playgroundpsychotic said:

Sansa is quite interesting too. She starts as stupid goose played by everyone but under Littlefinger guidance she seems to be starting thinking.

Give her a year or two more and she might become real diamond.

Personally I'm ranking her as second most probable winner for the "game of thrones" after Daenny.

I like Jaime for his many qualities, and enjoy any chapter he appears in more surely by his presence, even from when I first read A Game of Thrones when he was the bad guy.

Bronn has always been my favorite. He's definitely underrated, and awfully capable for a sellsword. I think it would be cool to read about his past some more.

Also, he's obviously not at idiot, so I thought it was interesting at (that one part near the end of book 3) where he would've stepped in if the gold was good. I wonder how THAT fight would've gone.

Danaerys Targaryen - Stormborn, Unburnt and Mother of Dragons.

The true heroine of the series - the rigthful ruler of Westerios and (apart from Tyrion) Martin's most fully relaized and beleivable character (sorry Lion boys - Jaime's "redemption" is forced and cliche and rings hollow after the atrocities fo teh first novel).

Stag Lord said:

Redemption? the king deserved to die, his sister was hot like fire and bran shouldn't have been spying. . .. what does he have to be redemed for?

Kingslayer has done no wrong

jack merridew said:

QFT

Kingsguard said:

Honestly, I just don't understand your definition of "honor" is. Earlier, you seemed to say that the Red Viper fought dishonorably. But it's not dishonorable for Bronn to fight the way he did? They seem to be fairly equivalent scenarios; in both cases, come straight at their foes and fighting them on their terms would have gotten them killed. Why is one acceptable and another not?

I'm not so much objecting to the idea of honor (though I have objections to that as well), but rather the idea that knights in general display much of it. In my opinion, the vast majority do not. Look at your list of honorable characters--you have two knights, Barristan and Davos, a third if you consider Brienne a knight, and she certainly lives her life with an eye toward certain knightly ideals. As I said earlier, I'd say there's probably only 2 or 3 examples of truly honorable knights in the series: lo and behold, those are the 2 or 3. But they are, I would argue, the exception.

**** near every other knight we have encountered has been, to various degrees, bad. You have the actively sadistic ones, like Gregor and Amory. The cruel ones, like most of the Kingsguard who beat Sansa. The mean ones, such as all the knights who took such pleasure in mocking and toying with Brienne's emotions. The haughty, entitled knights like Ser Patrek. Even some of the better knights--guys like Jaime, Jorah, and Arys--have some pretty major misdeeds, poor decisions, and character flaws that hold them back from being anything close to a paragon. I'm not saying these men can't be admirable or compelling characters, I find that many of them are. I just don't view them as honorable. But that is not a slam against them. I don't value honor. Honor is what got Eddard killed. Ned was stupid to act the way he did, and it is his ridiculous notion of honor that is largely to blame for that.

In summation, screw honor.

[sidenote: how in god's name do you list Wyman Manderly among the honorable? The man murdered three people--bad people yes, but still--and cooked them into pies, which he then ate along with everyone else at a wedding feast! That's honor?!]

alpha5099 said:

The North Remembers

alpha5099 said:

Really? I could've sworn Joffrey's lack of it, is what got Eddard killed. Eddard's only crime was his inability to gauge how immoral his peer's were.

playgroundpsychotic said:

I feel like that's a bit of a semantic distinction. Eddard's failing is that he is blindly honorable. He does not and cannot consider other options, and he operates fully on the assumption that others will operate honorably. It's how he can be sidestepped and betrayed at every turn. He assumes Littlefinger will respect their arrangement, because it is honorable. He expects Cersei to flee the capital, because that would be honorable way out. He thinks Joffrey will allow him to go into exile, because he somehow doesn't realize Joffrey is a piece of ****. Honor got him killed, whether it be his over-abundance or his foe's lack.

alpha5099 said:

While I agree with your overall assessment that honor is useless in practicality, I think you're underselling the representation of it in the books. Off the top of my head I could argue that past the 2-3 you list, Brynden Tully and Rodrik Cassel could be seen as "honorable" knights, more good than bad. I'm sure there's more.

