfe; who seems unable to write a paragraph without at least one neat idea, and who seems unable to write any ending other than killing off all sympathetic characters.

I'm running through Wolfe's novels in my mind, and can't come up with more than two that might fit that description: Peace and Urth of the New Sun.

[NerdyKris]

With this strip, Tarquin proved that all he cares about is himself. Hence, he's his own side, even if the rest of Team Tarquin are willing to go along with him.

How? Nale just murdered Tarquin's best friend. This is the second time Nale has attempted killed Tarquin's friends or friend's family in an attempt to destabilize the plan.

Nale is a loose cannon. He is a murderous psychopath that doesn't care about the consequences of his actions. Tarquin disowned him, and then dealt with the present threat by killing him. That doesn't prove he only cares about himself. If you start violently attacking your uncle and his kids, and tell your dad that you'd do it again, it doesn't make your father a bad person to disown you and call the police.

But this is D&D, and Nale is too strong for a dungeon. So Tarquin executed him as per his personal code. But he clearly cared about Nale up to this point. He tried to mend the rift caused by his leaving and failed. That is the opposite of not caring.

[tomandtish]

With this strip, Tarquin proved that all he cares about is himself. Hence, he's his own side, even if the rest of Team Tarquin are willing to go along with him.

Ahh, I see where you're going. However, you don't have to be on the same side (as you are defining side)for it to not be a 4-way battle. After all, if the rest of Team Tarquin is willing to go along with him, then they are on his side. He just may not be on their side. As long as they don't oppose him, there's no battle. And I don't see them opposing him.

Technically what's left of Azure City and The Order of the Stick are different sides. But that doesn't mean they are opposing each other (even though they have in the past).

[NihhusHuotAliro]

...Yeah, no. In no way did I connect OOTS and Berserk until you mentioned it, and I still don't see it. Unless you mean only in the arc you mentioned, in which case I agree they are similar then. But overall? They're nothing alike.

Yes, I mean only in that arc; where they deal with themes of temptation, power, desire, suffering, and the depths to which one may sink.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

I'm running through Wolfe's novels in my mind, and can't come up with more than two that might fit that description: Peace and Urth of the New Sun.

Castleview.

Admittedly, I only read those three.

[Paseo H]

Ahh, I see where you're going. However, you don't have to be on the same side (as you are defining side)for it to not be a 4-way battle. After all, if the rest of Team Tarquin is willing to go along with him, then they are on his side. He just may not be on their side. As long as they don't oppose him, there's no battle. And I don't see them opposing him.

Technically what's left of Azure City and The Order of the Stick are different sides. But that doesn't mean they are opposing each other (even though they have in the past).

I see what you're saying. Perhaps it would be fair to say we should wait and see how Laurin reacts? She may well decide it's unacceptable that Tarquin got to give Nale a quick and easy trip to Stabbytown.

[tomandtish]

I see what you're saying. Perhaps it would be fair to say we should wait and see how Laurin reacts? She may well decide it's unacceptable that Tarquin got to give Nale a quick and easy trip to Stabbytown.

Exactly. Teams are subject to change. Tolkien's Battle of the 5 Armies is a good example of this. First it is Elves and Men vs Dwarves (3 armies, two sides), but finishes Elves, Men, Dwarves, Eagles vs Goblins/Wargs (5 armies, still two sides).

[mhsmith]

If you count that one, you gotta include Doran Martell too.

Somewhat agreed, though that was kind of what the etc. was for (also I'd semi-intentionally restricted it to people who not only impacted book one but actually appeared in it as well; we don't really find out much about the martells until book three)


Re: Blame for the war.

You missed Sansa on that list, who went and told Cersei her father's plans for leaving the city, without which it's quite possible the both of them and Arya would have gotten free of King's Landing and most likely with Ned alive and his daughters free, House Stark would not have declared open war, or at least if they had, it would have been by Ned's calmer head and probably with more allies than Robb's impetuous and hot-headedness. It's hard for me to have much Stark sympathy since they spend the entire first book pretty much juggling dozens of idiot balls between them. Arya's pretty much the only one with much in the head.

Disagree on Sansa. Partially because children really don't have moral agency for decisions of that magnitude, partially because she simply had no way to know the full consequences of her actions, partially because Ned was headed towards that throne room confrontation no matter what (Littlefinger told Cersei the details, Sansa only told her that something was up; if Sansa runs away like a good girl she's out of Kings Landing but Ned is still captured), and partially because the #1 person who suffered for her decisions was herself.


Supporting the succession of the legitimate king does not make Ned culpable for civil war when others try to usurp the throne. This is what I meant about the idea in ASOIAF that good people are morally responsible for the actions of evil people. Ned's primary tactical mistake was not telling Robert about Cersei's adultery the moment he found out about it, and especially telling Cersei that he knew - but it was a mistake made out of the desire to avoid the murder of children, so it was Good even if it wasn't prudent.

Similarly, Catelyn's action was unwise, but it was based on the only evidence she had, and it did not have to lead to civil war - unleashing civil war in an utterly disproportionate response was Tywin's decision.

Blame for the war rests utterly with the Lannisters and Littlefinger, but it would never have happened if not for Jaime and Cersei's incest, and it was pretty near inevitable as a result of that - there's a reason why adultery with or by the queen was high treason in medieval monarchies - so they get primary blame.

Regarding Jaime, he is an awful person - for crippling Bran, for killing all the Stark men in King's Landing, for threatening Edmure's child in order to defeat a family he'd sworn not to fight against.

He's also far, far too self-pitying for my tastes. He makes a lot of being despised as the "Kingslayer", but prior to his capture by Robb he had still spent many years as a member of the Kingsguard - one of the most prestigious positions in Westeros - as the realm's most admired swordsman, and as the firstborn son of the wealthiest and most powerful noble house in the realm. On the other hand - a lot of people especially in the upper classes disapproved of him for an action he'd taken that saved a lot of lives. The positives in his life still outweigh that negative by a large margin. Add to that the fact that he could have said what happened at any time, but was too darn stubborn and too determinedly convinced that nobody would believe him (in reality, nobody openly would have disbelieved him if he'd told his story - all it would have taken is one "Are you calling my son a liar?" from Tywin).

Plus, while killing Aerys was necessary, if Jaime didn't believe in the king then he shouldn't have joined the Kingsguard - you can turn it down. He chose to accept the position, not because he had any respect for the position whatsoever, or because he believed in the oath he took, but because he wanted to be in the capital so he could screw his sister.

You're mixing up "law" and "good". Supporting the "rightful king" is fundamentally a LAWFUL action. Whether it's good depends on what sort of person he is, what sort of king he'd be, what are the potential consequences of his actions, etc. It's also made pretty obvious throughout the rest of the series that Stannis would be a lousy king and that people (Littlefinger, the Tyrells, the Lannisters, etc.) thinking that putting him on the throne would be a direct threat to their own lives is basically accurate. Them rebelling essentially in self-defense is an obvious consequence of Stannis coming to power, and again, it's explicitly laid out to Ned, he just doesn't want to think through the consequences of his actions.

You're right about him telling Cersei; it may have been a dumb action, but he's not morally culpable for what she does there as a consequence (especially since her plot to kill Robert was clearly a gamble on her end, with an iffy chance of succeeding; the fact that it DID succeed doesn't change the fact that she totally rolled the dice on that one). He's still responsible for all of his other moral choices listed here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15880552&postcount=219), though. Most of them are far less forgivable than the one most people remember.

Blame for the war lies with almost everyone. Remember, Stannis murdered his freaking brother in pursuit of his "right" to the throne. At the time of Robert's death, the only semi-realistic outcome, based on what was known at the time (no one knew much about Melisandre), where no one fights a war over succession is if Renly takes the Lannisters into his custody and Stark backs him (so he's overwhelmingly strong and Stannis doesn't have enough power to have a chance), vice-versa (ditto), or some negotiated agreement between Renly and the Lannisters.

Why didn't that happen? Because Ned Stark turned down Renly's offer to seize control when there was still a chance to nip the war in the bud. Why did Ned Stark do this? Fundamentally because he's an idiot, and his stated justification was something to the effect of "well, I don't want to fight while Robert is still alive, that'd be disrespectful." That's a clear decision he made, with obvious consequences.

Jaime's choice at Riverrun was actually pretty decent; he technically kept to the letter of his oath AND he prevented a lot of unnecessary bloodshed. That castle was falling no matter what (the Stark support was gone, and the Lannisters would never just let it sit there as an icon of resistance); only by compelling them to surrender could he avoid deaths. He also takes the extra step of making sure Edmure survives by sending him to Casterly Rock, instead of washing his hands of the issue and letting Edmure get offed. Toss in the Blackfish escaping and it was the best reasonably plausible outcome for the Tully's. Now, if Jaime had gone through with his threat, it'd have been different, but we don't know for sure that he would have.

