1269 réponses à ce sujet

[Seagloom]

Tyrion has done good things. I won't deny that. I just don't think his bad qualities can be swept under the rug and ignored. I'm not judging him on scales with each act tipping its balance to one end or the other. I'm judging the whole; which to me means he is not good. I think D&D terms are too simplistic to categorize him, but I would put him as chaotic neutral with good tendencies if I had to pick an alignment.

If he was "good: his better qualities would be more consistent. Tywin almost certainly deserved what he got. I understand why Tyrion killed him. I merely I do not consider it the act of a good person. Tyrion's history with his father might, on some level, justify what happened; but it does not absolve him of all guilt.

Modifié par Seagloom, 03 juin 2012 - 01:10 .

[RedArmyShogun]

Lol The most good character was Ned.

And he's Dead. Then you have Snow and Dany...and well yeah after Dances with Dragons lulz.

Who knows?

I won't say Tyrion is perfect. But he aims for a good result more often than not. He's a bit of a smart ass however, in the same manner as say Deadpool. He's seen as mostly good but the level of insanity he brings down plus his merc past often waters it down.

The Imp is no Paragon. But when you judge the rest of those around him...

[Volus Warlord]

Confess-A-Bear wrote...

Lol The most good character was Ned.

And he's Dead. Then you have Snow and Dany...and well yeah after Dances with Dragons lulz.

*snip*

Ned was blinded by his own honor. Any good attribute in excess becomes a liability, and by extension , a flaw. 

Though that isn't a problem with most of the other characters. 

Bran's too young for his "goodness" to be of any significance. Almost everybody's good when they are very young. 

Let him grow up, put him in a position of power, and see how good he is after that.

Modifié par Volus Warlord, 03 juin 2012 - 04:07 .

[LPPrince]

Yeah, so its my hand and a book. Woot.



Honey-Spiced Locusts, not so woot.

[Tirigon]

Seagloom wrote...

@Tirigon - Jaime pushed a child out a window with the intention of killing him. I'm sorry, but nothing he's done since erases that. His decisions are nearly always selfishly motivated. He is virtually devoid of empathy for almost everyone outside his immediate family as well. The only thing that keeps Jaime from being a complete villain is he doesn't make others suffer for kicks the way Joffrey did.

Yea he did that, which is precisely why I thought he was a monster, at first.

But on the redeeming side, that was pretty much the only evil thing he ever did.


All his other crimes, such as his famous kingslaying, are explained in some way -





[spoilers]
Killiing Aerys for example was to save King's Landing from destruction

[Tirigon]

Confess-A-Bear wrote...

Lol The most good character was Ned.

And he's Dead. Then you have Snow and Dany...and well yeah after Dances with Dragons lulz.

I must say, I dont understand why Dany is so well-liked.

Sure she does some good things. Freeing the slaves for example.

But if you come right down to it she is a power-hungry b!tch who goes to war without any reason but greed and believes she has any right to rule a land she has never even seen simply because her father happened to be a king so cruel he got almost his entire family wiped out.

[Megaton_Hope]

Tirigon wrote...

Killiing Aerys for example was to save King's Landing from destruction

But y'know, Tywin was killin' folks in it at the time. He didn't really stop that, just Aerys's more dramatic plan.

[Volus Warlord]

Tirigon wrote...

Seagloom wrote...

@Tirigon - Jaime pushed a child out a window with the intention of killing him. I'm sorry, but nothing he's done since erases that. His decisions are nearly always selfishly motivated. He is virtually devoid of empathy for almost everyone outside his immediate family as well. The only thing that keeps Jaime from being a complete villain is he doesn't make others suffer for kicks the way Joffrey did.

Yea he did that, which is precisely why I thought he was a monster, at first.

But on the redeeming side, that was pretty much the only evil thing he ever did.


All his other crimes, such as his famous kingslaying, are explained in some way -





[spoilers]
Killiing Aerys for example was to save King's Landing from destruction

Eh. Either way. He's done much more evil than that.