Since, from my denouncement of Honor, this has kind have become a thread about Honor. The question posed has become, 'Is honor good?' I would argue that Varys is, though opposite of honor, the most morally good of the players. Would anyone agree with me? On a moral scale Varys > Ned, at least. He is the only character I can recall who gives two turds about the common folk. He seems to approach moral situations objectively. Eddard, though unable to have an infant killed, will willingly send entire regions into war over a family feud.

It all seems to be a very modern conflict in this fantasy medieval world.

Davy Back Fight said:

I stand corrected, I would certainly count those two among the truly honorable knights, though I would still maintain that it is an exceptionally short list. Longer than the 2 or 3 I initially put it--I was certainly being hyperbolic--but it ain't a long list.

---

@anavasoothed

Varys as the most honorable? Interesting. I'm not sure you'll get many to go with you on that, but I like the idea. Though I have to wonder about Varys' motives after the epilogue of Dance. His stated goal is to undo the good Kevan has been doing, because the realm needs chaos to pave the way for Aegon to retake the throne. I suppose we could argue that he's being highly pragmatic, and in the long run it might be for the best of Westeros, but a lot of people will suffer because of that. It's a very ends-justify-the-means scenario, and I have to wonder if such an approach might fly in the face of "honor," however we may define it.

anavasoothed said:

Honor is your willingness to do what you believe to be right, honest, just, etc. Fealty is what you are required to do by law. Ned was willing to go to war because he swore fealty to Robert. His honor is what guided his actions. It would be dishonorable to break an oath of fealty. Throughout most of the book, Ned actions were guided by honor. But what got him killed wasn't his honor, but the fealty he swore to his dead king.

As to comparing Varys and Ned, I would disagree as well. Varys has a relative morality. His morality is directed linked to the situation at hand. Varys has undoubtedly done many things (including sending Jorah Mormont to spy and potentially kill Viserys and Danaerys) which are morally wrong. Just because he does some good things does not make him a good or moral character. I don't think you can actually pin any type of morals on Varys. He plays his own game to his own ends.

That being said, GRRM has a great way of showing how, most of the time, the good die young. But the bad always get their just desserts. True, Ned's fealty (which his honor made him follow) got him killed. But Joffrey died as well. Martin is a karmic writer. Bad things happen to good people, but because they stay true to their nature, they will see justice. The same for bad characters.

Jaime's a great example. He was the best swordsman in the land. He pushed a little boy off a window ledge (which technically Bran had every right to be on since he stated in the book that no one ever went into the tower). Jaime lost his sword hand. Now Jaime's next to useless with a sword. Fortunately for Jaime, he lived to realize the error of his ways and change.

BenStark said:

Clearly that's not all there is to it; otherwise, it'd be just as relativistic as your idea of Varys. Honor is upholding a set of established values of a particular society (however misguided that set of values seems from an outsider's perspective).

Saturnine said:

BenStark said:

Furthermore, if we look at Barristan in a Dance with Dragons, there is a point where is sense of duty (which clearly is closely tied to his sense of honor) and what he believes to be right are in conflict.

Honor is tied to a system of social prestige. As long as what you believe is good/right overlaps with the values of your honor system, everything is peachy. Once those two diverge, things get rather fuzzy and interesting -- which is, of course, why we love George Martin's novels.

playgroundpsychotic said:

It was immoral for a boy whos been raised to be King his whole life to kill a man who (as far as he knew) was lying about his parents and saying he was the child of incest and steal his crown away?

Joffrey was a wanker in every sense of the word but there was nothing immoral about him eliminating a very real threat

Where do teh Lannisters keep finding these apologists? Of course it was immoral for him to execute Ned - a deal was in palce for Ned to toss away his honor to protect his daughters adn accept exile to the wall. Plus Joffrey knew his "father" had willed Ned to be regent. Plus Joffrue was undibtedly complicit in Littlefinger's betrayal.