I do agree that Jaime is at times annoying self-pitying, but that doesn't make him a bad person. And oath-breaking is a CHAOTIC action, not an evil one (ditto incest, despite the huge squick factor). Massively breaking an oath because you want to prevent an evil king from murdering countless innocents is a pretty obvious Chaotic Good action. Breaking more oaths by going behind the king's back and having a long-standing affair with the queen, when the king is himself carrying on a boatload of affairs and their marriage is already really screwed up, is Chaotic Neutral. Jaime's legitimately evil actions (and there are some) are relatively few in number, and his one really big good action does seem to outweigh it. He's basically CN, with a possible eventual character migration to CG or NG.


He didn't know the kind of person Aerys truly was when he accepted the position, and once he did there was no way out because the position is for life.

Even though he was screwing his sister, he seemed to be fairly idealistic about the roles of knights, and having the position offered to him was a huge honor to a fifteen-year-old. Then he found out what his position entailed... standing around doing nothing as Aerys burned people to death or savaged his wife, plus apparently he'd picked Jaime as a sort of glorified hostage to his father whom Aerys didn't trust.

Then Jaime was forced to kill Aerys for all the right reasons and was despised for it. Being admired as a swordsman from a rich and powerful family doesn't buy back the total disillusionment that comes from having all your ideals shattered in such rapid order.

+1


Ned is as much a mad usurping tyrant as Danny is a cold, calculating slaver. As in that is the opposite of who they are. Ned was just a moral objectivist, (not in the Randian sense.) What is right is always right. What is wrong is always wrong. Ned rarely considers the end result as more important than the means. Ned will not consider murdering an innocent 14 year old girl even if it could save thousands of lives because murdering children is wrong and that is the end of it. Ned didn't take his chance to overthrow Joffrey because it would mean killing children. Even at the risk of his own life, he would not cross that line.

Almost all of Ned's most unreasonable decisions directly stemmed from his conviction that killing kids is wrong. Seems pretty Good to me. That isn't a conviction that takes away someone's goodness. It just makes him less utilitarian if he considers only the parts and not the whole. But utilitarian does not equal good. It is only one philosophy.

Ned had two chances to take the throne for himself. He never once considered it. He is not a usurper because of that. Ned is compassionate and truly cares for the little people, but he cannot see the forest for the trees. He sees each persons individual rights and well being, not what is best for the people as a whole. He is not a tyrant for this reason, though he may lack prudence and a type of wisdom. He is not mad just because he has strong convictions he refuses to waver on. That just makes him unreasonable.

Lawful Stupid? Maybe. But still certainly Lawful Good.

Also, I think you missed Robbs goal or at least failed to mention it. Robb wasn't trying to free the north otherwise he would have been smart enough to make Tywin come to him. But that wasn't the point. That eventually became his purpose but at first it was all about saving dad. When that stopped being an option, he was so far invested there was no backing out now and he refused to bow to those who killed his father so he had little choice.

Despite being clearly intelligent, he was also kind of foolish. He had a brilliant mind that he rarely used, instead trusting his emotions and gut for almost every major decision in his life and refusing to view things objectively.

Ned obviously wasn't actually a mad, usurping tyrant, but it's hardly impossible to imagine that other characters might see him that way. If you judge him just from his actions and NOT his intentions, he doesn't look as good. My point was that our perspective of him is wildly skewed because in the book one Kings Landing arc, we just see his POV as well as the POV's of people sympathetic to him.

I'd agree with your perspective of Ned's moral outlook. The problem is, his moral outlook is majorly flawed. Cares for innocent kids lives? Great. Makes a boatload of other decisions (due largely to the inflexibility of his worldview) that increases the level of chaos in the kingdom and (in at least two separate points) directly leads to the civil war that tears through the kingdom? Not so great.

FWIW, if you think that Ned was unwilling to ally with Renly because he thought that innocent kids would get killed, what he hell was he doing declaring for Stannis? Renly was inherently a pretty flexible guy; if "keep the Lannister kids hostage but don't kill them" wasn't Renly's plan all along (and I'm pretty sure he explicitly said to take them into custody instead of killing them), then that's an easy "sure, I'll agree to that" part of a deal with Stark to make. Stannis, on the other hand, is basically merciless. "Incest babies" would get the ax no matter what if he's in charge.

[FlawedParadigm]

washing his hands of the issue

Count again.

[Nilan8888]

So I came on this thread looking up this Martin and Berlew comparison, and I can't believe the things that are being said about Martin.

Martin isn't perfect, certainly. He DOES have a tendency to describe food and clothes to an unnecessary extent. He does tend to have certain matters in his world unnecessarily complicated, in ways that might make a better story if it were sort of streamlined.

There are some points of comparison between Berlew and Martin. Certainly there'd be a lot if you compared them to the entire strata of fiction. But ultimately I find Rich working within the fantasy genre that Martin deconstructs.

Martin's spirit is far more engrained in making sense of the absurd. Of reconciling a world of My Lai massacres and WWI political gamesmanship with the one we regularly experience. Of taking history out of its white-washed texts and showing you that on some level our problems were always thus.

From reading Martin's work, I would think that someone getting the lesson out of it that "nothing really matters" has ENTIRELY missed the point. I guess it would be presumptuous to say what the point is, but really to me it's as simple as the fight over Tolkien's ring: that power is a fool's game and that even if we lives shorter lives by sticking to principles rather than pursuing it, those lives are most likely better in the final analysis.

Yes, in this world villains win and heroes lose. But the heroes lose as they lived, and ultimately everything the villains win turn to dust and they are incapable of enjoying their own triumphs, given that a good many of them seem to suffer from bona-fide personality disorders. It is not that Martin says that there is no good in the world, but that, in the manner of Frank Herbert, "power attracts the corruptible".

You may disagree, but I can GUARANTEE you that Martin's work has been a contributing factor in certain people's lives. Not because it's been in my own or because I know a single fanboy that goes to conventions. But because I know people who came in contact with the work in passing and that work -- with a convergence of other events -- was one of a number things to make them think harder on what was going on with their own lives. Because the work served precisely as the commentary Martin meant. It's overdramatic to say that one story literally changed someone's life, but I know of people whose lives are at least slightly better lived for its existence.

In short, if one thinks that Martin merely posits questions that people deal with as a teenager, then so be it and give me my teenage melodramas. His story's done more for my friends than Tolstoy ever did.

[EnragedFilia]

Lots.

I can agree with most of the above except as it may be further amended or even contradicted by what I still expect to happen: a climactic showdown between supernatural forces. Because supernatural forces demonstrably exist in The World of Ice and Fire (http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/The_World_of_Ice_and_Fire) (now available for preorder!), and they may or may not have something to demonstrably say about at least some of what's going on in that world. In our world, without that kind of thing going on, the situation might just be a little bit different.

[SowZ]

Somewhat agreed, though that was kind of what the etc. was for (also I'd semi-intentionally restricted it to people who not only impacted book one but actually appeared in it as well; we don't really find out much about the martells until book three)



Disagree on Sansa. Partially because children really don't have moral agency for decisions of that magnitude, partially because she simply had no way to know the full consequences of her actions, partially because Ned was headed towards that throne room confrontation no matter what (Littlefinger told Cersei the details, Sansa only told her that something was up; if Sansa runs away like a good girl she's out of Kings Landing but Ned is still captured), and partially because the #1 person who suffered for her decisions was herself.



You're mixing up "law" and "good". Supporting the "rightful king" is fundamentally a LAWFUL action. Whether it's good depends on what sort of person he is, what sort of king he'd be, what are the potential consequences of his actions, etc. It's also made pretty obvious throughout the rest of the series that Stannis would be a lousy king and that people (Littlefinger, the Tyrells, the Lannisters, etc.) thinking that putting him on the throne would be a direct threat to their own lives is basically accurate. Them rebelling essentially in self-defense is an obvious consequence of Stannis coming to power, and again, it's explicitly laid out to Ned, he just doesn't want to think through the consequences of his actions.

You're right about him telling Cersei; it may have been a dumb action, but he's not morally culpable for what she does there as a consequence (especially since her plot to kill Robert was clearly a gamble on her end, with an iffy chance of succeeding; the fact that it DID succeed doesn't change the fact that she totally rolled the dice on that one). He's still responsible for all of his other moral choices listed here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15880552&postcount=219), though. Most of them are far less forgivable than the one most people remember.

