# Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice & Fire"



## King_Stannis (Jan 26, 2003)

Over the recent past I've heard given, as a weakness in Martin's "A Song of Ice & Fire" series, the fact that there are no true heroes or people to root for. I think it's time to set the record straight, as it were, on that issue. I'm going to give my list of "good guys" from the series, and I'll stack them up against any pollyana "black and white" - "good vs. evil" fantasy story. Please note that there could very well be SPOILERS ahead...


Jon Snow - Obviously, he is about as good as they come. At times he's shown as being conflicted, but show me anytime he's done something that could be called "evil"? And, for the most part, you are meant to be rooting for him as the "underdog" hero. He serves faithfully and is a credit to his upbringing by the Starks.

Ser Davos - There's hardly any shades of gray with Davos. He is about as honest and as loyal as they come. He desires only to give good counsel to Stannis and is the driving force behind what happened at the end of Book 3.  Again, show me anything "evil" that this guy has done and it'll be the first I've heard of it. 

Barristan Selmy - While not a POV character, this guy is the epitome of honor and loyalty. He's about as pure an archetypical "old and honorable hero" as they come. 

Catelyn - Much of the disaffection with Catelyn comes because of her estrangement with Jon. Still, how can you blame her? Ned couldn't or wouldn't shed any light on who is mother was (*cough* Lyanna), and here she is, supposed to welcome him with open arms. It's a little petty, yes, but you can hardly even say that Jon hates her for it. So why then should the reader?

Aside from that, she called her sister's madness for what it was. She counseled against going to war with the Lannisters in the first place, even to "avenge Ned". When war came she served Robb faithfully as counselor and mother. She tried to bring peace between Renly and Stannis as well. 

While it's a harder sell than the others, I'll go out on a limb and say that Catelyn, while at times is irritating, for the most part acts quite heroically. 



I'd be interested to hear of any other characters I might have missed. There are some that I would personally include, like Stannis and Dany, but I can kind of see where people would not view them in the same light as the ones I mentioned. 

Also, I'd like to hear any rebuttals of the characters I listed. Are there any reasons you can think of that they would not be considered, on the whole, particualry heroic?


----------



## KenM (Jan 26, 2003)

I'm only about halfway though first book, but I like it. GRRM has shown in an intellegent way that no one is "pure good" or "pure evil" we all have our faults. What I have read so far has the most realisitic characters.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 26, 2003)

The problem is that those "heros" you mention are, for the most part, not the point of view of the books.  Most are minor characters.  Jon is probably the closest to a hero you have in the books, and yet little time has been devoted to Jon so far.

It would be like telling the story of World War II from the perspective of Hitler, Mussulini, Stalin, Emperor Hiro Heto, and Franco,  with the very occasional chapters from the undersecretary of War for the US and the young Prince of Wales. Sure, there are some good people involved, but they are like a bucket of water in a sea of stories about bad people.

As I have said on another thread, I fully intend to read the rest of this series as it comes out, and I am starting to gain a better perspective on the series as I discuss it more. Nevertheless, the focus of the books is not on good people.


----------



## jdavis (Jan 26, 2003)

I don't think the propblem is a lack of heroic characters, it's a lack of a single HERO of the story. It appears the main hero is Jon Snow, but he really is only in one third of the book. I figure eventually he will have to go south and get involved (I could be wrong though). Jon Snow is almost too goody and heroic to really fit in with the rest of the characters in the books.

I see Tyrion moving towards being a hero (a dark hero perhaps but heroic none the less). I also see Jamie Lannister moving towards some kind of attempt at redemption too. I am also sure Bran will pop up again as a possible heir to the North, he is a good character who is doing some heroic things.

I really am looking to see who shows up to be the actual Evil Villian of the story, there are several selfish and ruthless characters but there isn't really a Big Villian. It's a series full of co-stars and no actual leading roles. I love the series and it keeps me wanting more.


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Jan 26, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> * It's a series full of co-stars and no actual leading roles. *




No. As in real life- they are all the main character in the story of their lives. 

No main villians? The others.
No main heroes? Dany's prophecy.

The "no hero" complaint is less annoying then those that cheer for the alleged moral ambiguity of the characters of the book. Beyond what I think it says about those readers, I think it is nonsense. It is pretty easy draw a line on most characters on the book.

SD


----------



## jdavis (Jan 26, 2003)

Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No. As in real life- they are all the main character in the story of their lives.
> 
> ...




Yes they are the main characters in their own little bits of the story, but they are not in the whole story, there is no stand up main character, that's not nessessarily a bad thing but it can be disconserting to people who are used to there being a main character in books (you know like almost every book ever written). As in real life? They live in a fantasy world in a fantasy book, it is a fantasy book with a new and refreshing take on fantasy books, it is a fantasy book without a lead hero or villian (as of yet) but it still is a fantasy book. I'm the main character in the story of my life too.

The Others will probably turn out to be major villians eventually, but have we actually seen anything about them, do we have a clue what they want or what they are up too? Have they appeared more than a handful of times on in less than a dozen pages? 90% of the characters in the book don't even have a clue what is going on in the north, or care for that matter. Yes they will be main villians eventually but they are just a side story right now.

Dany? She has yet to interact with the vast majority of the characters, she isn't even on the same continent yet, yes she will become a hub for this story eventually, but right now she doesn't affect anything in the book outside of her part of the story, at least Jon Snow has met several of the main characters, most of the people in the book don't know Dany is even alive. Not to mention she really isn't all that heroic.

I am very excited to start seeing all the different stories being drawn together, but that is in the future of the books, right now it is just a collection of tales from the same fantasy world. There is no stand out main character as of yet (once again that is not a bad thing at all). 

You compare it to real life and then say that there is no moral ambiguity in the characters? Well are they full rounded real characters or are they definite good and evil stereotypes, you can't have it both ways.


----------



## Dark Psion (Jan 27, 2003)

I've never read these books, can you give me an description of them?


----------



## jdavis (Jan 27, 2003)

Dark Psion said:
			
		

> *I've never read these books, can you give me an description of them? *




They are three (large) books into the story, it is very good and fairly intense. Here is a link to some summaries and reviews:
http://www.sffworld.com/authors/m/martin_george/reviews/asongoficeandfire.html


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Jan 27, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *
> You compare it to real life and then say that there is no moral ambiguity in
> the characters? Well are they full rounded real characters or are they
> definite good and evil stereotypes, you can't have it both ways.
> *




Err, because I don't see the choice being one or the other.

Oh, heck, I don't believe in moral ambiguity. I believe in good and evil. There is no rule that suggests that people that are either are simple or stereotypical.

SD


----------



## jdavis (Jan 27, 2003)

Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Err, because I don't see the choice being one or the other.
> 
> ...




Most fantasy book characters just are not that deep, it's what makes people question them being heroes or not in these books, they are not used to overly deep characters who can be good but sometimes do bad things, like in real life. This series has a lot of "mostly good" or "trying to be good" characters. Was the hound a hero or a villian? he did thing throughout the books to make him seem to be both at different times. He really didn't fit a mold at all, and I really didn't see him change all that much he was always a mess inside. You don't get that in a lot of fantasy books, this isn't a series where the good guys wear white hats and the bad guys wear black hats. Jamie was a major villian in the first two books but is now swinging the other way, who knows how he will be viewed by the end of the series. Look at all the evil things Stannis has done so far but he really isn't a villian at all.


----------



## King_Stannis (Jan 27, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *...Look at all the evil things Stannis has done so far but he really isn't a villian at all. *




I'd challenge that to some extent. I assume you're talking about Renly's killing...It's made clear that Stannis had no idea what was going on with Melisandre and the Shadow...

At any rate, Renly deserved no better. He was perhaps one of the most treacherous characters in the book, through all his smiles.


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Jan 27, 2003)

King_Stannis said:
			
		

> *
> At any rate, Renly deserved no better. He was perhaps one of the most treacherous characters in the book, through all his smiles. *




Of course this is a side issues, but did you get the idea that he and the knight of flowers (iirc that is what the knight was called) were a bit more then friends?

SD


----------



## King_Stannis (Jan 27, 2003)

Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Of course this is a side issues, but did you get the idea that he and the knight of flowers (iirc that is what the knight was called) were a bit more then friends?
> 
> SD *




Not the first time through, but I will look for that subtext the second time around - I am just starting ACoK.

By the way, you are correct - Loras Tyrell is the "Knight of Flowers". It would be his brother in law, too, by his brief marraige to Margeary Tyrell.


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Jan 27, 2003)

King_Stannis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Not the first time through, but I will look for that subtext the second time around - I am just starting ACoK.
> *




I will need to reread it to point out specific instances- but I know remarks are made by other characters about Renly not likely to get his wife pregnant. I recall Stannis even making an innuendo to it during one of their few face to face confrontations.

Argh- curse my memory. I would never have earned any chains. 

SD


----------



## jdavis (Jan 27, 2003)

King_Stannis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'd challenge that to some extent. I assume you're talking about Renly's killing...It's made clear that Stannis had no idea what was going on with Melisandre and the Shadow...
> 
> At any rate, Renly deserved no better. He was perhaps one of the most treacherous characters in the book, through all his smiles. *




well he did quite a few questionable things, but most could be attributed to Melisandre leading/controlling him. If he set out to murder his brother using dark magic he would of been evil, as it is he really should of known and the fact that he was pretty remorseless after it happened stands out. There is a whole main character devoted to saving the beloved Stannis from the evil witch. Qualify Stannis as a Hero or villian though, you just can't do it, he is not overtly evil, he is just fighting for what is his (his claim is the true one), so qualify him as a hero, well he has done way to many questionable things (wanting to sacrifice a nephew would be considered unheroic). He really doesn't fit any catagory either way right now, he could end up a major hero in the north or he could become a obsessed madman or he could become Melisandre's complete pawn or he could stay the same course in the middle. 

I'm going to have to reread the books with the new one coming out soon (and to kill the taste of the horrible Robert Jordan book), I do remember that there was some questioning of Renly's ability to get a heir with his new wife but I don't remember the context.


----------



## King_Stannis (Jan 27, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> well he did quite a few questionable things, but most could be attributed to Melisandre leading/controlling him. If he set out to murder his brother using dark magic he would of been evil, as it is he really should of known and the fact that he was pretty remorseless after it happened stands out. There is a whole main character devoted to saving the beloved Stannis from the evil witch. Qualify Stannis as a Hero or villian though, you just can't do it, he is not overtly evil, he is just fighting for what is his (his claim is the true one), so qualify him as a hero, well he has done way to many questionable things (wanting to sacrifice a nephew would be considered unheroic)...*





Well, again I'll disagree (hate to be so disagreeable with someone as willing to discuss the series as you, jd  - but as a wise man once said "it's the difference of opinion that makes horse races").