[Tirigon]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Killiing Aerys for example was to save King's Landing from destruction

But y'know, Tywin was killin' folks in it at the time. He didn't really stop that, just Aerys's more dramatic plan.

True, but he could not have stopped that. At least he made sure the sacking was only a sacking and not a funeral pyre for half a million people.

[Addai]

Tirigon wrote...
I must say, I dont understand why Dany is so well-liked.

Sure she does some good things. Freeing the slaves for example.

But if you come right down to it she is a power-hungry b!tch who goes to war without any reason but greed and believes she has any right to rule a land she has never even seen simply because her father happened to be a king so cruel he got almost his entire family wiped out.

Which of the contenders is not power-hungry?  Daenerys has a claim as good or better than any of them, and is not the worst in terms of leadership ability or character.  The Targaryens also have a cosmological reason for being suited to rule- Valyrian blood.  I think, and this is just my theory, that it was the Targs being wiped out in Westeros that has allowed the White Walkers to come back.  Certainly Daenerys and her dragons will be important in defeating them, when it comes to that.

[Megaton_Hope]

As far's Dany...she's pretty sympathetic about until Drogo crowns Viserys, and she carries on with the plan to "retake" her "home" regardless. At that point there's just no good reason to want the Khal to ride the wooden horses with many legs across the water. She's neglecting that wars involve a lot of killing and senseless destruction and rape and famine. She was comfortable where she was, and could well have stayed there. I am especially unwilling to condone her dabbling in bloodmagic, the consequences of which are apparently well-known and dire. Impulsive decisions that involve forbidden powers are bad, m'kay?

[Addai]

She's been tempted all along to stay in the east, especially in Mereen, but after Baratheon sent assassins after her, she learned that you win or you die. Now with Westeros in chaos, she has a compassionate reason to want to go dragon on the ones who caused such misery and establish a better reign.

I'm Team Dany, but even so I think it's a little suspicious when people criticize Dany as a "power-hungry b*tch" but not Stannis or Renly or the Starks as the same. Remember that the Iron Throne has never been secure since the dragons died out. The Targaryens battled rebellions constantly in their latter years. Dragons + good ruler= a secure throne and a peaceful realm. I believe Dany is the best shot that Westeros has, and with the White Walkers coming she may be their only shot at survival let alone peace.

Modifié par Addai67, 05 juin 2012 - 12:29 .

[RedArmyShogun]

No I think Dany is the best Shot, if she joins with Aegon. At least he has the right mindset to ruling.

Its his Duty not his right as he says.

[Megaton_Hope]

Dany should marry Jon Snow, it's the only answer.

[GodWood]

Seagloom wrote...
@Addai

Jon lost a lot of my respect when he exchanged one baby for another to give to Melisandre instead of denying her that outright. In all honesty, I think Dany tops them both by a fair margin. At least to the point I've read.

Whilst listening to the plights of the people of Mereen a man comes to Dany and complains that his wife's master has forced himself on her repeatedly.

Dany's response:

“There was no rape. When first he lay with her, your wife was her master's property." (This is the actual quote from the book.)

[Addai]

You expect her to say anything different, coming from the world she does? If you're going to impose modern morality on the characters, you might as well not read the series. OTOH she was profoundly affected by being sold to Drogo, which is why she has such a zeal about slavery.

About Jon vs. Melisandre... Stannis is the one with the armies.  I don't see that Jon had any choice.  He's got enough problems on his hands and he probably saved a child's life.   Besides, the shadow of R+L=J is all over that plot development.

Modifié par Addai67, 05 juin 2012 - 08:15 .

[GodWood]

Addai67 wrote...
You expect her to say anything different, coming from the world she does? If you're going to impose modern morality on the characters, you might as well not read the series.

Oh I don't care about that. I hate her for the fact that she's a delusional, self-entitled, ****** poor leader who has only gotten this far because of plot luck.

The quote is merely to show that she's not only just as 'immoral' as Tyrion and Jon, but probably worse then them both. Thought that was pretty obvious.