Blame for the war lies with almost everyone. Remember, Stannis murdered his freaking brother in pursuit of his "right" to the throne. At the time of Robert's death, the only semi-realistic outcome, based on what was known at the time (no one knew much about Melisandre), where no one fights a war over succession is if Renly takes the Lannisters into his custody and Stark backs him (so he's overwhelmingly strong and Stannis doesn't have enough power to have a chance), vice-versa (ditto), or some negotiated agreement between Renly and the Lannisters.

Why didn't that happen? Because Ned Stark turned down Renly's offer to seize control when there was still a chance to nip the war in the bud. Why did Ned Stark do this? Fundamentally because he's an idiot, and his stated justification was something to the effect of "well, I don't want to fight while Robert is still alive, that'd be disrespectful." That's a clear decision he made, with obvious consequences.

Jaime's choice at Riverrun was actually pretty decent; he technically kept to the letter of his oath AND he prevented a lot of unnecessary bloodshed. That castle was falling no matter what (the Stark support was gone, and the Lannisters would never just let it sit there as an icon of resistance); only by compelling them to surrender could he avoid deaths. He also takes the extra step of making sure Edmure survives by sending him to Casterly Rock, instead of washing his hands of the issue and letting Edmure get offed. Toss in the Blackfish escaping and it was the best reasonably plausible outcome for the Tully's. Now, if Jaime had gone through with his threat, it'd have been different, but we don't know for sure that he would have.

I do agree that Jaime is at times annoying self-pitying, but that doesn't make him a bad person. And oath-breaking is a CHAOTIC action, not an evil one (ditto incest, despite the huge squick factor). Massively breaking an oath because you want to prevent an evil king from murdering countless innocents is a pretty obvious Chaotic Good action. Breaking more oaths by going behind the king's back and having a long-standing affair with the queen, when the king is himself carrying on a boatload of affairs and their marriage is already really screwed up, is Chaotic Neutral. Jaime's legitimately evil actions (and there are some) are relatively few in number, and his one really big good action does seem to outweigh it. He's basically CN, with a possible eventual character migration to CG or NG.



+1



Ned obviously wasn't actually a mad, usurping tyrant, but it's hardly impossible to imagine that other characters might see him that way. If you judge him just from his actions and NOT his intentions, he doesn't look as good. My point was that our perspective of him is wildly skewed because in the book one Kings Landing arc, we just see his POV as well as the POV's of people sympathetic to him.

I'd agree with your perspective of Ned's moral outlook. The problem is, his moral outlook is majorly flawed. Cares for innocent kids lives? Great. Makes a boatload of other decisions (due largely to the inflexibility of his worldview) that increases the level of chaos in the kingdom and (in at least two separate points) directly leads to the civil war that tears through the kingdom? Not so great.

FWIW, if you think that Ned was unwilling to ally with Renly because he thought that innocent kids would get killed, what he hell was he doing declaring for Stannis? Renly was inherently a pretty flexible guy; if "keep the Lannister kids hostage but don't kill them" wasn't Renly's plan all along (and I'm pretty sure he explicitly said to take them into custody instead of killing them), then that's an easy "sure, I'll agree to that" part of a deal with Stark to make. Stannis, on the other hand, is basically merciless. "Incest babies" would get the ax no matter what if he's in charge.

No, he didn't support Stannis to save children. He warned Cercei to save children. His supporting of Stannis mostly came from his disgust at opportunists like Renley. As far as Ned knew, Stannis was an honorable man who followed orders and was dependable. Up to that point, Stannis always did the predictable, straight arrow thing, (like Ned,) and never cared for his own glory. Renley was clearly concerned with both his image and his power and the fact that he was so flexible and willing to buck tradition would only make Ned dislike him all the more.

His supporting of Stannis was, once again, an example of rigid morality. 'Killing kids is wrong.' 'Challenging the line of succession is wrong.' In some cases, when two of his morals clash, (such as his decision to save his family and his decision to overthrow the mad king rather than let his family suffer/the nation burn,) he has to pick the lesser of two evils. But Ned won't pick the lesser of two evils unless he absolutely positively 'neon sign flashing in front of his face what needs to be done' has to. So when he finally does break, it is usually too late. Too late to spare his life with Joffrey. Too late to save his family. Etc. etc.

As for letting chaos occur, I think Ned saw people like Littlefinger and the Chaos in the court and decided to respond with even greater lawful behavior than normal to counteract their chaos. If Ned knew ho contrary to order Littlefinger was, he likely would have killed him. Working within that system may have been smarter than refusing to play the game, but it wouldn't have been more moral.

As for Jaime, the guy does the bidding of one of the most wicked people in the entire kingdom, (his father whose evil is only outclassed by the likes of true sadists such as Crastor, his nephew, Ramsay, etc.) The first real thing we see him do is attempt to murder a small child to protect his secrets and he isn't even conflicted about it. He makes a subtle joke or two, even.

Not to mention the cold-blooded, once again seemingly remorseless, act of brutally killing his own second cousin. Then once again we see him trying to convince someone to murder an innocent old man. Jaime has a consistent pattern of complete disregard for human life. His conscience is only stirred when thousands of lives are on the line, which keeps him from being a complete monster but not from being evil. Shoot, the hound would probably have done the same thing in Jaime's shoes.

I am not arguing Jaime never stops being evil. But he certainly was evil, even if his evil was mild in comparison to others. (Though when a child murdering, kin slaying, second in line for a Star Wars-empire level empire is one of the less evil people on the roster of villains, it really goes to show how bad the true villains really are.)


So I came on this thread looking up this Martin and Berlew comparison, and I can't believe the things that are being said about Martin.

Martin isn't perfect, certainly. He DOES have a tendency to describe food and clothes to an unnecessary extent. He does tend to have certain matters in his world unnecessarily complicated, in ways that might make a better story if it were sort of streamlined.

There are some points of comparison between Berlew and Martin. Certainly there'd be a lot if you compared them to the entire strata of fiction. But ultimately I find Rich working within the fantasy genre that Martin deconstructs.

Martin's spirit is far more engrained in making sense of the absurd. Of reconciling a world of My Lai massacres and WWI political gamesmanship with the one we regularly experience. Of taking history out of its white-washed texts and showing you that on some level our problems were always thus.

From reading Martin's work, I would think that someone getting the lesson out of it that "nothing really matters" has ENTIRELY missed the point. I guess it would be presumptuous to say what the point is, but really to me it's as simple as the fight over Tolkien's ring: that power is a fool's game and that even if we lives shorter lives by sticking to principles rather than pursuing it, those lives are most likely better in the final analysis.

Yes, in this world villains win and heroes lose. But the heroes lose as they lived, and ultimately everything the villains win turn to dust and they are incapable of enjoying their own triumphs, given that a good many of them seem to suffer from bona-fide personality disorders. It is not that Martin says that there is no good in the world, but that, in the manner of Frank Herbert, "power attracts the corruptible".

You may disagree, but I can GUARANTEE you that Martin's work has been a contributing factor in certain people's lives. Not because it's been in my own or because I know a single fanboy that goes to conventions. But because I know people who came in contact with the work in passing and that work -- with a convergence of other events -- was one of a number things to make them think harder on what was going on with their own lives. Because the work served precisely as the commentary Martin meant. It's overdramatic to say that one story literally changed someone's life, but I know of people whose lives are at least slightly better lived for its existence.

In short, if one thinks that Martin merely posits questions that people deal with as a teenager, then so be it and give me my teenage melodramas. His story's done more for my friends than Tolstoy ever did.

To clarify my post earlier, I'm not saying that Martin is saying nothing matters. I am saying his work gives off a sense of existential nihilism where things only matter if you choose to give them value and they only matter as long as you or others value what you chose to believe. It is a world where nothing is inherently right or wrong, so the universe is cold and the only justice administered is by other human beings. While that means truly selfish people are more likely to get their come uppance by human hands, truly selfless people are often going to be stomped on because there is no G-d to save them.

This is not a world where nothing matters, but it is a world where things only matter if you decide they do and the more, "Eat, drink, be merry. Tomorrow you die," side of existentialism is certainly a wise saying to live by in GoT.

[Math_Mage]

Nitpickery!

No, he didn't support Stannis to save children. He warned Cercei to save children. His supporting of Stannis mostly came from his disgust at opportunists like Renley. As far as Ned knew, Stannis was an honorable man who followed orders and was dependable. Up to that point, Stannis always did the predictable, straight arrow thing, (like Ned,) and never cared for his own glory. Renley was clearly concerned with both his image and his power and the fact that he was so flexible and willing to buck tradition would only make Ned dislike him all the more.
You bring this up in the next paragraph, but from what I can tell, the fact that Stannis was the 'rightful' king had far more to do with Ned's decision than his assessment of Stannis' character.