Stannis was indeed remorseful about Renly, but not because of his death per se. He was remorseful because he was forced into confronting his brother because of Renly's treachery. Yet he still loved him even in death. He tells Davos as much afterward, when they are riding alone and he recounts the story of how Renly pulled a peach from his vest when they met for their summit. He says something to the effect "I loved him, Davos, despite his treachery. I'll go to my grave thinking of that peach." Keep in mind Stannis is portrayed as a just man....THE just man.  Renly was a traitor-in-arms who deserved and received death. Stannis' view is probably that his brother would not have been slain had he done his brotherly duty for Stannis - all part of R'hollar's master plan of which he is a pawn.

Stannis, while at times waivering, never wanted to give Edric Storm to Mel. At the best of times he actively spurned her wishes to sacrafice the boy, and in the worst of times he tells Davos that if he is forced to do it, it is because the boy MUST be killed or thousands of boys and girls just like him will equally suffer. He never takes any glee from the fact that the boy might have to be killed, and does everything he can to make sure the boy IS NOT killed (ie the leeches).


----------



## jdavis (Jan 27, 2003)

King_Stannis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Well, again I'll disagree (hate to be so disagreeable with someone as willing to discuss the series as you, jd  - but as a wise man once said "it's the difference of opinion that makes horse races").
> ...




No be disagreeable all you like, good discussions are the only reason I am here, Just don't call me a idiot (which you may be thinking in this case because you are right, I forgot the Peach bit).

Stannis is prtrayed to be too strict and and concerned only with justice. It's almost like they want to show him as the Robocop of Westros, 100% by the rules regardless of what may be wrong or right or what his heart might want. That's why he isn't a villian, he honestly believes in the rightness of what he is doing. Davos is one of my favorite characters, he is sort of Stannis's conscious and heart. Davos is as much trying to save Stannis from himself as he is trying to save him from Melisandre. Stannis is so wrapped up in his right to be king that he almost misses the whole arguement that nobody else wants him to be king, and if it wasn't for Davos he would of never gotten it into his head that the problem is that nobody likes him, it was hard for him to understand that he was passed over for Renly because Renly had all the personallity. Now he is off to the North to do the right thing and prove that he should be King instead of bemoaning that 90% of the continent would be considered just as much of a traitor as his brother by his standards. The ends don't always justify the means, that is why he can't be judged a hero, he did things that were questionable and some that were downright wrong in order to push his claim to the throne. Renly was no more a traitor than everybody else who supported anybody but him as King, and instead of trying to convince people that they should support him he branded everybody a traitor for not doing so to start with. Once again a lot of that can be laid at Melisandre's feet. He is definatly not a evil character but he is equally not a heroic character, he is a character in flux between a raving madman who is only concerned about his claim to the throne, and a man who has the best interest of the Kingdom at heart.


----------



## RyanL (Jan 27, 2003)

King_Stannis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Not the first time through, but I will look for that subtext the second time around - I am just starting ACoK.
> 
> By the way, you are correct - Loras Tyrell is the "Knight of Flowers". It would be his brother in law, too, by his brief marraige to Margeary Tyrell. *




During the parley between Renly, Stannis, and Catelyn, at the siege of Storm's End, Stannis makes a comment to the effect that Margeary will remain a maid so long as she shares a bed with Renly.

-Ryan


----------



## King_Stannis (Jan 27, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No be disagreeable all you like, good discussions are the only reason I am here, Just don't call me a idiot (which you may be thinking in this case because you are right, I forgot the Peach bit).
> 
> Stannis is prtrayed to be too strict and and concerned only with justice. It's almost like they want to show him as the Robocop of Westros, 100% by the rules regardless of what may be wrong or right or what his heart might want. That's why he isn't a villian, he honestly believes in the rightness of what he is doing. Davos is one of my favorite characters, he is sort of Stannis's conscious and heart. Davos is as much trying to save Stannis from himself as he is trying to save him from Melisandre. Stannis is so wrapped up in his right to be king that he almost misses the whole arguement that nobody else wants him to be king, and if it wasn't for Davos he would of never gotten it into his head that the problem is that nobody likes him, it was hard for him to understand that he was passed over for Renly because Renly had all the personallity. Now he is off to the North to do the right thing and prove that he should be King instead of bemoaning that 90% of the continent would be considered just as much of a traitor as his brother by his standards. The ends don't always justify the means, that is why he can't be judged a hero, he did things that were questionable and some that were downright wrong in order to push his claim to the throne. Renly was no more a traitor than everybody else who supported anybody but him as King, and instead of trying to convince people that they should support him he branded everybody a traitor for not doing so to start with. Once again a lot of that can be laid at Melisandre's feet. He is definatly not a evil character but he is equally not a heroic character, he is a character in flux between a raving madman who is only concerned about his claim to the throne, and a man who has the best interest of the Kingdom at heart. *




I can agree with most of that, other than the part about Renly not being any more a traitor than the other self proclaimed kings. There is just something especially wrong and treacherous going against your own blood, which is exactly what Renly did - for pure, unbridled ambition. At least Stannis views it as a duty that he must do....he even says something like "want has nothing to do with it, Davos....".

But you have good points about Stannis there. I think he's one of the most complex characters in the books. From the way his parents death had an affect on him to the way he uses and is used by Mel, and everything in between. Some of the things he says are just amazingly profound and, at times, cruel. No small wonder, then, that I chose him as my ID!


----------



## jdavis (Jan 27, 2003)

I have a fondness of Jon Snow, the bumbling hero, whoops I saved the world again. He really has no ambition at all but to save the world and do what's right. How many times has he been tempted with the promise of a little respect and happiness in his life only to turn it down to do his duty to wall. He's just a real likable guy who always tries to keep his oath, no matter how much better he could have it otherwise. 

It's hard not to like the dwarf too, talk about always being the underdog.


----------



## Dr. NRG (Jan 28, 2003)

I'd be interested to hear of any other characters I might have missed. 

Brienne of Tarth is pretty paladiny, if that's a word.  


As for "It is pretty easy draw a line on most characters on the book."  Okay, why don't you start with Arya Stark and the Hound, Sandor Clegane?  Simplistic moralistic charicatures like the majority of fantasy characters?  I would argue not.  How about "drawing a line" on Jaime Lannister?  I'll even make it really simple.  Tell me what alignment they'd each be in AD&D terms.

NRG


----------



## Justinian (Jan 28, 2003)

I've been rereading the series in preparation for _A Feast of Crows_, and it struck me how Jaime is an illustration of the dangers of talent.

*SPOILERS AHEAD*
He had incredible potential as a knight, to the point where Ser Arthur Dayne himself, IIRC, knighted him for heroism in battle. Even though it was arranged by Cersei, there is no evidence that his promotion to the Kingsguard was considered nepotism, and that he was worth the honor.

Yet he had a fatal flaw throughout his life, and that was his sister. (Although it could be argued that his flaw was narcissism.)

I think the loss of his hand, by drawing a clear line between his perfect past and his maimed future, forced him to change his views of himself. From being naturally skilled to having to work at it, from being beautiful to being disfigured, he was placed in a different caste.

Whether this will change him to a "good" figure remains to be seen.

Jaime Lannister in Book 1? In my opinion, Chaotic Neutral. He is strongly affected by Cersei, however, who I would class as Neutral Evil. This makes his character shift from time to time.

Jaime Lannister in Book 3? I think we are seeing him move towards Lawful Neutral, where I believe his newfound devotion to the Kingsguard, and what it should be, will become the guiding force of his life.

The illustration of LN, to me, is his rescue of Tyrion. He did it not on a whim, like the old Jaime, but because of a newly perceived debt. That connotes Lawful behavior in my mind.


----------



## jdavis (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice & Fire"*



			
				Dr. NRG said:
			
		

> *I'd be interested to hear of any other characters I might have missed.
> 
> Brienne of Tarth is pretty paladiny, if that's a word.
> 
> ...




I'd be hard pressed to put a alignment on the Hound from chapter to chapter, he changes so may times in the story that Chaotic Neutral would be the only thing that would fit but he has swung as far as Lawful Evil to Chaotic Good. Chaotic Neutral would be as close as you could get. Arya would probably be chaotic good but then again that would only be a vague description. Stannis is a good example of a character that is so deep and changing that you could never fit him into a alignment class (although he would be lawful, he runs the gauntlet between good, neutral or evil) He would consider himself Lawful Good but many of the other characters would see him as Lawful Evil. At the end of book 3 he probably would be Lawful Neutral swing towards good (slowly) but that is just a guess. Jon Snow- Lawful Good but with Chaotic tendancies. Tyrian-......I have no freaking clue, you want to say good but he is a multiple times over murderer, even if many of them had it comming. Jamie would be Lawful-Chaotic-Neutral-Evil with good tendancies toward the end of book 3. Cersei is definatly Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil, Tywin is  Lawful Evil. Dany...I haven't the slightest clue. All the Starks would generally be good of some sort. All this is pretty generalized They just don't fit into alignments very well.

These characters have a depth that is rare in Fantasy books. There is no embodiment of evil, there is no lead hero, as I have already said there is no white hat coyboys and black hat cowboys. They are people making their way through a chaotic world.


----------



## Eben (Jan 28, 2003)

The way Martin takes on the Hero-theme from modern fantasy is what sets him appart. A hero is not made by his deeds, but by perception. (SPOILER WARNING)

Take Jaime: hailed as the greatest knight in Westeros, until we see him changing and acting more like the archetypical hero. 
Take Tyrions rule in Kings landing. He tries to bring justice to the people and is despised.

And finally: the most interesting character in this series: Rhaegar Targaryen. Hated by nearly everybody in Westeros it seems, but as the series progresses, ...


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice & Fire"*



			
				Dr. NRG said:
			
		

> *Okay, why don't you start with Arya Stark and the Hound, Sandor Clegane?
> *




Good for the former. Evil for the latter.



> How about "drawing a line" on Jaime Lannister?




Evil- and I have to wonder about anyone who thinks otherwise. Just because one can see into his sick demented head, does not make the creep sympathetic. 



> Simplistic moralistic charicatures like the majority of fantasy characters?  I would argue not.




I already said it once, but since this thread is so long I guess I can not expect someone to read every post- I don't see it as a choice between having good/evil characters versus having complex characters. 

Shakespeare's works was filled with characters that proved that true. Life is filled with examples of good/evil people who are complex in their behavior/motives. 

That complexity does not make it difficult to draw a line on which side of the good/evil line they sit.

Granted- it may take to the end of their story/life to make that judgement, but since pov characters are so intimate to the readers.. I think matters are pretty clear in this case.



> I'll even make it really simple.  Tell me what alignment they'd each be in AD&D terms.




And that would make it "really simple" how? 