Modifié par GodWood, 05 juin 2012 - 08:57 .

[Tirigon]

Addai67 wrote...

I'm Team Dany, but even so I think it's a little suspicious when people criticize Dany as a "power-hungry b*tch" but not Stannis or Renly or the Starks as the same. Remember that the Iron Throne has never been secure since the dragons died out. The Targaryens battled rebellions constantly in their latter years. Dragons + good ruler= a secure throne and a peaceful realm. I believe Dany is the best shot that Westeros has, and with the White Walkers coming she may be their only shot at survival let alone peace.

Renly was a turd all along and quickly died for it, and that Stannis is a complete retard is also well known.

If anyone liked them I would ask the very same as I do with Dany, however, in their case noone does because people realized what they're like.

As for the Starks, they were not power-hungry. Robb never wanted to be king, he only wanted revenge for his father, and his lords made him a king. And the best one at that (though, to be fair, he didnt have much time to screw up and we cant tell how he might have turned out).

[Tirigon]

GodWood wrote...

Seagloom wrote...
@Addai

Jon lost a lot of my respect when he exchanged one baby for another to give to Melisandre instead of denying her that outright. In all honesty, I think Dany tops them both by a fair margin. At least to the point I've read.

Whilst listening to the plights of the people of Mereen a man comes to Dany and complains that his wife's master has forced himself on her repeatedly.

Dany's response:

“There was no rape. When first he lay with her, your wife was her master's property." (This is the actual quote from the book.)

Wait what?

That is completely out of character for her.... all during "Storm of Swords" she was battling slavery and freeing slaves and now she condones it?
I will really look forward to see how that is explained.

[Costin_Razvan]

The quote is taken out of context. The person who came before Dany wanted vengeance for something that happened to his wife BEFORE Dany freed the slaves. Dany choose not to give it since it would mean giving it to all slaves.

Truth be told: Morality is useless in a leader. I don't give a damn that someone is a extremely good person if his people suffer due to their decisions. The only thing that matters is how effective they are as leaders and anyone who claims otherwise is an idiot. Quite frankly though none of the leaders of Westeros really are "moral", not even Robb who betrayed his promise, slept and married a girl who he had just met.

Now granted Daenerys isn't the most capable of leaders.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 05 juin 2012 - 12:04 .

[Tirigon]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Truth be told: Morality is useless in a leader. I don't give a damn that someone is a extremely good person if his people suffer due to their decisions. The only thing that matters is how effective they are as leaders and anyone who claims otherwise is an idiot.

Many Germans profited from the Holocaust. Would you call Hitler a good leader?

[Costin_Razvan]

No. While sure some profited the Holocaust was a waste of manpower and resources, it also killed of a large number of intellectuals or forced them to abandon Germany, including Einstein who fled to America.

Germany also lost a number of good soldiers because they were Jews. Certainly Hitler did some good things as a leader but they are outweighed by his bad decisions. Germany would have been a lot better off without him in WW2, well him and the **** idealogy in general. There you have it, a purely pragmatic argument as to why Hitler was a bad leader, without using the morality one.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 05 juin 2012 - 12:26 .

[LPPrince]

Its true. As a leader, you must know when to be good and when to be evil, specifically WHEN NECESSARY.

You can have all the good morality in the World, but that won't save your people from their banes.

If being hated means your people are safe and secure, its what you have to do as the ruling party.

Thats simply how it works.

[Tirigon]

LPPrince wrote...

Its true. As a leader, you must know when to be good and when to be evil, specifically WHEN NECESSARY.

You can have all the good morality in the World, but that won't save your people from their banes.

If being hated means your people are safe and secure, its what you have to do as the ruling party.

Thats simply how it works.

But it  doesnt really work that way. Cruelty breeds hate, hate breeds enemies, and enemies endanger your people.

Of course it is true that, sometimes, you need to do things that arent nice, such as wiping out a city or executing 10000 prisoners, but that is not cruel per se unless you make a sport of it.