His supporting of Stannis was, once again, an example of rigid morality. 'Killing kids is wrong.' 'Challenging the line of succession is wrong.' In some cases, when two of his morals clash, (such as his decision to save his family and his decision to overthrow the mad king rather than let his family suffer/the nation burn,) he has to pick the lesser of two evils. But Ned won't pick the lesser of two evils unless he absolutely positively 'neon sign flashing in front of his face what needs to be done' has to. So when he finally does break, it is usually too late. Too late to spare his life with Joffrey. Too late to save his family. Etc. etc.
I don't think either of those decisions are 'lesser of two evils' decisions, at least in Ned's eyes. Getting his family out of King's Landing has no immorality attached to it--the only tie his family has to the capital is Sansa's betrothal to Joffrey, which was made on false premises (that Joffrey was Robert's son). Ned would say rebelling against Mad King Aerys was proper according to the laws of gods and men, from the moment his father and brother and sister were all taken and killed unlawfully. (To be fair, Lyanna's case is more complicated.) When the rulers fail to uphold the law--when they in fact act against the law--it is legitimate to seek new rulers who will respect the realm's laws. And that's really the key to Ned. He is Lawful first.


As for letting chaos occur, I think Ned saw people like Littlefinger and the Chaos in the court and decided to respond with even greater lawful behavior than normal to counteract their chaos. If Ned knew ho contrary to order Littlefinger was, he likely would have killed him. Working within that system may have been smarter than refusing to play the game, but it wouldn't have been more moral.
Ned would have thought less of Littlefinger (if there was much thought there to lessen), but again, Lawfulness takes precedence--he would not allow himself to go after Littlefinger without clear evidence of lawbreaking, and Littlefinger is clever enough to avoid someone like Ned.


As for Jaime, the guy does the bidding of one of the most wicked people in the entire kingdom, (his father whose evil is only outclassed by the likes of true sadists such as Crastor, his nephew, Ramsay, etc.) The first real thing we see him do is attempt to murder a small child to protect his secrets and he isn't even conflicted about it. He makes a subtle joke or two, even.
Tywin? Ah, now. I truly disagree that Tywin is one of the most evil men in Westeros. Apart from his competence, I would say he is hardly atypical of Westerosi noblemen. And Jaime isn't exactly the dutiful son, either. He went against Tywin pretty strongly when he put on that white cloak.


Not to mention the cold-blooded, once again seemingly remorseless, act of brutally killing his own second cousin. Then once again we see him trying to convince someone to murder an innocent old man. Jaime has a consistent pattern of complete disregard for human life. His conscience is only stirred when thousands of lives are on the line, which keeps him from being a complete monster but not from being evil. Shoot, the hound would probably have done the same thing in Jaime's shoes.
For starters, Alton Lannister did not exist in the books, so I'm not sanguine about using him to judge Jaime.

More broadly, the entire society holds life to a lower value than we do. As the Giant has pointed out in another discussion, morality is informed by social context. And as you have pointed out, this is an "Eat, drink, be merry, die tomorrow" kind of society. Jaime's attitude is once again not far out of the ordinary--it is his competence that distinguishes him.

[EnragedFilia]

Additional nitpickering!


As the Giant has pointed out in another discussion, morality is informed by social context. And as you have pointed out, this is an "Eat, drink, be merry, die tomorrow" kind of society. Jaime's attitude is once again not far out of the ordinary--it is his competence that distinguishes him.

Large portions of the society are that way. Others are't: the Maesters are pursuing their anti-magicist agenda, which is pretty clearly a long-term goal. The sparrows and their Faith Militant are attempting to reject the prevalent corruption of the rest of the centralized Church. And outside of Westeros, factions that aren't currently involved in difficult wars have agendas of their own.

[SowZ]

Nitpickery!

You bring this up in the next paragraph, but from what I can tell, the fact that Stannis was the 'rightful' king had far more to do with Ned's decision than his assessment of Stannis' character.


I don't think either of those decisions are 'lesser of two evils' decisions, at least in Ned's eyes. Getting his family out of King's Landing has no immorality attached to it--the only tie his family has to the capital is Sansa's betrothal to Joffrey, which was made on false premises (that Joffrey was Robert's son). Ned would say rebelling against Mad King Aerys was proper according to the laws of gods and men, from the moment his father and brother and sister were all taken and killed unlawfully. (To be fair, Lyanna's case is more complicated.) When the rulers fail to uphold the law--when they in fact act against the law--it is legitimate to seek new rulers who will respect the realm's laws. And that's really the key to Ned. He is Lawful first.


Ned would have thought less of Littlefinger (if there was much thought there to lessen), but again, Lawfulness takes precedence--he would not allow himself to go after Littlefinger without clear evidence of lawbreaking, and Littlefinger is clever enough to avoid someone like Ned.


Tywin? Ah, now. I truly disagree that Tywin is one of the most evil men in Westeros. Apart from his competence, I would say he is hardly atypical of Westerosi noblemen. And Jaime isn't exactly the dutiful son, either. He went against Tywin pretty strongly when he put on that white cloak.


For starters, Alton Lannister did not exist in the books, so I'm not sanguine about using him to judge Jaime.

More broadly, the entire society holds life to a lower value than we do. As the Giant has pointed out in another discussion, morality is informed by social context. And as you have pointed out, this is an "Eat, drink, be merry, die tomorrow" kind of society. Jaime's attitude is once again not far out of the ordinary--it is his competence that distinguishes him.

You are right on Ned. IMO, very wrong on Tywin. Tywin doesn't care when his men capture an entire lot of orphan children and systematically torture them to death on the off chance one of them knows anything. He didn't order that action, and he eventually had them stop, (because he realized it was a waste of time. He didn't punish anyone for child torture,) but he never seemed particularly disgusted by this occurring on his dime.

And why should he? He purposefully murdered distant relatives of his enemies including many infants, pregnant women, elderly, children, and I vaguely recall a lot of rape being implied in that whole debacle that Tywin may have thought was inelegant but ultimately served his goals in establishing him as a tyrant never to be crossed or he will commit genocide.

And he cannot be defended, even a little bit, and valuing what his culture values. Saying, 'houses war and he just took it too far' or 'his society says you value and advance your name' are not justifications because Tywin breaks every moral rule his culture has. He is one hundred percent concerned with the practical and the selfish as evidenced by masterminding a plot that would go against every shred of decency most people in Westeros, even questionable ones, have. Even someone like the hound wouldn't do everything Tywin does.

It looked a little worse in the show, (no pregnant women in the room in the books,) but that does not make slitting thousands of peoples throats as they drank and made merry any less despicable. And it isn't a truth of war in Westerosi culture. In fact, it is much worse in Westerosi culture than it would be even in our own!

[Nilan8888]

To clarify my post earlier, I'm not saying that Martin is saying nothing matters. I am saying his work gives off a sense of existential nihilism where things only matter if you choose to give them value and they only matter as long as you or others value what you chose to believe. It is a world where nothing is inherently right or wrong, so the universe is cold and the only justice administered is by other human beings. While that means truly selfish people are more likely to get their come uppance by human hands, truly selfless people are often going to be stomped on because there is no G-d to save them.

This is not a world where nothing matters, but it is a world where things only matter if you decide they do and the more, "Eat, drink, be merry. Tomorrow you die," side of existentialism is certainly a wise saying to live by in GoT.

Actually it wasn't your post I was thinking of when I wrote that. If anything I was reading a couple of the things from the Giant himself and saying, "WHAT???".

I mean, it's not really any of my business what the Giant decides to read or not read or have any opinion on whatsoever. And if he disagrees with me on any given subject, tough. T'aint his job to justify his likes or dislikes. But hey: I'd be lying if I didn't shake my head at the general vibe of his posts concerning ASOIAF. I guess my reaction is best summed up with the phrase, "whatever, man". Which is sort of my reaction to that, and not your post at all.

Your post just now seems much more in line with the general vibe I get from the series. And I find that sort of preferable in general because... well, isn't that how we experience the world?

True, most of us don't have to literally "eat, drink for tomorrow we die" but that's because we're not living in a state of war (plus not being in the middle ages anymore helps). But otherwise... well, is this a world where there's an inherent right or wrong? Is it not true that something is only of value if you or others choose to give it value? If you do something wrong you don't suddenly get a pain in your leg, and your nose doesn't grow if you tell a lie. To me that's a statement on someone's character to believe in what is good in spite of this sort of 'absence of inherent meaning', to do this without a safety net.

This is a world where, as I see it, everything depends on what we happen to value. And if we don't value something, it can begin to fall apart.

This is a world where injustices have existed for very long periods of time. To go into them would violate forum rules, but I think we can all agree that they happened. Where was 'inherent right or wrong' then?