I don't live my life by the AD&D alignment philosophy. 

SD


----------



## Dr. NRG (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice & Fire&quo*



			
				Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Good for the former. Evil for the latter.
> *



___________________


So killing the psychopathic Aerys Targaeryen and NOT taking the throne afterwards was the act of an evil man?  

Making a deal with what's arguably a demon to kill your enemies is the act of a good person?  Slitting the throat of an unsuspecting guardsman is the act of a good person?



> Evil- and I have to wonder about anyone who thinks otherwise. Just because one can see into his sick demented head, does not make the creep sympathetic.
> 
> 
> > Evil and unsympathetic are two radically different traits.  Ever read the Elric of Melnibone series?
> ...


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice & Fire*



			
				Dr. NRG said:
			
		

> *  If you believe that there is, somewhere out there, one correct moral standard against which everything else can be judged, you may naturally disagree.*




Most of the planet believes this to be the case.  I happen to believe most people who claim to be relativists actually are not.  Otherwise you would have a lot more murder, a lot more rape, a lot more crime in general.  Because if those things are not immoral on an absolutist level, then (other than the threat of being caught) what would stop you from engaging in those acts?


----------



## Dr. NRG (Jan 28, 2003)

I agree with you to an extent, Mistwell. 

On the other hand, societies with looser laws and law enforcement often tend to have more behavior that many would term immoral.  It's very, very difficult to analyze people's motives accurately, and I would contend that the "not wanting to get caught" aspect of people's motivation is a large factor in determining their behavior.  

One example is the prevalence of theft via file sharing.  It's arguably no more morally right than shoplifting CDs from a store, but a whole lot more people engage in it.  Why?

I don't want to hijack the thread, and really was responding pretty directly to SD, but I do find this topic of interest as well. 

To bring it back around to GRRM, Stannis thinks SPOILERS...



that he's doing the "right" thing by sacrificing a child to what he believes is a deity.  Can he be judged external to the context of his actions, or is that judgment relative to his situation?  Is the action he takes (or more precisely authorizes) universally wrong?  Is it universally evil?  I believe King Stannis (both of this thread, and of the book) would argue not.  Then again, Stannis (of the book) may not be quite as lawful as he appears to be.  He did support the usurper Robert Baratheon over the legally correct heir - Viserys Targaryen...

NRG


----------



## King_Stannis (Jan 28, 2003)

Dr. NRG said:
			
		

> *
> 
> To bring it back around to GRRM, Stannis thinks SPOILERS...
> 
> ...




I think you have to judge what Stannis contemplates with Edric Storm based on the situation. Here is a guy being told by someone who has not really been wrong in any of her visions that he must assume the throne of Westeros to battle the Other. This boys blood will make him strong enough to do that. Yet despite this, he tries to come up with a compromise (the leeches) that will satisfy R'hollar's overall plan and yet spare the boy. To me, that's the mark of a just man, if not a good man. He's trying to do the most good in the big picture while not sacraficing his honor - and the boy.

Great point about going against Aerys Targaryen. In fact, I was reading that passage last night in book 3. Stannis was talking of loyalty after Axell Florent suggested raiding one of the former lords who was loyal to Stannis and then bent knee to Joff after the attack on King's landing. Davos brought up that this lord really had no choice, he either had to bend knee or die. When Stannis balked at that, Davos threw the fact that he (Stannis) had disobeyed his vows to the Targaryans. Though Axell Florent screamed that Davos was a traitor for even mentioning that fact, Stannis seemed to appreciate the similarity. I think he said that that was the toughest choice he ever had to make - between blood and vows. 

I think he chose blood because it was, in his opinion, the just way. Aerys was a madman who had to go for the good of the many.


----------



## Olive (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice &*



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Most of the planet believes this to be the case.  I happen to believe most people who claim to be relativists actually are not.  Otherwise you would have a lot more murder, a lot more rape, a lot more crime in general.  Because if those things are not immoral on an absolutist level, then (other than the threat of being caught) what would stop you from engaging in those acts? *




because you regard them as personally immoral?


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Jan 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice & Fire*



			
				Dr. NRG said:
			
		

> *
> So killing the psychopathic Aerys Targaeryen and NOT taking the throne afterwards was the act of an evil man?
> *




Lets see if the forum can handle this attempt of a reply...

1) A lack of personal ambition is not relevant to the evil nature of a person.

2) As I have said, Good/Evil people are complex- not every individual action betrays who they are philoshically. One act could, but it always needs to be taken into the context of the situation. 

I will say that any "lines I draw" at the moment are done with a slight hesitation to wait until the final book is read, but I hold no such reservation when it comes to Jamie.



> Evil and unsympathetic are two radically different traits.




They're are different, but not radically different. I hold no sympathy for evil people- they deserve whatever suffering their behavior has brought upon them. Nor do I understand those that do hold sympathy for evil people. 

Note- that is not an invitiation for a discussion of why people might give such sympathy. This is not the proper place for such a discussion.



> ...and that is exactly why Shakespeare is considered a pre-imminent literary genius, and the vast bulk of writers that portray simplistic one-trick-pony characters, in terms of moral behavior, are not.




Err.. and? My point was that one did not have to decide between labelling someone as Good/Evil versus labelling them as complex. I apologize for this matter becoming so complicated.



> Perhaps if you believe in moral absolutism, that's true.




I do believe in moral absolutism. 



> By providing us a previously-outlined and presumably shared moral context into which to place the characters; by not asking you to define good and evil, law and chaos; by allowing us to use shortcuts in the conversation rather than reinventing the field of ethics from the ground up.




We can look at the general forum to see the huge disagreements on the nature of d&d alignments.  Even trying to make such a label could started a dreaded alignment debate. 

However, you do make a good point. But...



> I don't believe anyone was talking about your life, my life, or the life of any real person. We were talking about placing fictional characters into a simplified moral matrix. I have no interest in how you live your life, but I am interested in the books, their characters, and issues of moral ambiguity.




.. my views on morality don't easily fit into the context of the d&d alignments. I also think something can be loss in such a forced translation. I am better able to serve a discussion on the book using my own moral standards.

For example- I don't completely agree with King Stannis's interpretation of the character Stannis, but I enjoy/respect his thoughts on the matter. While he may be able to shoehorn his views into the d&d model, I think it would not serve his opinion. (Though, it is ironic, the d&d context does fit my view of that character.)

Have a good evening
SD


----------



## jdavis (Jan 29, 2003)

> Shakespeare's works was filled with characters that proved that true. Life is filled with examples of good/evil people who are complex in their behavior/motives.




AH HA, so in this is Martin closer to Shakespeare than to the other thousands of fantasy writers past and present?   EDIT   . The point is that Martin's characters have a depth that most Fantasy Book Characters do not. Just how deep was Aragorn or Gandalf, was there any question that Frodo was going to be the hero? Was there any question that Sauron was evil? How many fantasy books out there have characters that are as hard to put a label on as Stannis or Jamie, I mean we really don't know if they will turn out to be hero's or villians by the end of the book, for that matter Tryion the dwarf is about the most evil, self centered Hero I have ever read about, but he definatly is trying to be on the good side. Very few of the characters in this book would ever be considered role models. Most fantasy books have characters that you can tell from page one who will be the good guys and the bad guys.   EDIT  , it's comparing this book to other fantasy books and comparing the depth of these characters to the depth of other characters from other fantasy books. It's all about people not thinking there are heroes in this book because they are not used to seeing these types of heroes in most fantasy books.  EDIT   If these characters were in the real world 99% of them would be in prison for murder.

EDITED:removed my big mouth from post, sorry I'm a ass.


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Jan 29, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *
> The point is that Martin's characters have a depth that most FANTASY BOOK CHARACTERS do not.  *




Yes, that is a point you seem to be obsessed in pounding into the ground. 

I don't know why- I have yet to agree/disagree with it.

I kept saying (before I just gave up talking to you)- A character can be good/evil and complex.

You keep saying- other fantasy books aren't like that. 

Congratulations. We both won by ignoring what the other person was trying to say.  

I am going back to giving up - you can keep AH HA'ng if you please.

SD


----------



## jdavis (Jan 29, 2003)

Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yes, that is a point you seem to be obsessed in pounding into the ground.
> 
> ...




my apologies for bringing anger into the thread, it wasn't my intention, it just seems that it was getting out of hand.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice &*



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> *I happen to believe most people who claim to be relativists actually are not.  Otherwise you would have a lot more murder, a lot more rape, a lot more crime in general.  Because if those things are not immoral on an absolutist level, then (other than the threat of being caught) what would stop you from engaging in those acts? *




!?!  There is a reply to this, but it's a political one so I'm going to leave it aside.  I'll just say that this statement confounds me and that there are other reasons for "behaving" other than wanting to conform to the absolute morality or fear of getting caught.


----------



## jdavis (Jan 29, 2003)

> A character can be good/evil and complex.




Yes they can but they can also be neither good nor evil and be real complex, or they can be so complex you can't tell. Just because a character is good, does that make him a hero? I would apologise again for getting uppity with the capitalization bit but since you arn't paying attention to me.......... I felt you were saying that they had to be good or evil regardless of how complex they were, and I also felt you were. I brought up the Shakespeare thing because it's pretty rare that anybody compares a sci if/fantasy novel to Shakespeare. Most of the fantasy books I read were pretty cut and dry on who was good and who was bad, even if the characters were complex, most were not all that complex. These characters are hard to catagorize and that is rare in the genre.


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Jan 29, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Yes they can but they can also be neither good nor evil and be real complex, or they can be so complex you can't tell.




Agreed and agreed.



> I felt you were saying that they had to be good or evil regardless of how complex they were, and I also felt you were.




I apologize for not being clear on the matter. Your argument was apparently suggesting they could not be both- I was responding to that. I did not mean to imply anything other then what I said.



> These characters are hard to catagorize and that is rare in the genre.




I would say some are hard to catagorize at this point in the story, but I think most are quiet easy. 

But, at least we found some common ground. 

King Stannis- I apologize for destroying your thread. 

SD


----------



## jdavis (Jan 29, 2003)

I was afraid of this thread going the way of the alignment threads in general, I overeacted, I wasn't trying to single you out, actually you were not the problem I was looking at at all. 

Several of these characters are in so much flux as the story goes it's hard to keep up with if you are supposed to be liking them or hating them. Some are cut and dried (Jon Snow) and some are questionable (The Hound/Arya) and some are just way out in left field (Tyrion). I am sure the longer the book goes the clearer they will get, and I figure some of these characters will move towards the center of the story (Stannis, Davos, Jon Snow are all at the same place now; Tyrion, Arya and Dany are all going to be on the same continent, you know they will end up running across one another). I am very interested to see if the others are the main evil or just a side story (I got a feeling they will be big in later books, and the war in the south will be the sideshow, but that's just a feeling). The only other big villians I see right now are Cersei (no doubt if she is good or evil) and the Frey family (who I'm sure will start dropping like flies). I'm sure some of the lesser bad guys will move into full evil villian mode (well Jamie looks to be movieng the other way but there are several others).Too many times have I pegged a character as evil in these books and turned out that they may not be (half the people in Kings Landing).


