Jump to content

If you were the sellsword in Varys' riddle whom would you obey?


Faydra

Recommended Posts

The riddle requires one to be in the mindset of those times. Present day I'd obviously never even kill someone but I'm also not a sellsword. I also don't care about politics, religion, or money. So I would have to put myself in the shoes of a sellsword.



The first thought that my mind falls upon is that the political structure of those times, though tenuous, provides the most security. A sellsword may care about about money but would likely avoid religious allegiances (or keep them quiet).



But that's reasoning. The riddle is intended to separate the thinkers from the doers - if you can answer without much hesitation/conflict then you are a doer.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there an official solution to the riddle?

The riddle is not about who lives and who dies, its about who hold the real power. Clearly its the sellsword but he'd come to believe one of those 3 has power over his choice. The riddle is also the answer i guess, it could be anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Any man who must say, "I am the king" is no true king." - Tywin Lannister.

A statement that falls apart when you realise that every single one of the 5 kings (sans Balon maybe) says "I am the King" or something similar

On Topic: None of them, i'm just going to take the rich man's money and walk out of there - the fuck is he going to do to stop me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The riddle requires one to be in the mindset of those times. Present day I'd obviously never even kill someone but I'm also not a sellsword. I also don't care about politics, religion, or money. So I would have to put myself in the shoes of a sellsword.

The first thought that my mind falls upon is that the political structure of those times, though tenuous, provides the most security. A sellsword may care about about money but would likely avoid religious allegiances (or keep them quiet).

But that's reasoning. The riddle is intended to separate the thinkers from the doers - if you can answer without much hesitation/conflict then you are a doer.

Or maybe you take this shit way to serious. 9/10 people here just doesn't the obvious reasing you do in your first paragraph. They just put themself in tWoIaF and assume they are the sellsword. Then they decide their choice. But if it's really good for your ego; wow great (self proclaimed) reasoning.

A statement that falls apart when you realise that every single one of the 5 kings (sans Balon maybe) says "I am the King" or something similar

Lol, and why does it falls apart. It's an opinion. In Tywin's eyes a true King doesn't have to awknowledge himself.

Besides your statement isn't that strong either. 4/5 Kings that you are talking about have fallen (Balon (KotIIatN), Robb(KotN), Joffrey (fK), Renly(sdK) and who knows what will happen with Stannis(K) in the endgame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd take the gold of the rich man, use some of the gold to buy the priest and give him the sword. The king dies, and I become the new king.

Originally each of them wanted the other two dead. In my solution;

1. The merchant is happy because he thinks he got the king and the priest with a sword in his payroll, which is better than a dead king and a dead priest. Basic rule of making money: keep your relations with government and religion well.

2. The priest is also happy because he got some gold and the sword. The old king is dead and the new corrupt king (that being me, ahaha) is supplying him gold, which is better than a dead king and a dead merchant. Killing the merchant gives a one time fortune whereas keeping him alive and taking his gold regularly is a business.

3. The king is dead, long live the king!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do, but they do not imply it as literaly. The Priest offers you a clear mind (in the eyes of the gods), the King offers you honor (in the eyes of the people).

Nothing is implied. They clearly state why the sellsword ought to serve them, but the only one who gives a reason involving a reward is the rich man. Now if we were given more context and nuance in this theoretical situation, then one could talk more in depth about the benefits of serving each man... as it is there's not much to go on, onless one intends to read more into it then there is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing is implied. They clearly state why the sellsword ought to serve them, but the only one who gives a reason involving a reward is the rich man. Now if we were given more context and nuance in this theoretical situation, then one could talk more in depth about the benefits of serving each man... as it is there's not much to go on, onless one intends to read more into it then there is.

That's not the point of it at all, though. The riddle is not about the relative rewards of serving (giving the power to) any particular person (or archetype).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd exploit my central position, pointing out that so long as they left this opening between them, they were all 3 vulnerable to one another via me or someone in my place, and that none of their offers would be certain to win the man in the middle, whereas a triumvirate would become fairly invulnerable. Having proven my wisdom and willingness to have their lives in my hand and spare them, I would nominate myself as the officially designated upholder of the alliance, with a title like 'First Minister' or similar, complete with ample rewards and recognitions political, material and spiritual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing is implied. They clearly state why the sellsword ought to serve them, but the only one who gives a reason involving a reward is the rich man. Now if we were given more context and nuance in this theoretical situation, then one could talk more in depth about the benefits of serving each man... as it is there's not much to go on, onless one intends to read more into it then there is.

I don't read more into it then there is. It's common knowledge about a 'holy person' and 'a king.'

Serving a priets > you serve god.

Serving a king > you serve the realm.

Serving a rich man > you serve you pocket.

I don't see how this is NOT clear. I don't know the conversation around this riddle exactly, but iirc the above is stated there aswell.

In the end it is about who has the power and that depends on the sellsword.

If he is a (strong) believer he (most likely) will help the priest.

If he is a honorous man he will (most likely) serve the realm and therefor his king.

If he is a selfish man he will (most likely) take the gold from the rich man.

The rewards from the king and priest aren't named, but are there if the sellswords believes it's there. And that's what's it about: What does the sellsword believe? Maybe he isn't selfish, honorous nor a believer, but he doesn't trust the richman nor the King, so he listens to the priest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd probably spare the king. Any of the killings might lead to my downfall, but having a king on my side would probably create the most potential for power/whatever I wanted, within reason. Plus I could always kill him later hopefully.



Then again, if the king was Joffrey, or it was Queen Daenerys, I'd probably kill them and spare the rich guy. Or just ask Dany her full list of titles and wait for her to die of old age while I took off with the rich guy's money.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The king, without a doubt.



See, the problem with this riddle (which makes Varys look rather inept) is that neither the rich man nor the priest have any actual leverage. No one would ever reasonably obey the rich man, since upon killing him in an isolated room one automatically receives the gold he promised anyways (and the surviving member would hardly turn in someone who, given a choice, spared him).



The priest presents a slightly more complex problem, which is to say: are the gods real (and thus, would they punish you)? I'm inclined to answer no; it seems to me that all instances of religion (especially Rhllor) influencing physical events in Westeros are purposefully set up by GRRM to make one strongly consider divine intervention, but are (as intended by GRRM) in reality simply natural intersections of physical circumstance that coincidentally follow religious offerings, etc. Thus, if killing the priest can't actually incite any divine retribution, there's no reason not to kill him instead of the king.



(One might argue that the church would provoke public unrest/faith militance, but the king - who is presumably not Cersei lol - should be more than capable of preempting any significant backlash).



Therefore, the rich man (whose gold is already on him for the taking) and the priest (who has nothing to offer in divine reward, and less power as an envoy of the church than the king as the head of state) obviously hold no leverage (whereas the king does, immensely so for obvious reasons). I'd kill the former two, take the gold, make sure to have an alibi for the priest's death, and escort the king to safety and presumably a posh rest of my life.



p.s. it's disappointing how GRRM assigned the issuance of such an un-profound riddle to someone who is supposed to be a master schemer, and the (unreasonably slow) answering of it to Tyrion, who should be at least as clever as Varys.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...