[Chuikov]

Actually it wasn't your post I was thinking of when I wrote that. If anything I was reading a couple of the things from the Giant himself and saying, "WHAT???".

I mean, it's not really any of my business what the Giant decides to read or not read or have any opinion on whatsoever. And if he disagrees with me on any given subject, tough. T'aint his job to justify his likes or dislikes. But hey: I'd be lying if I didn't shake my head at the general vibe of his posts concerning ASOIAF. I guess my reaction is best summed up with the phrase, "whatever, man". Which is sort of my reaction to that, and not your post at all.

Your post just now seems much more in line with the general vibe I get from the series. And I find that sort of preferable in general because... well, isn't that how we experience the world?

True, most of us don't have to literally "eat, drink for tomorrow we die" but that's because we're not living in a state of war (plus not being in the middle ages anymore helps). But otherwise... well, is this a world where there's an inherent right or wrong? Is it not true that something is only of value if you or others choose to give it value? If you do something wrong you don't suddenly get a pain in your leg, and your nose doesn't grow if you tell a lie. To me that's a statement on someone's character to believe in what is good in spite of this sort of 'absence of inherent meaning', to do this without a safety net.

This is a world where, as I see it, everything depends on what we happen to value. And if we don't value something, it can begin to fall apart.

This is a world where injustices have existed for very long periods of time. To go into them would violate forum rules, but I think we can all agree that they happened. Where was 'inherent right or wrong' then?

The Giant appears to be reacting more to what other people are saying about SoIaF rather than SoIaF itself. He's speaking from a self-acknowledged position of ignorance, though I agree I think the impression of distaste he's giving is surprisingly strong for speaking from such a position.

SoIaF has its weaknesses. I've complained about many of them myself with other fans and on other boards. Nevertheless, it's still one of the most addictive series I've ever read. I don't think it's for everyone, and if you can't handle some serious darkness you'll definitely be turned off quickly, but I would recommend anyone, even people who don't like 'fantasy', to at some point at least try it.

[FlawedParadigm]

Being fair, Rich is reacting pretty much the same way I'd react to anything that was overly popular before I got into it. Not to try to be a hipster or anything so much as a general distaste for conformity combined with the idea that - with notable, but rare exceptions - things that appeal to the general public are not usually things which interest me. I didn't see Titanic until about five years after it came out because of how overhyped it was and I was sick of hearing people talk about it before it even got released. Wasn't terribly impressed when I did see it. Not that I was expecting a documentary or anything, but it was a very generic love plot that wouldn't have been original or interesting if not for the setting, and that could have been any random sinking ship. Yes, there were some historically accurate bits, and bits we at least couldn't prove to be inaccurate. However the setting itself didn't matter much to the plot.

Basically, if I hadn't already been reading the books since 2000, all the current hype with the show would have had me very deliberately avoiding it unless a number of people who knew my tastes well began recommending it to me heartily (although in that case I'd question why they didn't mention it before, but hey.)

Although I should admit my own acquaintance with it began with me walking into a Waldenbooks, browsing around for a bit before getting accosted by an employee wondering what I was looking for. I said "Fantasy books. Preferably somewhat realistic and not everything is "A Wizard Did It."" Have to admit, he gave me a damned good recommendation.

[TheYell]

And oath-breaking is a CHAOTIC action, not an evil one (ditto incest, despite the huge squick factor). Massively breaking an oath because you want to prevent an evil king from murdering countless innocents is a pretty obvious Chaotic Good action. Breaking more oaths by going behind the king's back and having a long-standing affair with the queen, when the king is himself carrying on a boatload of affairs and their marriage is already really screwed up, is Chaotic Neutral. Jaime's legitimately evil actions (and there are some) are relatively few in number, and his one really big good action does seem to outweigh it.

Except, when you develop that sort of attitude towards oaths, to continue to offer them to people who consider them binding, to enjoy the fruits of their trust, becomes more than just anti-social. It becomes exploitative and cruel.

A truly neutral Chaotic act would be to refuse to offer further oaths. The act of falsely promising to abide by the oath, becomes evil.

[Chuikov]

Except, when you develop that sort of attitude towards oaths, to continue to offer them to people who consider them binding, to enjoy the fruits of their trust, becomes more than just anti-social. It becomes exploitative and cruel.

A truly neutral Chaotic act would be to refuse to offer further oaths. The act of falsely promising to abide by the oath, becomes evil.

There's something worse about Jaime's post-Aerys oathbreaking: its consequences could lead to the death of thousands or tens of thousands of people. When you screw the King's wife behind the King's back, and pass off your own bastard children as his rightful heirs, you're doing more than playing a mean trick on him or being unlawful in your behavior. You're laying the foundation for a war between the great houses, the extermination of either your own house or the King's, and in general all the suffering and misery and horror that the War of the Five Kings has brought.

Jaime did that, knowingly and willingly. Without his bastard brood, there is no cause for war. Perhaps scheming characters like Littlefinger could have manipulated some other cause for war, but the casus belli simply wouldn't have been there if Joffrey had been Robert's legitimate son. Stannis, being the obsessive for rules that he is, certainly wouldn't have tried to press his claim if he thought Robert's heir legitimate. Ned Stark would have had no cause to try and force Robert's son from the throne, and without Ned being executed for that Robb Stark doesn't ride to war and the Ironborn don't rise either. The only one who might still have acted would have been Renly, whose 'usurper' status would have been even more obvious and his support considerably less than it was.

With that in mind, he and Cersei are uniquely guilty for the War of the Five Kings in a way no other party really is. Laying the foundations for a war that kills off a good portion of the realm's population so that you can keep porking your sister is evil, not neutral. It shows utter ruthlessness and selfishness.

[Chuikov]

Being fair, Rich is reacting pretty much the same way I'd react to anything that was overly popular before I got into it. Not to try to be a hipster or anything so much as a general distaste for conformity combined with the idea that - with notable, but rare exceptions - things that appeal to the general public are not usually things which interest me. I didn't see Titanic until about five years after it came out because of how overhyped it was and I was sick of hearing people talk about it before it even got released. Wasn't terribly impressed when I did see it. Not that I was expecting a documentary or anything, but it was a very generic love plot that wouldn't have been original or interesting if not for the setting, and that could have been any random sinking ship. Yes, there were some historically accurate bits, and bits we at least couldn't prove to be inaccurate. However the setting itself didn't matter much to the plot.

Basically, if I hadn't already been reading the books since 2000, all the current hype with the show would have had me very deliberately avoiding it unless a number of people who knew my tastes well began recommending it to me heartily (although in that case I'd question why they didn't mention it before, but hey.)

I can't really fault someone on that account, either. I've still yet to read any of the Harry Potter books; by the time I became aware of their existence in the late 90's or so, the hype around them was so intense for so long that to start reading them at that time felt almost like I was being forced into it by popular pressure. It made the books fair less appealing than if I had simply read a few good reviews and decided to try the series out for myself.

[Psyren]

There is not nearly enough rape sodomy "questionable content" in OotS to qualify as a Martin work. And thank all the gods for that.

Though Belkar does channel Tyrion at times.

[Nilan8888]

Being fair, Rich is reacting pretty much the same way I'd react to anything that was overly popular before I got into it. Not to try to be a hipster or anything so much as a general distaste for conformity combined with the idea that - with notable, but rare exceptions - things that appeal to the general public are not usually things which interest me. I didn't see Titanic until about five years after it came out because of how overhyped it was and I was sick of hearing people talk about it before it even got released. Wasn't terribly impressed when I did see it. Not that I was expecting a documentary or anything, but it was a very generic love plot that wouldn't have been original or interesting if not for the setting, and that could have been any random sinking ship. Yes, there were some historically accurate bits, and bits we at least couldn't prove to be inaccurate. However the setting itself didn't matter much to the plot.

Basically, if I hadn't already been reading the books since 2000, all the current hype with the show would have had me very deliberately avoiding it unless a number of people who knew my tastes well began recommending it to me heartily (although in that case I'd question why they didn't mention it before, but hey.)

Well it's good to be honest about such things. And certainly modern life has a way of overexposing particular things. Hey, we're only human.

But at the same time, I've always believed the OPPOSITE to be a weakness as well. Sometimes things are good because they're just plain good. It turns into judging a work by the hype, whether its a positive or negative reaction to that hype. True, it can be hard to shake off preconceptions... especially say, if THAT guy you always hated was into it before you and never shut up about it...

But remember that GRRM or whoever the author is at the time never met that guy either. Maybe he'd hate him too.