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Jan 29, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *I am very interested to see if the others are the main evil or just a side story (I got a feeling they will be big in later books, and the war in the south will be the sideshow, but that's just a feeling). *




I think your feeling is correct. It will be interesting to see how they are going to be able to repel the Others after they have all but wiped each other out.

My theory is the book is centering around magic coming back into the world: The Others, Dany & the dragons, Bran and other events.

GRRM has crafted an excellent set of books that have a lot of threads going through it. So many that I am not sure if a thread is dangling because I have not made a connection or because he just has not gotten back to it.

For example: Arya stumbles upon a conversation while climbing around one of the towers- the nature of the conversation was pretty ominous, but those speaking were never identified. 

What I think it comes down to is I need to take notes next time I read the book. 

I would agree Tyrion is probably the hardest character to peg. Even though he is a pov character- trying to understand his motivation is difficult at best. 

It would not suprise me if he met up with Dany. That would work out well since she is not very tactful. heh. She could use the political edge. 

Sansa is my other choice for a hard to peg character. Not because of what has happened to her, but how she ends up in the end is a mystery. I could see her being a major villian/hero/side note. She has the Stark strength, but has finally stopped hiding behind the shadows of her little girl dreams to find it.

Back onto heroes- iirc, one of Dany's visions is about three people riding the dragons. I suspect these will be the three big heroes of the series.

Who will the riders be? Dany is an obvious choice. Jon is another good bet (I also have a side theory that he and Dany are related and will end up married- GRRM hammers the knowledge that the Targaeryen's often married blood.) The third rider is up in the air, but considering his physical limitations- Tyrion may be a good choice.

SD


----------



## King_Stannis (Jan 29, 2003)

Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> King Stannis- I apologize for destroying your thread.
> 
> SD *




BAh! No need for apologies - I was enjoying the back and forth between you guys. It livens this place up a bit


----------



## King_Stannis (Jan 29, 2003)

Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> GRRM has crafted an excellent set of books that have a lot of threads going through it. So many that I am not sure if a thread is dangling because I have not made a connection or because he just has not gotten back to it.
> ...




I think things become alot clearer when you read the books again. And, surprisingly, I am enjoying them even better the second time around because now I can hunt for detail that would have been glazed over the first time around.

By the way, if the scene you mention with Arya took place in book one when she was down in the Dragon-Skull room, the two people were (I believe): Varys and Master Illyrio (Dany and Viserys' patron).


----------



## jdavis (Jan 29, 2003)

Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think your feeling is correct. It will be interesting to see how they are going to be able to repel the Others after they have all but wiped each other out.
> 
> ...




THe book started out with them then promply ignored the heck out of them for a good while, it never really got back around to them, I figure it's comming.

Yea I figure Jon Snow's real last name might be the same as Dany's too but I have figured I knew things before and been way wrong. Arya abandoning the Hound sort of took me by suprise as did a couple of other plot twist.

I used to keep note cards when I read the Wheel of Time books (don't need them anymore) I should start using them for these books.


----------



## King_Stannis (Jan 29, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> I used to keep note cards when I read the Wheel of Time books (don't need them anymore) I should start using them for these books. *




I have taken to making flowcharts of the people and their houses based on the appendix information in the back of the books. It does help you see some things that you wouldn't normally notice. 

Of course I refuse to do this for the Freys.  Well, then again, if I have the time......


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Jan 29, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *THe book started out with them then promply ignored the heck out of them for a good while, it never really got back around to them, I figure it's comming. *




In an odd way their presence has been felt- the people that lived beyond the Black Wall came together and decided to flee south. I am pretty sure that fear of the Others was their motivation.

Of course, that just lead to the further weakening of both sides. Silly human nature.

SD


----------



## jdavis (Jan 29, 2003)

Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> In an odd way their presence has been felt- the people that lived beyond the Black Wall came together and decided to flee south. I am pretty sure that fear of the Others was their motivation.
> 
> ...




Be nice to get some answers on what they actually are, or what they want, and if they have some connection to the tree groves dedicated to the old gods. They keep poping up then disappearing again without any answers. Yea I figure in the end that the war in the south was the worst posible thing that could of happened, not to mention the fact that the wall is so undermanned, or that the armies of the north basically got crushed but hey that's good drama. You got to wonder what all is supposed to happen in the next book (isn't supposed to cover 5 years?), guess those Dragons will be putting on some weight by then too.


----------



## Tiefling (Feb 1, 2003)

King_Stannis said:
			
		

> *By the way, if the scene you mention with Arya took place in book one when she was down in the Dragon-Skull room, the two people were (I believe): Varys and Master Illyrio (Dany and Viserys' patron). *




GRRM has confirmed that this is the case.



			
				Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *I hold no sympathy for evil people- they deserve whatever suffering their behavior has brought upon them. Nor do I understand those that do hold sympathy for evil people.
> 
> Note- that is not an invitiation for a discussion of why people might give such sympathy. This is not the proper place for such a discussion.*




You probably shouldn't have brought it up, then. Stating your opinion on an issue and then telling people that they're not allowed to respond is pretty low.

Personally, I think that letting people suffer from past transgressions does nothing to help the world and could quite possibly make things worse. I believe it is preferable to help people overcome whatever mental conditions or abuse or cultural beliefs they have that would cause them to do such things.



			
				Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *[In response to a query about Jaime's morality] Evil- and I have to wonder about anyone who thinks otherwise.*




Now, I'm not saying that this is an invalid opinion. I've heard other people say same thing. But they never seem to give their reasons, and therefore I can never understand why they think that way. So could you explain?



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> *Most of the planet believes this to be the case. I happen to believe most people who claim to be relativists actually are not. Otherwise you would have a lot more murder, a lot more rape, a lot more crime in general. Because if those things are not immoral on an absolutist level, then (other than the threat of being caught) what would stop you from engaging in those acts?*




I think you misunderstand what moral relativism is. It's not some personal belief that codes of behavior are irrelevant, it's a belief that morality varies by culture. In other words, if you grow up in a culture that (for example) emphasizes the right of the strong to abuse the weak (such as Dothraki culture, if we're talking about the books) then you're not evil for acting along those moral lines. They've been hammered into your head since childhood, and you never think twice about their validity.

Anyway...

I'm really waiting for Sansa right now. In the first book she was pretty boring, the next two books make her more interesting and the end of the third book sets her up to possibly become one of the coolest characters later on. People who've attended GRRM's readings from A Feast for Crows reported on the ASOIAF board that her first chapter ends with her telling Petyr Baelish something (forget what) because "that's what he would like to hear." Perhaps she'll learn from Baelish and become a real player. Although it's unlikely, I think it would be cool if she turns in to a much more interesting and complex Cersei.

Some people complain about Jon Snow because his major disadvantage and internal conflict, his bastard blood, has been marginalized by joining the Night's Watch. This changes a bit at the end of the third book, and perhaps it will re-emerge in the next ones. Here's hoping.

I'm not sure Tywin Lannister is such an evil character, really. There's no denying that he's ruthless (I don't know who Ruth is, but he doesn't have her). I can never forgive him for his treatment of Tyrion, but I understand his reasons, in the same way that I can never forgive Catelyn for her treatment of Jon Snow, but I understand her reasons. After all, his wife, who he is said to have loved very much, died when Tyrion was born. He recognized what Cersei was, what Joffrey became, and why Tommen had to be seperated from her. His major "evil" acts? Well, he was partially responsible with what happened to Alayaya, I can't argue with that. And, of course, he helped arrange the Red Wedding. I dunno if that's more evil than having thousands of soldiers and peasants die as the result of a drawn out war. And he did make known to Tyrion his displeasure at *ahem* the treatment of the dead.

Jaime. Well, I'm not sure that he's evil either. Even if you faulted him for killing Aerys initially (which I didn't), can you still hold it against him after what he tells Brienne in the third book? His evil thing is having his men kill Ned's in the first book. Not a nice thing to do, but Ned did claim that he had ordered Catelyn to kidnap Jaime's brother. I wouldn't be so happy about that either. Oh, and throwing Bran out the window (happened so early I've almost forgotten). I can't argue with that, though clearly he believed that Bran was spying on them. Still, I think Jaime's realizing what he has become, and isn't happy about it. The only other bad thing I can think of him doing (constantly mocking most everyone, especially Brienne) doesn't qualify him as evil, even if I did classify people as good or evil.

Catelyn always bothered me, not so much for her treatment of Jon, as explained above, but because she was always so whiny, going on about how she had failed in her duty, and Oh! her poor Ned! and Robb is so young to bear the burden of a crown and so on.

But who's the most interesting and complex character is? Gregor Clegane.


----------



## Pants (Feb 1, 2003)

Tiefling said:
			
		

> *
> But who's the most interesting and complex character is? Gregor Clegane.   *



Gregor SMASH! Gregor KILL! GRRRRRRRR....


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Feb 1, 2003)

Tiefling said:
			
		

> *
> You probably shouldn't have brought it up, then. Stating your opinion on an issue and then telling people that they're not allowed to respond is pretty low.
> *




I was not telling people they were not allowed to respond- I just believe it will further hijack this thread away from the books into a philosophical discussion. I like such discussions, but this is not the thread for it. People can respond all they wish, but as with yours.. though I am tempted.. I will let it go. 



> Now, I'm not saying that this is an invalid opinion. I've heard other people say same thing. But they never seem to give their reasons, and therefore I can never understand why they think that way. So could you explain?




He attempts to kill a seven year old because the child happened upon him having sex with his sister. He did so with any hesitation- as if he was swatting away a fly, and even made a sarcastic comment at the time. People who do that are evil. You are welcome to consider it mentally ill or being from a different culture, but I call it evil.  (lost to temptation on that one)



> I can't argue with that, though clearly he believed that Bran was spying on them.




I don't think that is clear at all, but even if that is the case- there is no justification for attempting to murder a child.



> But who's the most interesting and complex character is? Gregor Clegane.




I suppose a self-loathing over flowing bottle of rage is a bit complex. heh.

SD


----------



## Tiefling (Feb 1, 2003)

I guess we just disagree on how much evil you have to do to be evil.


----------



## jdavis (Feb 2, 2003)

> You probably shouldn't have brought it up, then. Stating your opinion on an issue and then telling people that they're not allowed to respond is pretty low.




I've already blown up and had to edit a post on this one, this is a thread about a book not about real world morals, almost everybody in this book is a murderer by modern standards, so lets get over that. That is a off topic discussion for the general forum. I like these books and want to talk about these books here. 