There is nothing moral about a twleve year old having a tantrum and acting out on his impluses - whcih is exactly what happened at the great sept.

By the way - honor is never a failing. even shoudl it cost you your life, when you act with chivalry and honor, you are in the right.

BenStark said:

In fairness to Varys, I suspect that he struggles on behalf of the Targeryen's because he believes them to be the rightful rulers of the realm. He has said on multiple times what he does, he does for the realm. Neither the Lannister's or Baratheon's have legal claim. His path was simply much more pragmatic then Ned's.

Littlefinger is a better example of someone playing his own game.

Stag Lord said:

That, my friend, is why we have a distaste for honor. At least, speaking for myself. I have a large stock in history and sociology. From my studies therein, I found that when you have an absolute code, it justifies immoral things, thus putting you very much in the wrong. The world is far too situational for any one code to justify every case. Here, the code of chivalry (adjustments for Westeros would probably ignore the first one

-Fear God and maintain his church

-Serve the leige lord in valor and faith

-protect the weak and defenseless

-Give succor to widows and orphans

-Refrain from the wonton giving of offense

-to live by honor and for glory

-despise pecuniary reward

-Fight for the welfare of all

-Obey those placed in authority

-Guard the honor of fellow knights

-to eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit

-To keep faith

-At all times to speak the truth

-To preserve to the end in any enterprise begun

-to respect the honor of women

-Never refuse the challenge of an equal

-Never turn the back upon a foe

So that's chivalry. Any modern mind should be able to pick out that at any given point, one could contradict the other. As a matter of fact, GRRM seems to highlight these moments in our knight's struggles. Also notice that the intention of this code is less meant as a code of morality and more of a way to keep knights in a more controllable demeanor for those in power. 4 or 5 of them most obviously.

In the middle ages, if a knight was running around without this code, in some cases, he'd be more powerful than the people with money. No society can have that! And as history shows us, people who live by codes absolutely tend to be the tools of the corrupt. Either tools or fools.

Alpha: I had totally forgotten about the last scene of Dance, lol. Varys' intentions have swung a bit loyal, (Or have always been) to house targ. You are correct to challenge the notion. With that in mind, I would simply consider his methods wiser than Ned's and still less destructive if you are considering body count. (up to now anyway

playgroundpsychotic said:

The honorable thing to do for Eddard would have been to continue to deny being a traitor (Rightly so).

He admitted to it to save his family. I guess that could be considered honorable too in its own right.

anavasoothed said:

Despite my distaste for trying to apply 21st century moral standards to fantasy fiction I'll rise to your bit far enough to observe that prsonally i would hope I could adhere to this chivalric code you enumerate. Apart from the "Obey those placed in authority" absolutism, one follwoing this code could actually go pretty far towards living an honorable life. I certainly strive to apply many of these principles to my affairs - and I do beleive that not everyhting si situational.

YMMV.

Chivalry and honor are NOT moral codes. They are ethical codes. They may contain things that also fall under morality, but it is about how you treat those and interact with others in this world when you have power to enforce your will and do extreme amounts of damage.

The Obey those who have authority over you seems repugnant to our minds but we are, for the most parts, Americans, who have never had a monarch, and those who live outside of the US most have not had a monarch who wielded any power of note for generations. The idea that God (or the Seven) placed those people above us to rule, and they do so not just with his blessing but by his command is wholly foreign to us.

Trying to point out that honor and chivalry can be twisted because of their absolutism, is useless, because those with no ethical code they feel must be adhered to can and have run rampant in this world also.

All this points out is that people with the power to do as they wish will seek to do just that and will always find a way to justify it. Chivalric codes, much like our own oaths our service men and women take, and even our laws, are meant to stem the tide of chaos. To dissuade us from harming or abusing others when we have the power to do so. The entire thing is a paper shield. It protects us only as long as we all agree that it does. As soon as someone decides that it is worthless and they can get what they want by ripping it up heads roll.

I don't have a favorite haracter, however I do really like Jon Snow thus far.