And that sort of thing has been going on forever as well. Johnny Rotten was famous for wearing his "I Hate Pink Floyd" T-shirt. He says very different things about them today. The reason, in the end, in his own opinion? The Pink Floyd had this image of 'perfection' that nobody could ever live up to, back in the day. But years later, the nuanced 'punk' wisdom of 1978 seems a bit silly in 2013, a good lord knows how many pop culture cycles later.


Though Belkar does channel Tyrion at times.

Only in his humor, since Tyrion's a far better human being. And even then, they have a different schtick. Tyrion is more Christopher Hitchens dry sarcasm. Belkar is closer to Kieth Moon, except way, WAY nastier.

[EnragedFilia]

I prefer to think of Belkar's humor as similar to Cartman's humor. Except that Belkar seems to be slightly more likely to be aware that it's humor due to it being slightly less likely to result from him making himself look stupid without realizing it.

[tomandtish]

The Giant appears to be reacting more to what other people are saying about SoIaF rather than SoIaF itself. He's speaking from a self-acknowledged position of ignorance, though I agree I think the impression of distaste he's giving is surprisingly strong for speaking from such a position.


Well it's good to be honest about such things. And certainly modern life has a way of overexposing particular things. Hey, we're only human.

But at the same time, I've always believed the OPPOSITE to be a weakness as well. Sometimes things are good because they're just plain good. It turns into judging a work by the hype, whether its a positive or negative reaction to that hype. True, it can be hard to shake off preconceptions... especially say, if THAT guy you always hated was into it before you and never shut up about it...

But remember that GRRM or whoever the author is at the time never met that guy either. Maybe he'd hate him too.

And that sort of thing has been going on forever as well. Johnny Rotten was famous for wearing his "I Hate Pink Floyd" T-shirt. He says very different things about them today. The reason, in the end, in his own opinion? The Pink Floyd had this image of 'perfection' that nobody could ever live up to, back in the day. But years later, the nuanced 'punk' wisdom of 1978 seems a bit silly in 2013, a good lord knows how many pop culture cycles later.

Chuikov is right. Rich appears to be reacting to what people are saying. but more importantly, he doesn't seem to be taking the "everyone says it's good so it must be bad" approach that many often do. He does not seem to be judging by the hype alone, but by what those who hype it say they like about it. He's pointed out that what many say they like about the series are things he doesn't like in a series, so he's not motivated to read given his limited time.

Case in point. I generally don't like sitcoms. When people started raving about 2 1/2 Men, they'd rave about Charlie Sheen's character's antics on the show. Exactly the type of thing I don't like about sitcoms. So I may be rejecting it without watching it, but it's not because it is popular. It's because the elements that everyone says makes it good are exactly the elements I know I won't like. People would keep going "but what about this and this" and my response is "You aren't making it sound better, you're making it sound worse".

[Psyren]

Only in his humor, since Tyrion's a far better human being.

There's also the affinity for, shall we say, "ladies of the evening" :smalltongue:

[Goosefeather]

I can't really fault someone on that account, either. I've still yet to read any of the Harry Potter books; by the time I became aware of their existence in the late 90's or so, the hype around them was so intense for so long that to start reading them at that time felt almost like I was being forced into it by popular pressure. It made the books fair less appealing than if I had simply read a few good reviews and decided to try the series out for myself.

Sometimes, the hype is actually part of the experience, though - even an essential part.

Waiting forever for the next Harry Potter book to come out, to take your example, was an incredibly communal affair. In some ways, it was most likely a generational thing - I'm of the perfect age to have grown up with Harry (7-17 as the books were first published). Since then, I've met people my age from all over Europe, and the atmosphere, the hype, the whole experience we all underwent with the books, it seems to have been universal, no matter what country you're from or language you read them in.

I remember sitting in this outdoor pub in France a couple of years ago with maybe 25 people from France, Spain, Germany, the UK, the Czech Republic, the US, Romania, Mexico, Italy, and probably others I forget. Conversation was a little awkward, as we hadn't known each other long - but as soon as the topic of Harry Potter came up, we were suddenly all on the exact same wavelength. We had all obsessed over the books in our teens, we all knew that feeling of just waiting and waiting for the next one to appear before then devouring it in a day. I knew that the Spanish girl to my left and the French guy on my right had both experienced the same emotions and at virtually the same moment in time, years previously. It was weirdly univeralising and bonding - despite our hugely varied backgrounds, we had this shared thing between us.

The hype is an essential part of why I so fondly remember the series - were I to be reading it now for the first time, I imagine I would be missing out on half the experience. I'd be more objective (though probably still get caught up in the plot - it's a good yarn) but it just wouldn't be the same.

[Math_Mage]

There's also the affinity for, shall we say, "ladies of the evening" :smalltongue:
Ladies of the morning, noon, and night, more like--Tyrion isn't picky about time of day. Though that stopped for a while when he got hung up on one particular lady-of-indeterminate-earthly-rotation. Good thing he left that chain behind. :smallamused:

[FlawedParadigm]

He was just giving her a hand. Well, a few of them. But that's better, yes?

[Sir_Leorik]

Except, when you develop that sort of attitude towards oaths, to continue to offer them to people who consider them binding, to enjoy the fruits of their trust, becomes more than just anti-social. It becomes exploitative and cruel.

A truly neutral Chaotic act would be to refuse to offer further oaths. The act of falsely promising to abide by the oath, becomes evil.

That would be someone trying to remain Neutral between Law and Chaos, such as Sandor Clegane (aka "The Hound"), who considers honor, oath taking and knighthood worthless, but was a very loyal soldier and guard until the Battle of the Blackwater, when his pyrophobia overcame his sense of loyalty. Sandor considers knights to be hypocrites, because the cruelest person he's ever met, his brother Ser Gregor, was chosen to be knighted. He outright refused to engage in the charade, by refusing to be knighted when King Joffrey made him a member of the Kingsguard. From a certain POV, the Hound's honesty shows that the institution of knighthood is a sham; the Kingsguard are made up of whomever the King wishes, knights or not. If the institution were really so important, then the Hound would have been given a choice, take vows of knighthood, or you can not take the White Cloak. He'd reply "I don't want your stupid White Cloak," and would not be allowed to serve on the Kingsguard. Given that Joffrey already broke protocol by dismissing Ser Barristan Selmy from the Kingsguard, and no one protested, letting the Hound take a position without taking the vows is another sign of the corruption in King's Landing and in Westeros as a whole.

[Psyren]

Ladies of the morning, noon, and night, more like--Tyrion isn't picky about time of day. Though that stopped for a while when he got hung up on one particular lady-of-indeterminate-earthly-rotation. Good thing he left that chain behind. :smallamused:


He was just giving her a hand. Well, a few of them. But that's better, yes?

"For hands of gold are always cold..."


Yes. George RR Martian has taken the liberty of flying on his UFO over here to write for the Giant. Really, we should be thankful. He is a very busy alien.

Can I just say I'm so happy this was the first reply?

[EnragedFilia]

That would be someone trying to remain Neutral between Law and Chaos, such as Sandor Clegane (aka "The Hound"), who considers honor, oath taking and knighthood worthless, but was a very loyal soldier and guard until the Battle of the Blackwater, when his pyrophobia overcame his sense of loyalty. Sandor considers knights to be hypocrites, because the cruelest person he's ever met, his brother Ser Gregor, was chosen to be knighted. He outright refused to engage in the charade, by refusing to be knighted when King Joffrey made him a member of the Kingsguard. From a certain POV, the Hound's honesty shows that the institution of knighthood is a sham; the Kingsguard are made up of whomever the King wishes, knights or not. If the institution were really so important, then the Hound would have been given a choice, take vows of knighthood, or you can not take the White Cloak. He'd reply "I don't want your stupid White Cloak," and would not be allowed to serve on the Kingsguard. Given that Joffrey already broke protocol by dismissing Ser Barristan Selmy from the Kingsguard, and no one protested, letting the Hound take a position without taking the vows is another sign of the corruption in King's Landing and in Westeros as a whole.

I've never thought of Sandor as being particularly loyal in the first place; in my headcanon he always thought of working for the Prince as a nice cushy job where he could practice fighting and enjoy killing and get paid for it all at the same time. His refusal to be a knight probably does count as making a sociological statement, but from his perspective making that statement was probably ancillary to simply not wanting to be like his brother.

Now as for the issue of taking oaths with no intention of keeping them, I think it could be interpreted in numerous ways:

"Hah! I'm making these lawful idiots think I'm constrained by their stupid rules!" = CE, or possibly NE depending on the situation and one's motivation.

"These rules seem kinda stupid but everybody seems to take them pretty seriously. I might as well play along as long as it doesn't cause too much trouble." = True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral

"These misguided sheep don't seem to realize that following their useless rules is only causing problems! If I can just show everyone how much better things are when you break them, maybe they'll figure it out." = CG, because it arises from an honest desire to benefit others.