> He attempts to kill a seven year old because the child happened upon him having sex with his sister. He did so with any hesitation- as if he was swatting away a fly, and even made a sarcastic comment at the time. People who do that are evil. You are welcome to consider it mentally ill or being from a different culture, but I call it evil.  (lost to temptation on that one)




I think the big thing here with Jamie is that he is starting to realize that he is a vile evil person (who sleeps with his sister) and is not happy about it. He really doesn't seem to like himself all that well. He is evil in the first two books, but by the end of the third he is swinging away from it, who knows where he will end up (he's on the 12 step program to overcoming incest and attepted child murder). I think that his captivity and maiming, not to metion being stuck with Brienne have had a affect on him. Now trying to murder a child is evil regardless of the circumstances, of course he is so much of a pawn for his sister that you have to question if he is even in control of himself in the earlier books. Seeing the truth about his relationships with his brother and his sister are having a affect on him. 



> Some people complain about Jon Snow because his major disadvantage and internal conflict, his bastard blood, has been marginalized by joining the Night's Watch. This changes a bit at the end of the third book, and perhaps it will re-emerge in the next ones. Here's hoping.




Jon Snow is my favorite character in the book, he is the good guy, I never really saw him get angry about being a bastard, he just sort of dealt with it, he never whined about not being a full member of the family ( I don't care for Catelyn where this issue stands either) he just made his own way in the world, heck he has had the chance to go back and inherit but he chose to stay on the wall. He does what is right regardless of the cost to himself. I figure he will end up a larger part of the next couple of books. From the start I had him pegged as who the story was really about, I figure he will move to the center as time goes by.

I am quite fond of Tyrion too. He does some pretty nasty and evil things but it would be hard to call him evil, there always seems to be justification for what he does no matter how bad or evil it is. He has been in the center of the story for awhile now and I figure he will stay important.


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Feb 2, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *
> Seeing the truth about his relationships with his brother and his sister are having a affect on him.  *




I still need to reread the third book, but his inner turmoil struck me as more of a case of drowning in self-pity then following a path of inner-redemption. He is not the fighter he used to be- and he knows it. He was rebuked by his sister, iirc, and it is he does love her in his own twisted little way.

SD


----------



## jdavis (Feb 2, 2003)

Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I still need to reread the third book, but his inner turmoil struck me as more of a case of drowning in self-pity then following a path of inner-redemption. He is not the fighter he used to be- and he knows it. He was rebuked by his sister, iirc, and it is he does love her in his own twisted little way.
> 
> SD *




He went out of his way for Brienne a couple of times (way out of his way to help her), not to mention went around his fathers back to save his brother. I agree totally with your assessment of the situation but if you read close you will catch little bits and pieces. He's not on a trail to self redemption yet, just questioning who he is, I figure Brienne will be the key, but that is based on the way these type of books normally go and this book has curved me before. He could just spiral deeper into the self pity bit till he becomes a vindictive shell of a man, either way I figure he will be the one to put the knife in Cersei.


----------



## Oreon Starfall (Feb 3, 2003)

An excellent conversation about an excellent series.  Here's some of my thoughts on things that've been already gone over:

Re: Jaime - I too see him going through a redemptive arc or becoming a shell of what he once was.  

re: Arya - She's my favorite.  I'm very much interested to see where she winds up.  I wondered as I read through book three if Nymeria was the cause of the increased wolf activity in the places they're traveling through...

re: Jon Snow - as everybody has pretty much said he seems to be the most together of the stark children, and is a pretty cut and dried hero.  Made me want to take the black.  Almost.

Now, what do you all think about Syrio as a hero?  He sacrificed himself that Arya would have a chance to escape.  This curiosity of course stems from my belief that the Braavosi are by far the coolest minor characters in the books.  

Just so!


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Feb 3, 2003)

Oreon Starfall said:
			
		

> *Now, what do you all think about Syrio as a hero?  He sacrificed himself that Arya would have a chance to escape.  This curiosity of course stems from my belief that the Braavosi are by far the coolest minor characters in the books.
> *




He was a pretty cool character - another one cut down before his time. 

SD


----------



## RyanL (Feb 3, 2003)

I have a question for you guys.  Last night, I was reading the chapter in which Catelyn interrogates Jaime.  Jaime mentioned that he was "loved by one for a kindness [he] never performed, and reviled by many for [his] finest act."  I know that his "finest act" was the murder of Aerys, but I can't recall what his "kindness" was.  Can you refresh my memory?

-Ryan


----------



## King_Stannis (Feb 3, 2003)

RyanL said:
			
		

> *I have a question for you guys.  Last night, I was reading the chapter in which Catelyn interrogates Jaime.  Jaime mentioned that he was "loved by one for a kindness [he] never performed, and reviled by many for [his] finest act."  I know that his "finest act" was the murder of Aerys, but I can't recall what his "kindness" was.  Can you refresh my memory?
> 
> -Ryan *




I'm not sure offhand. Did it perhaps involve Tyrion and his bride for a fortnight - I think her name was Tysha?


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 3, 2003)

Oreon Starfall said:
			
		

> *re: Arya - She's my favorite.  I'm very much interested to see where she winds up.  I wondered as I read through book three if Nymeria was the cause of the increased wolf activity in the places they're traveling through...*




Arya's my favorite, as well.  Truly the wolf's daughter, and more like her father than many were comfortable with, I think.  All the Starks learn to be strong.  "Winter is Coming."  Indeed.

The Lannisters are all complex, even Cersei.  All of them are fundamentally flawed, but that's what makes them so believable.  The presence of such interesting characters and their histories (such as the childhood abuse of the Cleganes, and it's terrible self-perpetuating cycle) is what makes the series so different from many others.

It is a testament to GRRM that a reprehensible bastard like Jamie can become such an interesting and morally conflicted character (and that revealing more of his past, from his perspective, changes our view of him).  So, too, is it impressive that so many characters are like onions, with layers that you continually peel back to learn more of.  Like the best series, the books' greatest flaw is that they END.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 3, 2003)

Tiefling said:
			
		

> *
> I think you misunderstand what moral relativism is. It's not some personal belief that codes of behavior are irrelevant, it's a belief that morality varies by culture. In other words, if you grow up in a culture that (for example) emphasizes the right of the strong to abuse the weak (such as Dothraki culture, if we're talking about the books) then you're not evil for acting along those moral lines. They've been hammered into your head since childhood, and you never think twice about their validity.
> *




Just a quick response on this, since it was addressed to me.

I believe you are incorrect.  You are describing cultural relativism, not moral relativism.  Moral relativism is on an individual level, not a cultural one.  If one views the world through a moral relativists eyes, nobody can be "blamed" for doing evil, because the reason all people do evil is because of their individual perspective of the universe - that in their eyes they were not doing evil because of their family upbringing, the groups they run with, their mental disability, their socio-economic status, etc...In that sense it becomes a personal belief that codes of behavior are not relevant, because they vary for every individual (and not just every culture).

In this sense you could excuse Jamie for casually killing a kid for seeing him sleep with his sister, because he was brought up that way, or because he has a mental disease, or because his society accepts or encourages that behaviour, or because wealthy people like him are accepted as having personality quirks, or whatever excuse you want to come up with.  I just don't think when it comes down to it that people will excuse that kind of behavior if it becomes personal.  If it was YOUR kid Jamie killed, you would not seek an excuse for his behavior, but just judge it evil and end the analysis there.


----------



## danbala (Feb 3, 2003)

Tiefling said:
			
		

> *I guess we just disagree on how much evil you have to do to be evil.  *




Tiefling, Sagan, I don't think the question is whether Jaime IS evil -- his character is clearly changing. Most cultures and religions believe in the concept of forgiveness and redemption. How you get to this place varies depending on the outlook of the religion -- however, the starting place is always a realistic appraisal of the wrongdoing and a desire to change. Both of which Jaime is now displaying. Therefore, the question to me is not whether his IS evil -- he clearly committed evil acts -- the question is whether he has repented.


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Feb 3, 2003)

danbala said:
			
		

> *
> however, the starting place is always a realistic appraisal of the wrongdoing and a desire to change. Both of which Jaime is now displaying.  *




Forgive me for repeating myself- but I don't see him displaying that. I see self-pity and self-loathing. Those are not admirable traits of someone seeking redeem themselves.

Will we see attempts at redemption? Maybe, but I doubt it. 

SD


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Feb 3, 2003)

RyanL said:
			
		

> *Can you refresh my memory?
> *




My memory is not very good, heh. Do you have a page number? I can try to remember to look it up tonight. My gut tells me that Stannis is correct- nobody loves Jamie but his brother. Perhaps his father did... perhaps...

SD


----------



## jdavis (Feb 3, 2003)

King_Stannis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm not sure offhand. Did it perhaps involve Tyrion and his bride for a fortnight - I think her name was Tysha? *




I think so, but I am not sure, I know there was a lie involved in this and at the end of book three Jamie admitted to the lie to Tyrion, but i do not remember if this was what Jamie was talking about in jail.


----------



## RyanL (Feb 3, 2003)

I don't know the page number, but it's somewhere in the last third of ACoK.  Jaime is the dungeons at Riverrun, and Catelyn goes down to speak with him.

It seems like the answer should be obvious, so it bothers me that I can't figure it out.  He might have been referring to Tyrion.  Surely Tyrion loves him, but I can't imagine that even Jaime would consider the episode with Tyrion's "bride" to have been a kindness, considering how it ended.

-Ryan


----------



## jdavis (Feb 3, 2003)

Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Forgive me for repeating myself- but I don't see him displaying that. I see self-pity and self-loathing. Those are not admirable traits of someone seeking redeem themselves.
> 
> ...




It was some pretty vague things that could of beep interpreted many different ways. THe things that really stood out to me was the way he interacted with Brienne toward the end of the book, that relationship will probably be the key to how Jamie turns out. Obviously he is wrapped in self pitty and loathing by the end of book three, he's a swordsman with no sword hand anymore, and you can say what he did to help Tyrion was just brotherly love or even brotherly guilt but he went well out of his way for Brienne on a couple of occasions when he should of just let it go, she was a enemy.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 3, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *You are describing cultural relativism, not moral relativism.*



Its fair to say that ideas about cultural relativism are an extension of the more general framework suggested by moral relativism



> *If one views the world through a moral relativists eyes, nobody can be "blamed" for doing evil, because the reason all people do evil is because of their individual perspective of the universe - that in their eyes they were not doing evil because of their family upbringing, the groups they run with, their mental disability, their socio-economic status, etc...*



Let me ask you this: Are you absolutely certain that issues like upbringing, socio-economic status, mental health, etc... have no place in the moral calculus? And how do you know this? {which is the crux of my problem with any absolute moral stance}



> *If it was YOUR kid Jamie killed, you would not seek an excuse for his behavior, but just judge it evil and end the analysis there. *



And my reply is... Lets say Sol of Tarsus killed your brother prior to his conversion on the road to Damascus. Would you label him evil? Would you be correct?

People have already mentioned it's not really a question of whether or not specific acts are evil, rather at what point it becomes useful to refer to the whole of a character {or person} as evil. At what point do you dismiss possible redemption?

And now back to the actual topic...
I don't think GRRM has created some moral grey-zone full of semi-and-antiheroes. To my mind all he did was create characters with motivations that were internal to the story. Martin took to time to show why his characters acted {other than the color of their respective hats and robes}, something I've found sorely lacking in fantasy. I may not like everything his heroes do, but I can see why, and that's plenty for me...


----------



## jdavis (Feb 3, 2003)

> I don't think GRRM has created some moral grey-zone full of semi-and-antiheroes. To my mind all he did was create characters with motivations that were internal to the story. Martin took to time to show why his characters acted {other than the color of their respective hats and robes}, something I've found sorely lacking in fantasy. I may not like everything his heroes do, but I can see why, and that's plenty for me...




They are deeper characters than are normally presented, I think that's why there has been problems with people not thinking there were any heroes in the book, they didn't have the white hats on. WHere the gray zone comes in is the fact that even three books in it is hard to tell where some of these characters stand, he still hasn't given enough information on some of them and many of them are changing. Fantasy books have a tendancy to be shallow in character development, there are several notable exceptions but there are just so many of them out there where the characters are cut and dried and laid out in front of you.


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Feb 3, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *
> THe things that really stood out to me was the way he interacted with Brienne toward the end of the book, that relationship will probably be the key to how Jamie turns out.  *




You may be right- I am incapable of argueing against that at the moment. I still need to reread the later books.

My thought at the time was he loathed Brienne, but realized two things: 1) He needed her. 2) A Lannister always pays their debts.

SD


----------



## jdavis (Feb 3, 2003)

Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You may be right- I am incapable of argueing against that at the moment. I still need to reread the later books.
> 
> ...




You are right in those two points but he got to the end where it didn't seem like he loathed her all that much anymore, and he did some things that seemed to go beyond "paying a debt". He did feel some kinship with her over her also being labeled a "kingslayer" and that could be the end of it, or it could be a lot more. It was in this that I saw some redemption for Jamie, but it could be just a case of sympathy which he will get over. I still think that he and Cersei will blow up as he is now starting to get the picture that he was being used by her, and she isn't near as interested in him now that he isn't as important a player. In this he could get real evil real quick.


----------



## Storminator (Feb 4, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *People have already mentioned it's not really a question of whether or not specific acts are evil, rather at what point it becomes useful to refer to the whole of a character {or person} as evil. At what point do you dismiss possible redemption?
> 
> <SNIPPED lots of stuf...>*




My own feeling here is that when I label someone good or evil, it's a here and now judgement. I don't really care about possible redemption, I care about actual redemption. Jaime, at the end of the third book, hasn't even come close to redeeming himself. He may have started to turn it around (even that's debatable), but he's by no means in the clear.

I would think he hasn't even made it back to that grey area yet.

PS


----------



## jdavis (Feb 4, 2003)

Storminator said:
			
		

> *
> 
> My own feeling here is that when I label someone good or evil, it's a here and now judgement. I don't really care about possible redemption, I care about actual redemption. Jaime, at the end of the third book, hasn't even come close to redeeming himself. He may have started to turn it around (even that's debatable), but he's by no means in the clear.
> 
> ...




I can agree with your assessment but I figure that his story is a long way from over. For whatever the reason he is a very changed character at the end of the third book. There is a path going somewhere here, lets just see where he leads.


----------



## Storminator (Feb 4, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I can agree with your assessment but I figure that his story is a long way from over. For whatever the reason he is a very changed character at the end of the third book. There is a path going somewhere here, lets just see where he leads. *




I think Jaime's change is going to be a major part of the series in the books ahead, but then again, he may die in the first chapter. 

But if you had to render a judgement right now, I think its pretty clear Jaime gets the big thumbs down. Anything else is speculation (which I am wholy willing to indulge in...).

PS


----------



## Tiefling (Feb 4, 2003)

RyanL said:
			
		

> *I have a question for you guys.  Last night, I was reading the chapter in which Catelyn interrogates Jaime.  Jaime mentioned that he was "loved by one for a kindness [he] never performed, and reviled by many for [his] finest act."  I know that his "finest act" was the murder of Aerys, but I can't recall what his "kindness" was.  Can you refresh my memory?
> 
> -Ryan *




I remember wondering about that for a long time. Don't know the answer though.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> *Just a quick response on this, since it was addressed to me.
> 
> I believe you are incorrect.  You are describing cultural relativism, not moral relativism.  Moral relativism is on an individual level, not a cultural one.  If one views the world through a moral relativists eyes, nobody can be "blamed" for doing evil, because the reason all people do evil is because of their individual perspective of the universe - that in their eyes they were not doing evil because of their family upbringing, the groups they run with, their mental disability, their socio-economic status, etc...In that sense it becomes a personal belief that codes of behavior are not relevant, because they vary for every individual (and not just every culture).*




You're partly right, I think. What I described is indeed cultural relativism, but, AFAIK, moral relativism includes cultural relativism. It also includes the other elements you mentioned: socio-economic status, upbringing, mental conditions, etc. But I still don't think it's a statement of the irrelevance of behavior codes (I flatter myself that I am an extremely principled person, and I hope you'll believe me when I say that my opinions on moral relativism/absolutism don't make me forget that and start killing anyone who looks at me the wrong way). Rather a person might consider a particular act to be wrong, but if he subscribes to moral relativism he wouldn't say that the person commiting the act is evil. That doesn't mean that he would not discourage the person from doing it. To put it in an almost-but-not-quite-right analogy, "Love the sinner, hate the sin."

*



			In this sense you could excuse Jamie for casually killing a kid for seeing him sleep with his sister, because he was brought up that way, or because he has a mental disease, or because his society accepts or encourages that behaviour, or because wealthy people like him are accepted as having personality quirks, or whatever excuse you want to come up with.  I just don't think when it comes down to it that people will excuse that kind of behavior if it becomes personal.  If it was YOUR kid Jamie killed, you would not seek an excuse for his behavior, but just judge it evil and end the analysis there.
		
Click to expand...


*
It's possible. I can't reasonably predict my actions in such a stressful situation. I can only hope that I would keep my cool enough to not reach such a conclusion. Besides, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. People say and do a lot of stupid things when they're under great stress. It doesn't mean that what they say is right.

Incidentally, I wouldn't simply "excuse" Jaime for killing a kid. True, I wouldn't judge him evil and call for an execution, but I would want to provide him with mental help in order to rehabilitate him and make him a functioning member of society.

I realize I sound exceedingly idealistic. Well, I am. Sorry.


----------



## Dagger75 (Feb 4, 2003)

*My stab at this - Spoilers, watch out*

I have been reading every thread on these books and plan on re-reading the series soon.

 First I think we are seeing good people turn bad abd bad people turning good.

 Jon Snow- IMHO one of the Heroes of the books.  Sure he breaks the rules now and then but who hasn't.

 Catelyn Stark- I think revenge will consume her and she may go bad. She will have to be stopped by someone.

 Jamie Lannister- An Evil person.  His lot in life has changed since he no longer the greatest swordsman in Westros.  I mean what if a bully, used to getting his way all the time was finally cut down to size like a mere mortal.  Now the tables are turned. Jamie now HAS to rely on others. He is lucky Brienne has agrred to travel with him and work with him. Her influence may may not sway him to the side of good.

 Dany- I am personally having hard time determining if she will be a just anf fair ruler or just another tyrant with some pet dragons.  We know she is ruthless, but she also cares for the people around her.   Only time will tell.

 Arya Stark- Here is the good person turning evil. Even that mystic that The Brotherhood were talking to said as much.
    She is trying to survive in dangerous and ever changing world.  Her mother, brother were killed and her sister is forced to live with the enemy. This is bound to change anybody.  Arya will train to be an assassin. And I don't know who said it but "One person will rise up from the ashes of the war that will unite the land under a single ruler and Arya will kill that person." 

 Stannis- I think he trying to do the right thing, but only he sees himself as king.  The Red Witch has said he should be king and since in is mind he knows he should be king he is willing to do anything he needs to do to become king.

 Tyrion- Is not a nice person, he is only out for himself. He has a personal code of honor which is basically if don't mess with me I won't mess with you.  Thats why he has been so nice to Sansa, she showed him kindness.

 Well thats list of heroes and villians.  Its all my own opinion.  There are so many other character I didn't go over but those are the big ones in this discussion.  I also added some of my own speculation.


----------



## Salthanas (Feb 4, 2003)

Greetings all

  This is slightly off topic but its been awhile since I read any of Martins boks and was hoping that someone on this board could help me with this particular query. Basically I was trying to recall if their was any sort of religous or moral belief system which played a large part in Martins world and guided the Characters. From what impressions I can remember from my last reading everyone seemed to exist in a sort of moral vacuum. Their was no pretence of a higher purpose which guided them, which seemed odd for a medival/fantasy setting, it just all boiled down to a pursuit of power.

yours Salthanas


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 4, 2003)

Salthanas said:
			
		

> *This is slightly off topic but its been awhile since I read any of Martins boks and was hoping that someone on this board could help me with this particular query. Basically I was trying to recall if their was any sort of religous or moral belief system which played a large part in Martins world and guided the Characters. From what impressions I can remember from my last reading everyone seemed to exist in a sort of moral vacuum. Their was no pretence of a higher purpose which guided them, which seemed odd for a medival/fantasy setting, it just all boiled down to a pursuit of power.*




There are better informed people who can (and will) answer this question in depth, but there are quite a few religious systems in place in SoIaF, both in Westeros and elsewhere.  We aren't given huge amounts of detail about them, but they appear quite a bit throughout the series, from the Stark's grove to the Red Priest, for example.  However, there is no centralized church power in the series, and as such, religion does not have the same grip it had over parts of medieval Europe.  That said, in many cases, historical mediveal European leaders often only paid token obeisance to the church, anyhow, so it all adds up.


----------



## King_Stannis (Feb 4, 2003)

*Re: My stab at this - Spoilers, watch out*



			
				Dagger75 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Stannis- I think he trying to do the right thing, but only he sees himself as king.  The Red Witch has said he should be king and since in is mind he knows he should be king he is willing to do anything he needs to do to become king.
> 
> ...