It's much less clear which of these best fits Jaime, but that's because his motivations in general aren't all that clear, especially once he starts questioning his previous actions.

[mhsmith]

No, he didn't support Stannis to save children. He warned Cercei to save children. His supporting of Stannis mostly came from his disgust at opportunists like Renley.

Right. My point was that your earlier argument "Ned didn't take his chance to overthrow Joffrey because it would mean killing children. Even at the risk of his own life, he would not cross that line." was wrong.

If Ned's choice to not throw throw in with Renly was because philosophically he wanted to save kids lives, then throwing in with Stannis makes zero sense at all. So obviously that wasn't the explanation of him turning down Renly.




As for Jaime, the guy does the bidding of one of the most wicked people in the entire kingdom, (his father whose evil is only outclassed by the likes of true sadists such as Crastor, his nephew, Ramsay, etc.) The first real thing we see him do is attempt to murder a small child to protect his secrets and he isn't even conflicted about it. He makes a subtle joke or two, even.

Not to mention the cold-blooded, once again seemingly remorseless, act of
brutally killing his own second cousin.

Then once again we see him trying to convince someone to murder an innocent old man. Jaime has a consistent pattern of complete disregard for human life. His conscience is only stirred when thousands of lives are on the line, which keeps him from being a complete monster but not from being evil. Shoot, the hound would probably have done the same thing in Jaime's shoes.

I am not arguing Jaime never stops being evil. But he certainly was evil, even if his evil was mild in comparison to others. (Though when a child murdering, kin slaying, second in line for a Star Wars-empire level empire is one of the less evil people on the roster of villains, it really goes to show how bad the true villains really are.)


When was he trying to convince someone to murder an innocent old man, or decided to murder his 2nd cousin? I confess I've forgotten those parts.


Except, when you develop that sort of attitude towards oaths, to continue to offer them to people who consider them binding, to enjoy the fruits of their trust, becomes more than just anti-social. It becomes exploitative and cruel.

A truly neutral Chaotic act would be to refuse to offer further oaths. The act of falsely promising to abide by the oath, becomes evil.

1) King Robert relied on Jaime to be an effective sword arm, which he did. He also didn't trust him at all in anything else and actively treated him like garbage because it was fun. How in the world did Jaime act "exploitative and cruel"???

2) Kingsguard is for life. That was why there was such a blowup when Cersei decided to "retire" Barristan. It's not clear whether Jaime ever swore much of anything more. And in a context of "you serve or you die (or maybe get sent to the Nights Watch which isn't much better than death)" it's hardly an act of evil to choose self-preservation.

3) Relating to the second point, I wasn't saying that Jaime swore more oaths, I was saying that Jaime broke even further the oaths he'd already sworn (and clearly didn't much respect). There is something of a difference.


There's something worse about Jaime's post-Aerys oathbreaking: its consequences could lead to the death of thousands or tens of thousands of people. When you screw the King's wife behind the King's back, and pass off your own bastard children as his rightful heirs, you're doing more than playing a mean trick on him or being unlawful in your behavior. You're laying the foundation for a war between the great houses, the extermination of either your own house or the King's, and in general all the suffering and misery and horror that the War of the Five Kings has brought.

Jaime did that, knowingly and willingly. Without his bastard brood, there is no cause for war. Perhaps scheming characters like Littlefinger could have manipulated some other cause for war, but the casus belli simply wouldn't have been there if Joffrey had been Robert's legitimate son. Stannis, being the obsessive for rules that he is, certainly wouldn't have tried to press his claim if he thought Robert's heir legitimate. Ned Stark would have had no cause to try and force Robert's son from the throne, and without Ned being executed for that Robb Stark doesn't ride to war and the Ironborn don't rise either. The only one who might still have acted would have been Renly, whose 'usurper' status would have been even more obvious and his support considerably less than it was.

With that in mind, he and Cersei are uniquely guilty for the War of the Five Kings in a way no other party really is. Laying the foundations for a war that kills off a good portion of the realm's population so that you can keep porking your sister is evil, not neutral. It shows utter ruthlessness and selfishness.

Eh, not sure I really buy that. Yes, their actions did lead to a horrible war, but there are a lot of people whose actions could have done so as well (for instance, the whole book one aborted Targaryen plot). Heck, Littlefinger INTENTIONALLY set Stark and Lannister against each other (and Varys seemed perfectly happy to push that process along as well) and without him, Ned Stark doesn't come to Kings Landing and this never comes to light.

Also remember that there are a boatload of potential outcomes to the Jaime/Cersei affair that wouldn't result in kingdom-wide war (most would result in their own executions, and potentially their kids' as well, but "major civil war" was a pretty unlikely outcome, it just happened to end up that way). Heck, even after Robert's death AND Ned's imprisonment it was only when Joffrey ordered Ned's execution (bringing the Stark family into the war instead of retaining the ability to blackmail them into submission, which arguably would have forced Renly to the table) that realm-wide major civil war became imminent. Do they have some responsibility? Sure. But there were plenty of others who made decisions that more directly and obviously contributed.

Heck, if you read closely you might have noticed that Renly never actually believed the incest story in the first place, and basically said to Stannis something to the effect of "wait, you were actually serious instead of just BS-ing up a story to justify your power play?" The incest angle didn't matter at all to Renly, except to the extent it might ease his path to power. The bigger issue was that Joffrey choosing to execute Ned Stark enabled a power vacuum that he was able to at least try and fill along with Tyrell and Martell support (the Tyrells were already with him, and the Martells hated the Lannisters enough to throw in with just about anyone [except Stannis] who had a reasonable shot at winning).

That power vacuum may or may not be due to Cersei's influence, but it certainly wasn't Jaime who persuaded Joffrey to do that.

[Chuikov]

Eh, not sure I really buy that. Yes, their actions did lead to a horrible war, but there are a lot of people whose actions could have done so as well (for instance, the whole book one aborted Targaryen plot). Heck, Littlefinger INTENTIONALLY set Stark and Lannister against each other (and Varys seemed perfectly happy to push that process along as well) and without him, Ned Stark doesn't come to Kings Landing and this never comes to light.

Others were plotting for different wars, and others helped cause the existing war, but the existing war plain and simply simply could not have happened without Jaime and Cersei. They are the foundation from which it springs. A war to return the Targaryens to power could happen any number of ways; a war to remove the supposed heir to Robert Baratheon because he's actually a product of incest between the queen and her brother is pretty clearly only possible (or likely, anyway) if the incest actually occurs.

A clearly legitimate Baratheon heir gives Stannis no reason to go to war and Ned no reason to try and remove said heir from the throne. Renly might have gone to war regardless, since he obviously cared very little about anything but claiming power for himself, but if he had he would have done so against a nearly united realm rather than a Westeros already wracked by internal conflict, making Highgarden and the lords of the Stormlands much less likely to support his claim. Any such war, if Renly even still had the will to pursue it in the face of much more difficult circumstances than he actually faced, would have been considerably shorter and less destructive.

And Littlefinger can't manipulate Ned into finding what he finds if there isn't anything to find, so there is no reason for the North to rise and therefore no opening for the Greyjoys to seek their own crown.



Also remember that there are a boatload of potential outcomes to the Jaime/Cersei affair that wouldn't result in kingdom-wide war (most would result in their own executions, and potentially their kids' as well, but "major civil war" was a pretty unlikely outcome, it just happened to end up that way). Heck, even after Robert's death AND Ned's imprisonment it was only when Joffrey ordered Ned's execution (bringing the Stark family into the war instead of retaining the ability to blackmail them into submission, which arguably would have forced Renly to the table) that realm-wide major civil war became imminent. Do they have some responsibility? Sure. But there were plenty of others who made decisions that more directly and obviously contributed.

The execution of Cersei and Jaime would, by its very nature, lead to war. Do you think Tywin would just stand aside and do nothing while the king murders his children and grandchildren, especially since that leaves him with only Tyrion? Even if he did just sit there and take it, which would be an immense loss of face for his house as well as a tremendous blow to its fortunes and future, Robert would certainly seek retribution against House Lannister for what happened.

If Jaime, Cersei and their bastard brood die, Tywin goes to war or otherwise seeks the overthrow of Robert Baratheon. He has to for the sake of the family name. And when the richest and most powerful non-royal house in Westeros rides to war, the house to which the kingdom is heavily indebted and which is led by one of the most ruthless and cunning strategists in the realm, you've got a major civil war on your hands. Albeit one in which House Lannister would start at a severe disadvantage.

The only way civil war is averted is if no one ever discovers Robert has been cuckolded by the queen's own brother, and considering how brazenly the two of them produced not one but three different children with the same Lannister blond hair, a messy civil war was obviously something Jaime and Cersei were willing to risk if it meant they could keep screwing.