It's not so much that the Red Witch is telling him he has to be king, he IS the King. As he told Davos, "want" has nothing to do with it. She is giving him the added incentive of being AA reborn, and that he has to fight The Other. But to do that, he needs the Iron Throne (or so he thinks).

I think he listens to and uses Melisandre because everyone else in the realm is playing dirty pool, and she is a powerful tool in the toolbox. 


Interesting thoughts on Tyrion. Everyone loves him, including me, but you make a simple and effective case against him. It's so easy to see him as the underdog dwarf trying to do good, and look past all his faults.


----------



## RyanL (Feb 4, 2003)

Salthanas said:
			
		

> *Greetings all
> 
> This is slightly off topic but its been awhile since I read any of Martins boks and was hoping that someone on this board could help me with this particular query. Basically I was trying to recall if their was any sort of religous or moral belief system which played a large part in Martins world and guided the Characters. From what impressions I can remember from my last reading everyone seemed to exist in a sort of moral vacuum. Their was no pretence of a higher purpose which guided them, which seemed odd for a medival/fantasy setting, it just all boiled down to a pursuit of power.
> 
> yours Salthanas *




This is actually a great question, and something that I have thought about myself.  Religion plays a large role in the books, especially when you consider that magic and religion seem to be intertwined in Martin's world.  However, if these religions lay down a moral code, it certainly hasn't shown a great deal in the text.  The only moral dogma I can remember from the books are that the gods hate kinslayers, and people who would harm those they they have invited into their home (I'm looking at you, Walder).  For the most part, it seems that the gods are just symbols that you pray to when you want something.  This seems particularly true of the Seven, though perhaps I am jaded by my dislike of most the characters who worship the Seven.
Most interesting is the Lord of Light.  It seems that those who worship him can pretty much justify anything by saying "shadow is product of the light."

-Ryan


----------



## Tiefling (Feb 4, 2003)

Well the Faith, at least, has a centralized authority based in King's Landing as the High Septon. He seems to have some degree of power, though the lesser septons might not. We don't really know because the only towns other than KL that we've seen up close worship the Old Gods and the Drowned God.

I would argue that the presence of these three religions is what keeps the Faith from becoming as powerful as the Church in medieval Western Europe. The Church was the only game in town as far as religion goes, and therefore was able to grab more power. Perhaps if the North, the South and the Iron Islands were seperate states then each religion might become more powerful, but so long as they have to coexist in the same state that would seem unlikely.


----------



## Salthanas (Feb 4, 2003)

RyanL said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This is actually a great question, and something that I have thought about myself.  Religion plays a large role in the books, especially when you consider that magic and religion seem to be intertwined in Martin's world.  However, if these religions lay down a moral code, it certainly hasn't shown a great deal in the text.  The only moral dogma I can remember from the books are that the gods hate kinslayers, and people who would harm those they they have invited into their home (I'm looking at you, Walder).  For the most part, it seems that the gods are just symbols that you pray to when you want something.  This seems particularly true of the Seven, though perhaps I am jaded by my dislike of most the characters who worship the Seven.
> Most interesting is the Lord of Light.  It seems that those who worship him can pretty much justify anything by saying "shadow is product of the light."
> ...




When you consider that people in medival times were extremely religious on the whole and that religion was not only used to control and intimidate the masses but also to make legitimate the ruling classes right to rule to a certain extent it did strike me as odd that little moral dogma exists at all in Martins world. The church was after all an extremely powerful political animal in those times largely because of this, strong moral dogma was needed to prevent anarchy. In a world as violent as Martins one would think that there would be some mechanism at least which performed the functions of the above even if it was not neccessarily religious. However as its been a long time since I read the books maybe there is and I've forgotten it.



yours Salthanas


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 4, 2003)

I wrote, or found this (I can no longer recall) about the Drowned God, worshipped by most people on the Iron Islands, but few if any off the islands.

The Drowned God 

The Drowned God is the principal god worshipped on the Iron Islands.  The Drowned God brought flame from the sea, and sailed the world with fire and sword.  When an Ironman drowns, it's said that the Drowned God needed a strong oarsman, and the refrain "What's dead may never die" is used.  The Drowned God made the Ironborn to reave and rape, to carve out kingdoms and to make their names known in fire and blood and song.  It is said, "the Drowned God makes men, but it's men who make crowns".  

Priests of the Drowned God wear seawater robes, mottled green and grey and blue.  They wear their hair and bears long and braid ropes of dried seaweed through them.  One of the Ironborn might become a priest of the Drowned God after an experience such as nearly drowning.  

Priests carry a waterskin filled with seawater.  The process of a blessing is that the priest has a person kneel. Using his skin of seawater, he pours a stream of it upon the person's head. As he does this he intones, "Let <person> your servant be born again from the sea, as you were. Bless him with salt, bless him with stone, bless him with steel." Then the kneeling person responds, "What is dead may never die." Finally, the priest closes with, "What is dead may never die, but rises again, harder and stronger".  Priests of the Drowned God bless new ships, speaking invocations and pouring seawater over prows.

Priests of the Drowned God often perform the ritual executions involving the drowning of victims in seawater if (for example) someone insults the god.


----------



## jdavis (Feb 4, 2003)

Tiefling said:
			
		

> *Well the Faith, at least, has a centralized authority based in King's Landing as the High Septon. He seems to have some degree of power, though the lesser septons might not. We don't really know because the only towns other than KL that we've seen up close worship the Old Gods and the Drowned God.
> 
> I would argue that the presence of these three religions is what keeps the Faith from becoming as powerful as the Church in medieval Western Europe. The Church was the only game in town as far as religion goes, and therefore was able to grab more power. Perhaps if the North, the South and the Iron Islands were seperate states then each religion might become more powerful, but so long as they have to coexist in the same state that would seem unlikely. *




The way I remember it was that the High Septon's (I can't remeber the name of the religion he represented, {the 7?}) sect was the "official" religion, the others were the "old religions". The groves in the north were for gods that few people cared about any more, the Drowned god was just on the Iron Islands and it's worship was frouwned apon by the "government", but it was too remote to atempt to squash. The red god (is that the right name?) is a religion from across the sea. I don't remember any other gods off the top of my head but I am sure I missed some. If I remember correctly the church of {the 7?} did activly try to get rid of all the other religions, they were the official religion, the rest were local religions or old religions.


----------



## jdavis (Feb 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by King_Stannis
> 
> It's not so much that the Red Witch is telling him he has to be king, he IS the King. As he told Davos, "want" has nothing to do with it. She is giving him the added incentive of being AA reborn, and that he has to fight The Other. But to do that, he needs the Iron Throne (or so he thinks).




Yea I don't think he actually wants to be king, which makes it odd that he is fighting so hard for it rather than supporting somebody who wants it and would be good at it. He is almost obsessed with his right to be king rather than any want to be king. His beilief in Melisandra's prophesies probably has put it into his mind that only he can be king and protect the kingdom" Sort of funny but by the end of the third book I think he is the only "King" left, there were four at one time.


----------



## RyanL (Feb 4, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yea I don't think he actually wants to be king, which makes it odd that he is fighting so hard for it rather than supporting somebody who wants it and would be good at it. He is almost obsessed with his right to be king rather than any want to be king. His beilief in Melisandra's prophesies probably has put it into his mind that only he can be king and protect the kingdom" Sort of funny but by the end of the third book I think he is the only "King" left, there were four at one time. *




In light of this, do you think Stannis will step down when Dany comes to Westeros?  What will happen if Melisandre realizes her mistake (assuming she is mistaken about Stannis) and throws her support elsewhere?  Assuming the theories about Jon Snow are correct, how would Stannis react to that?

Honestly, I think I could see Stannis renouncing his claim and throwing his support behind someone else.  Melisandre could be a fly in the ointment, though.

-Ryan

Addendum:  As an aside, let me say how much I am enjoying this thread.


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Feb 4, 2003)

RyanL said:
			
		

> *
> 
> In light of this, do you think Stannis will step down when Dany comes to Westeros?   *




All IIRC:

Haha. Didn't he lead part of the army that over threw her family? 

No, he will be up for killing her.



> What will happen if Melisandre realizes her mistake (assuming she is mistaken about Stannis) and throws her support elsewhere?




That is hard to say- we know so little about her and why she thinks Stannis is the one in the first place.



> Assuming the theories about Jon Snow are correct, how would Stannis react to that?




"Off with his head!" It was the last legitimate king's law, after all, that all relatives of that family had to die. 



> Honestly, I think I could see Stannis renouncing his claim and throwing his support behind someone else.




Well, winter is coming over. So, I guess Hell could freeze over. 

SD


----------



## RyanL (Feb 4, 2003)

Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> "Off with his head!" It was the last legitimate king's law, after all, that all relatives of that family had to die.
> 
> SD *




Which brings up another thing that has nagged me about the series.  What the heck happened to the whole Targaryen family?  Surely there were many cousins, etc?  Were they all slaughtered?  We know that Maester Aemon was allowed to live.

-Ryan


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Feb 4, 2003)

RyanL said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Which brings up another thing that has nagged me about the series.  What the heck happened to the whole Targaryen family?   *




I think it is safe to assume most were slaughtered. Dany recounts the final stand of her cousin- as her and her brother escaped. She did not seem to note much hope of running into other family- believing it was just her and her brother.

Also- she notes multiple times how that family tended to marry their family. It might not have been that big of a family in the first place.

SD


----------



## jdavis (Feb 4, 2003)

> Assuming the theories about Jon Snow are correct, how would Stannis react to that?




I don't think Stannis would continue trying to talk Jon Snow into becoming the new Lord in the North, he would try to downplay it and keep Snow oath bound to the wall. As long as he is oath bound to the wall he is no threat to Stannis that way, now whether Melisandre would want him gone, well we really don't know what's up with her (she could just be trying to keep things stirred up, heck we have yet to learn if the god she worships is evil or not.). 



> Also- she notes multiple times how that family tended to marry their family. It might not have been that big of a family in the first place.




I do believe that Rhaegar's marrage to Elia of Dorne was a exception, they primarily wed within the family. The Martells of Dorne would consider Dany family. I thought there way a family history of the Targaryen family someplace, but I don't remember if it was a appendix or I saw it someplace else.


----------



## King_Stannis (Feb 5, 2003)

RyanL said:
			
		

> *
> 
> What will happen if Melisandre realizes her mistake (assuming she is mistaken about Stannis) and throws her support elsewhere?   *




I'm surprised at the number of people who discount out of hand the fact that Stannis is AA reborn. We know so little of the prophecies, R'hollar, The Other, etc. that it's just possible Stannis is 'Da man. My view on this is "hold all bets". Martin can surprise people, can he not.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Feb 6, 2003)

*Re: Re: Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice & Fire"*



			
				Dr. NRG said:
			
		

> *I'd be interested to hear of any other characters I might have missed.
> 
> Brienne of Tarth is pretty paladiny, if that's a word.
> 
> ...



No questions asked in any campaign I have ever run Jamie is NE all the way. Halfway through the first book he tries to murder a 5 year old for seeing him having incestual sex with his sister.

In my opinion you never recover your alignment from a murderous act like that. Never.


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Feb 6, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice & Fire&quo*



			
				DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> In my opinion you never recover your alignment from a murderous act like that. Never. *




I really don't like the feeling of being on the same side of an issue as you DocM. 

On a side issue(since this topic has seen enough hijacks, why not one more)- 

If you could have any part of the aSoIaF world written out into a supplement, then what might it be?

I would like the maesters(spell?) and their organization written out. It seems like such a cool idea for a d&d organization- and I like the symbolism behind the more they learn.. the more chains they must wear.. representing a forced humility that comes with the knowledge.

SD


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Feb 6, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice & Fire*



			
				Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I really don't like the feeling of being on the same side of an issue as you DocM.
> 
> ...




I cannot really answer your question. I am one of the people in a previous thread who bashed this series of books for having no true characters I cared about. I got about 2/3rds of the way through and decided that if every character listed to date had been slowly tortured I would root for the torturer in every case but Jon Snow.

At that point I put the book down and have not picked it up again.


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Feb 6, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice &*



			
				DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> At that point I put the book down and have not picked it up again. *




Aww, I would think you are just saying that to make me feel better, but I can feel the balance of the universe back - we are opposed once more. *chuckle*

SD


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Feb 6, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice &a*



			
				Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Aww, I would think you are just saying that to make me feel better, but I can feel the balance of the universe back - we are opposed once more. *chuckle*
> 
> SD *




Come my friend over to the darkside. All will be fine.


----------



## Dagger75 (Feb 7, 2003)

Thats okay Doc, I picked them back up and started reading them again.


----------



## King_Stannis (Feb 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice & Fire*



			
				Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> If you could have any part of the aSoIaF world written out into a supplement, then what might it be?
> 
> ...




I think I'd just want a full map and detail of all the exotic locales hinted at and mentioned, but not dwelled on. Asshai, Braavos, etc.


----------



## jdavis (Feb 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice & Fire*



			
				Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I really don't like the feeling of being on the same side of an issue as you DocM.
> 
> ...




I have high hopes for the Dragon magazine with the conversion rules for aSoIaF. I'm sure I will be horribly crushed but I am hoping they will touch on some things like the Maesters and the church organizations.


----------



## nikolai (Mar 1, 2003)

RyanL said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Which brings up another thing that has nagged me about the series.  What the heck happened to the whole Targaryen family?  Surely there were many cousins, etc?  Were they all slaughtered?  We know that Maester Aemon was allowed to live.
> 
> *




If I remember correctly the Targaryens married their sisters/brothers. Persumably this would have kept the family tree suitably pruned!

Nikolai.


----------



## nikolai (Mar 1, 2003)

To go back to the original post:



			
				King_Stannis said:
			
		

> *Over the recent past I've heard given, as a weakness in Martin's "A Song of Ice & Fire" series, the fact that there are no true heroes or people to root for. I think it's time to set the record straight, as it were, on that issue. I'm going to give my list of "good guys" from the series, and I'll stack them up against any pollyana "black and white" - "good vs. evil" fantasy story. Please note that there could very well be SPOILERS ahead...
> 
> ...Also, I'd like to hear any rebuttals of the characters I listed. Are there any reasons you can think of that they would not be considered, on the whole, particualry heroic? *




I've read the series-so-far recently (after reading about it on the boards - so thanks to those who've posting on the topic in the past). I think saying that there are no true heroes, though it isn't completely true, does touch on something that makes _A Song of Ice and Fire_ different from a lot of standard fantasy. I've also heard people cite this as a strength of the series and not a weakness, so it does all depend upon taste. 

What I think is good about the series is that it is very far away from the pseudo-Tolkien, quests, ancient evils, uber-warriors etc. that dominates much of the modern fantasy I see in book shops. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this style, but much of the stuff written it is derivative and cliché and I for one am bored with it.

The way _A Song of Ice and Fire_ is more a collection of story arcs linked together around a central theme rather than "Evil is rising in the form of A, hero B must do C in order to save the peoples of D" makes it different. I know people might bring the Others up here, but they haven't really been a major part of the story yet (as opposed to the Wildlings attack) and, at least so far, the story has centred around politiking for the throne of Westeros.

A lot of the conventions of heroic fantasy have also been rejected. Though there are "good" characters there aren't the sort of ultra-talented heroes you'd find in say, Edding or Gemmel (I'm sure people with a greater breath of reading in fantasy than me could fill in more details), or as clear a good/evil divide as is found in much fantasy.

I think that’s what people are trying to express when they say there are “no true heroes”. To compare it to LotR there's no-one as bad-ass or noble as say Aragorn, for example. That's certainly not a criticism of either series - since they're aiming for completely different targets. But I think it does make ASOFAI very different from other LotR-cloned “fantasy epics”. I found that very refreshing.

I don't think it is as good as Tolkien - but it is somewhat reminiscent of Tolkien in the way strands of a story are woven together from different characters POV and some of the complexity of the background. If you haven't read it I'd certainly recommend it.

yours,

Nikolai.


----------



## Endur (Mar 3, 2003)

*AA Reborn*

From the way Martin described the scene with Maester Aemon discussing Stannis' fiery sword, I received the impression that Stannis' sword is NOT the real sword of legend.   And therefore Stannis not the hero reborn of legend.

But that Stannis himself doesn't know that.   

Also, for heroes, many of the dead characters qualify: Ned Stark, Robb Stark, the Old Hand, etc.

Tom



			
				King_Stannis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm surprised at the number of people who discount out of hand the fact that Stannis is AA reborn. We know so little of the prophecies, R'hollar, The Other, etc. that it's just possible Stannis is 'Da man. My view on this is "hold all bets". Martin can surprise people, can he not.  *


----------



## Dr. NRG (Mar 3, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice & Fire&quo*



			
				DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *...
> 
> In my opinion you never recover your alignment from a murderous act like that. Never. *




I'm curious whether this works both ways.  If you do some ultimately good act, like saving a whole city from being destroyed (or pick your own ultimately good act), are you permanently good?  Can you never lose your perma-good status?  Never?

Leaving good and evil aside, I'd argue that Jamie is chaotic, Btw.  The very act you cite is a prime example of an impulsive personality.

NRG


----------



## Dr. NRG (Mar 3, 2003)

Salthanas said:
			
		

> *Greetings all
> 
> This is slightly off topic but its been awhile since I read any of Martins boks and was hoping that someone on this board could help me with this particular query. Basically I was trying to recall if their was any sort of religous or moral belief system which played a large part in Martins world and guided the Characters. From what impressions I can remember from my last reading everyone seemed to exist in a sort of moral vacuum. Their was no pretence of a higher purpose which guided them, which seemed odd for a medival/fantasy setting, it just all boiled down to a pursuit of power.
> 
> yours Salthanas *




There are several moral/religious contexts by which various characters live.  Aeron 'Damphair' Greyjoy certainly has a pretty rigid code.  Ned Stark, too, seems to live by a pretty strict moral/religious code.  As with real medieval times, there are several different takes on the "accepted" religion, with some church officials seeming to take the moral code as dictated very seriously, and other acting like back-stabbing, sleaze-mongering potentates. 

If you mean that there is not any one, shared religious/moral compass by which all the characters act, you're right.  That's part of the beauty and complexity of what Martin has created.  There isn't a simple dichotomy, it's a more diverse world than that.  

NRG


----------



## satori01 (Mar 4, 2003)

burp


----------



## satori01 (Mar 4, 2003)

Stanis' may very well NOT be AA, and Melisandre is yanking his proverbial chain.  Maester Aemon grilled Sam quite exstentsively about wether the supposed "lightbringer" was charred or not.  Of course this might be a refrence to using wildfire to achieve a shimmering sword, but I would not put it past Melisandre to manufactor a false savior for her own nefarious purposes.   Lord Beric might infact be the true AA reborn as 6 resurrection certainly attest to something going on.


----------



## Storminator (Mar 4, 2003)

satori01 said:
			
		

> * Lord Beric might infact be the true AA reborn as 6 resurrection certainly attest to something going on. *




Wouldn't that make AA the reborn and reborn and reborn and reborn and ... ?



PS


----------



## ssampier (Mar 6, 2003)

*No Heroes, but Heroic Actions*

I love this thread! In my opinion, the Song of Fire and Ice trilogy does lack the traditional hero and villian. In traditional fantasy, you have a hero who discovers a hidden talent and must save the world from evil. The villian is undoubtably evil and the hero, although ocassionally stumbling along the way, is undoubtably good. George R.R. Martin has turned that concept on its head. There is no "main character" thus far. You could argue Jon Snow is one, and I would agree to a certain point. Martin has the uncanny ability to switch POV from several characters telling us the story in new and unusual ways.

/// Spoiler Alert ///

Only in this way we became aware that Bran was not dead, merely escaped with cannogmen. In this sense there are no "true" heroes in stories, only characters with "heroic" and "villainous" actions. Futhermore, there is room for further growth and change. Take the Kingslayer, Jamie Lannister, for instance. He attempted murder on a innnocent child, and had no qualms about ruthlessly killing Ned's men in cold blood. In his perpective that is what he had to do.

Before getting his hand getting cut off, Jamie was defined by his swordmanship. Only Aerys thought differently. Aerys Targaryen, the Second, choose him for the Kingsguard not because of his ability to defend him, but to slight his father, Tywin. Since the loss of his right hand, he views the world slightly differently. No longer must be he defined by his superior swordmanship. It appears that he is genuinely concerned about upholding the honor of the kingsguard. This hardly makes up for the "villianous" actions that he had done in the past, but is part of the process of change. Possibly this is part of the epiphany of Jamie toward good. Or not. We have yet to see Jamie's response to Tywin's death. Jamie could have a negative reaction toward Tyrion from killing Tywin. He still has deal with the dwarf's "confession" of killing his son 

In recap, while the book's lack a clear hero and villian, they most certainly make up for it with the diversity of human action, nothing is set in stone.

/// Spoiled END /// 

I just want to add points about religion in the Song of Fire and Ice world. The poster mentioned that the Septon is the "new" faith. That is true. The old faith is only worshipped primarily the in the North and the Southron individuals think that is "backwards". The new faith is of the seven aspects of God. It was founded by the Andals who invaded the Seven Kingdoms, burning the "heart trees" and destroying the Children of the Forest. The Andals had the seven pointed star on their chests and a desire to convert the masses. That said, most people give lip service to the church. The septons apparently have little political power (although the high septon has economic power, since the old one was fairly plump.).


----------