Others have responsibility, of course...

above all Littlefinger

...but the Jaime-Cersei incest is essentially the pandora's box that opened up the realm to all the other would-be kings. Without it, there may have been a future war on some other grounds, especially from the antics of Targaryen loyalists and would-be allies, but this war and the suffering it has caused would not have happened. This one is, at its root, their war, with people fighting and dying because of their selfishness.

[Math_Mage]

That would be someone trying to remain Neutral between Law and Chaos, such as Sandor Clegane (aka "The Hound"), who considers honor, oath taking and knighthood worthless, but was a very loyal soldier and guard until the Battle of the Blackwater, when his pyrophobia overcame his sense of loyalty. Sandor considers knights to be hypocrites, because the cruelest person he's ever met, his brother Ser Gregor, was chosen to be knighted. He outright refused to engage in the charade, by refusing to be knighted when King Joffrey made him a member of the Kingsguard. From a certain POV, the Hound's honesty shows that the institution of knighthood is a sham; the Kingsguard are made up of whomever the King wishes, knights or not. If the institution were really so important, then the Hound would have been given a choice, take vows of knighthood, or you can not take the White Cloak. He'd reply "I don't want your stupid White Cloak," and would not be allowed to serve on the Kingsguard. Given that Joffrey already broke protocol by dismissing Ser Barristan Selmy from the Kingsguard, and no one protested, letting the Hound take a position without taking the vows is another sign of the corruption in King's Landing and in Westeros as a whole.
I would have pegged the Hound as CN immediately, myself. Or a low-grade form of CE, given that 'low-grade form of evil' really seems to be the norm where GoT characters are concerned. He passively and actively defies authority except when it's convenient ("I was ordered to kill the butcher's boy, so I'm not morally culpable for his death") or suits his own desires. He is totally unconcerned with institutions and vows, thinks knights are hypocrites, despises his lord (albeit with good reason) and his king (the same). Sure, he ends up in a position defined by its loyalty--as a political move. Compare Bronn, who is indubitably Chaotic and yet becomes commander of the City Watch when it suits his desires. Bronn smirks at authority while Sandor scowls, but they're otherwise fairly similar people.

[Geordnet]

Sometimes, the hype is actually part of the experience, though - even an essential part.
To this, I have just one thing to say echo:

It's because the elements that everyone says makes it good are exactly the elements I know I won't like. People would keep going "but what about this and this" and my response is "You aren't making it sound better, you're making it sound worse".

[Forikroder]

Major Charters are dropping like flys.

D was reborn as something a Bit evil (ala Catelyn ) and now Nate and Malock.

Malack is not a major character, Nales the only major character to die

[Geordnet]

Malack is not a major character, Nales the only major character to die
Durkon and (potentially) Thog aren't "Major" enough for you? :smallconfused:

[Forikroder]

Durkon and (potentially) Thog aren't "Major" enough for you? :smallconfused:

Durkons not dead and Thogs not dead till you see the Xs

[Geordnet]

Durkons not dead
I beg to differ. :smallannoyed:

[Forikroder]

I beg to differ. :smallannoyed:

techincally hes "dead" in the sense he has no pulse but Durkon is still Alive

his body is dead his soul burns bright

[Geordnet]

his body is dead his soul burns bright
Again, I beg to differ. :smallannoyed:

Even Malack admits that the Durkon-that-was is gone forever (or at least indefinitely). Durkula is a completely different character with a completely different worldview, regardless of the technicalities of where the "spiritual battery" happens to be according to D&D cosmology.

[Forikroder]

Again, I beg to differ. :smallannoyed:

Even Malack admits that the Durkon-that-was is gone forever (or at least indefinitely). Durkula is a completely different character with a completely different worldview, regardless of the technicalities of where the "spiritual battery" happens to be according to D&D cosmology.

if i go on a trip around the world the "forikorder that was" is gone forever since my view on life will unevitably change upon seeing the world

Malack lived for over 200 years, of course who he is today is different from who he was 200 years ago

if the Malack that was 200 years ago had become immortal through a different means he would have wound up in the exact same position 200 years later

so yes the "durkon that was" is gone for goo, just like the "elan that was" is gone for good since his experience in the phantasm has brought a change in perspective, Durkon has gain a new perspective not a new soul

[Geordnet]

if i go on a trip around the world the "forikorder that was" is gone forever since my view on life will unevitably change upon seeing the world
Yes, this is the logical extreme of this point of view. By the same logic, the "you" of one second ago is gone forever as well, replaced by the "you" of the present. Your self which existed before reading this post is no more, having been replaced by your self which has read it -which is different from the former merely for the experience having read these words.

However, such changes are incremental, such that there is a continuous link between the old you and the new; such is the normal way of life. What happened to Durkon is much more drastic. Part of his personality was ripped out and replaced with something foreign, something distinctly not Durkon.

But if you'd consider a combination lobotomy/brainwashing to be on the same level as a mere world tour, then I think further discussion is moot.

[Porthos]

Again, I beg to differ. :smallannoyed:

Even Malack admits that the Durkon-that-was is gone forever (or at least indefinitely). Durkula is a completely different character with a completely different worldview, regardless of the technicalities of where the "spiritual battery" happens to be according to D&D cosmology.

Gotta disagree here. A lot of people think that Durkon getting vamped is going to lead to character development. Especially after reading Rich's comments on the matter.

Well it can't be character development for Durkon if Durkon isn't there anymore, now can it. :smallwink:

As for Malack's musings? He's speaking philosophically. Besides, just because a character says something, doesn't make it true. Or 100% completely true, at least.

[Forikroder]

Yes, this is the logical extreme of this point of view. By the same logic, the "you" of one second ago is gone forever as well, replaced by the "you" of the present. Your self which existed before reading this post is no more, having been replaced by your self which has read it -which is different from the former merely for the experience having read these words.

However, such changes are incremental, such that there is a continuous link between the old you and the new; such is the normal way of life. What happened to Durkon is much more drastic. Part of his personality was ripped out and replaced with something foreign, something distinctly not Durkon.

But if you'd consider a combination lobotomy/brainwashing to be on the same level as a mere world tour, then I think further discussion is moot.

generally when you ressurect someone your trying to ressurect them as tehy were before they died (which is great because thats what you get) however for Malack hes been dead for 200 years (long ass time) and you cant ressurect a vampire so you get the malack from 200 years ago not the malack from 200 seconds ago (well 600 seconds ago) which is why Malack said ressurecting him is a complicated way to destroy who he is

you are of the opinion (not fact) that Durkon had part of his personality ripped out and replaced

i am of the opinion thats bull

[Geordnet]

As for Malack's musings? He's speaking philosophically.
As am I. :smalltongue:


you are of the opinion (not fact) that Durkon had part of his personality ripped out and replaced

i am of the opinion thats bull
Vampirization automatically changes alignment to Evil. How else would this change be meaningful?

(And before you say it, there have been far too many Durkon alignment discussion threads to go there again.)

[Forikroder]

As am I. :smalltongue:


Vampirization automatically changes alignment to Evil. How else would this change be meaningful?

(And before you say it, there have been far too many Durkon alignment discussion threads to go there again.)

like i said, Durkon gained a new perspective not personality hes still acting exactly like the old Durkon isnt he?

[Geordnet]

like i said, Durkon gained a new perspective not personality hes still acting exactly like the old Durkon isnt he?
No, he isn't. :smallyuk:

That's what I've been trying to say. If the alignment change is to be in the least bit meaningful, then the way the character acts must be different. At least, where it counts (doing Good or Evil acts). More superficial stuff might survive unscathed, but they define the person only somewhat more than external visual appearence.

[Dr.Gunsforhands]

From what I remember, the Giant's plan was to make Durkon's vampirety be a big deal and a plot point, but the character development and permanency angles were left wisely unspoilered. I'd say that the lawful lawful good lawful dwarf we were used to got too somber a sendoff to be expected to return, but that just means he won't be straight-up resurrected anytime soon... which we already know.

For what it's worth, I really don't think we have much to go on in the comic yet to say one way or the other about Wacky Vampire Dude; he might do his best to be Durkon and fail, do his best to be Durkon and succeed, or content himself with being Crazy Steve and just put on a friendly face until he can stab the rest of the Order in the back.

Chances are, if Roy doesn't know about something like this, we're not in a much better position.

[The Giant]

How did this thread become yet another Durkon's-alignment-and/or-personality thread?

This conversation has run its course. Pick one of the other threads about Durkon to post on, or start a new one if (and only if) there aren't any left open. But this discussion bears no relevance to the original topic, so thread locked.